[Leica] Thoughts on the ZI rangefinder

[langeratcarleton at gmail.com (Mark Langer)]

I'm with Gene on this.  Debates about "true" pedigrees are reminscent
of those concerning whether the Leicas made in Portugal or Canada are
real Leicas, or whether Solms is as authentic as Wetzlar, or (to apply
it to other marques) to whether the Singapore Rolleis are worthy of
the same name as the Germany Rolleis.  Are co-engineered cameras as
"Leica" as those that were completely developed by the wizards of
Wetzlar?  I suppose that there is some snob quality in being
exclusionary, but one has to wonder where this kind of reasoning will
end.  Is the Super Angulon not a Leica lens?  Is a Contax TVS not a
Contax?  In the age of globalization, I think strict distinctions
about what constitutes a "real" Leica or a "real" Zeiss are a waste of
time.  A Leica CL is a real Leica, whether it was a collaborative
effort or not.  I happen to have a Minolta CLE, which I consider to be
a real Minolta.  In many ways, it is an improved Leica CL.  I don't
care.  I can mount M lenses on it, and it does the job and gives me as
much pleasure as any of my "real" Leicas.  That's all that is
important.

Mark (who is stepping off his soapbox now)   


On 6/29/05, Gene E. McCluney <mccluney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >Gene E. McCluney wrote a long, very plausible explanation about why the 
> >new
> >Zeiss is not at all like a Bessa, but then foolishly asked...:-)
> >
> >
> >>  Is a Leica CL, just a "dressed up" Minolta because that is who made 
> >> it, or
> >>  rather is it a unique camera that has its own merits which happened to 
> >> be
> >>  made for Leitz under contract by Minolta.
> >
> >Yes, a Leica CL is just a "dressed up" Minolta with an M lens mount. Fun,
> >useful, compact, and when mounting a Leica lens, capable of producing 
> >images
> >as good as those produced by an MP - but a Minolta none-the-less. Which 
> >has
> >nothing to do with what the new Zeiss will or won't be. :-)
> >
> 
> Well, Gene E. McCluney would like to ask what model of Minolta camera is
> the CL a "dressed up" version of?
> 
> As far as I can see, the CL was a totally unique product, reflecting
> engineering
> concepts of Leitz and Minolta, and not based on any existing Minolta model.
> Even the vertical traveling cloth focal plane shutter is unique to
> this particular
> camera.   Did any Minolta cameras of the same time period have this 
> shutter?
> The light meter cell on a swinging stalk behind the lens?  What other 
> Minolta
> camera had that?  AFAIK, only the Leica M5 shared that concept, and that
> was a Leitz/Germany product.
> 
> It would be more appropriate to comment that some of the Leica "R" models 
> were
> dressed up "Minolta's", as they shared many inside bits with Minolta SLR's.
> I don't think the CL shared any bits with contemporary Minolta cameras.
> We are talking about the Leitz and Leitz/Minolta CL here,  not the Minolta 
> CLE.
> 
> Good natured debate by
> Gene McCluney
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>