Re: CL vs. M

["Jacques Bilinski" <jbilin@axionet.com>]

I'm glad you've had good experiences with your CL, but my experiences with
this camera were guite different.  In 1979 I travelled around the world
with a Rollei 35 and a Leica CL with a 90mm Elmar C. The photos from the CL
were excellent but it was in the repair shop in practically every major
city I came to, to get the meter fixed. Most of the time I was using the
meter on the Rollei to set the exposure on the CL. I really like the
concept of the camera though and would love to see a modern version in the
future.    

- ----------
> From: Brian Levy <dlevy@worldy.com>
> To: Leica users digest <leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Subject: CL vs. M
> Date: April 20, 1997 7:45 AM
> 
> The responses to the thread could lead one to believe the the CL is less
> than adequate. This of course is incorrect.  It is a very well built,
> durable camera.  The 90mm lens limitation doesn't seem to really be as
much
> of a problem as first viewed since there was a while back some serious
> discussion that the M6 was really not designed to work with 135mm lens
> because of the small viewfinder area.  The 90mm Rokkor does seem to be a
> great lens and the 40 Summicron is a true delight and a good compromise
> between the 35 and 50mm.
> 
> The CL was not designed to be a replacement for or in competition with
the
> M series, but as a competitor to  the other brands, as an alternative to
> the slrs which had held the major market segment, as a lead in to the M
> series and as a back up body to the M.  It's design is very robust, with
> the only limitation in reliability being the meter movement which was not
> better or worse than the competition.  It does need cleaning every few
> years to keep it from becoming sticky.  I can't think of any meter which
> does not have the same requirement.  Since it seems good practice to have
> Ms CLA'd every few years, the yearly maintenance cost should not be
> materially different (if at all).
> 
> The CLE is a more advanced camera, but is not longer supported by Minolta
> and therefore is less of a long term user than the Leica CL.  There are
> some small differences between the Leica CL and the Minolta CL version
> (also no longer supported by Minolta) and Leica does not repair this
model,
> though it appears to be identical to the Leica.
> 
> My CL has been the most reliable of any camera I've owned and I recommend
> it highly.
> 
> I am not disputing that the CL is not an M is terms of design, but only
> trying to put it into perspective.
> 
> 
> Brian Levy
> Toronto, Ont.