Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I was recently playing around with a Leica CL and, being an old Rollei 35 freak, was surprised by the amount of similarity between both cameras. Among others, the following features are in common, quite in contrast to the Leica M series: * The removable back * The pressure plate that folds over the film * The Rollei-like shutter dial which is placed in front * The vertical strap mountings * The film rewind lever on the bottom plate * The 40mm standard lens Alltogether, the handling of the Leica CL seems to be closer to the R35 than to the Leica M. It appears that some of these features were due to engineering constraints, inforced by the goal to build a mechanical camera of small dimensions. But one gets the impression that Leica has - - unusually - followed the contemporary trend to take profit from the tremendous success of the Rollei 35 series. The Leica CL is often refered to as the 'low cost Leica M', and in fact it contains such features like the M-mount, but let me suggest a different point of view and describe the CL as a 'high end Rollei 35' instead. There is this interesting historical twist which connects the R35 to Leica (I took the following information from Prochnow's book "Rollei 35: Eine Kamera Geschichte"): Heinz Waaske designed the first R35 prototype in 1964 when he was working for the Wirgin company. But his boss, Heinrich Wirgin, was not interested to build it and instead was planning to quit camera business completely. Waaske then approached Leica in order to find a new job and presented his prototype to Ludwig Leitz, where it was again rejected. Finally, he found a position at Rollei and this was the break through. The camera was introduced in late 1966 and by 1973 more than 1.5 million devices were sold. With 400+ Mark this was not a cheap camera, but meant to be a precision instrument, certainly within the potential scope of Leica's business strategy and the Leica marketing division must have observed the success of Rollei's little camera with great interest and, maybe, some jealousy, too. Somewhere in the early seventies, when Rollei already built hundreds of thousands R35 per year, they must have decided to try a move and introduce (with Minolta) a device which looked close enough but with additional features like rangefinder and TTL to make it a better choice for the customer than the ascetic Rollei. As we know, it was a limited success, but with 65000 cameras in 3 years the CL was still considerably better selling than the M. Probably, they were a little too late, since customers either turned towards the SLR market or cheaper electronic point and shoot cameras to satisfy their high tech needs. If Leica had introduced the same camera in the 60's things had certainly developed better for the CL. Finally, one may ask why Rollei could not follow up the line and build their own improved R35 versions. From 1967 until recent days the R35 has hardly changed. In fact they were trapped by the tiny dimension of their camera: There was no space left for much improvement. There exists a prototype with rangefinder, designed in Braunschweig, but the engineers in Singapore, where the R35 was produced since 1971, found it technically too difficult for a mass production. Therefore one may come to the somewhat ironic conclusion that Leica had the potential to build the perfect mini-rangefinder, but were unable to get it on the market, whereas Rollei had a camera which was made in huge numbers but were unable to turn it into a real rangefinder .... Holger Merlitz, Karlsruhe - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html