Leica CL vs Minolta CLE

Hi all!

I'm looking for one of these two cameras.

Just wondering if you guys can help me to get the right one since I

don't have much money to waste...and this would be my main camera for

the next years...(my two previous cameras have been "lost" at the

airport few days ago).

 

I know Leica CL has big metering problems, but maybe an external meter

would solve the problem...

Don't know much about Minolta CLE except that is fully alectronic.

Personally I would go for a fully mechanic camera.

I'd get the leica m3 but my budget is not enough.

 

 

Thanks for your time!

 

Gabriele

Gabriele, both the CL & CLE are now very old cameras. So buying one used is hit or miss. If you get a good one, great! But if you get a bad one, you will spend more money trying to fix it.

 

Are you buying from a dealer, from ebay, or from a private individual? Have you considered other mechanical rangefinder cameras that can be purchased new for less than a used M3 - like Voigtlander Bessa R or R2? Or Rollei 35 RF? How many lenses do you plan to use with the camera?

Gabriele,

<p>

the CL is a fully-mechanical camera with an electronics only for the meter. So if the meter fails, what you still have is a fully mechanial M-body. I have encountered only one non-metering CL until now, and mine is working perfectly. It is a really nice camera.

<p>

Since you say you would prefer an all-mechanical camera and you seem to lose them regularly, why not go for a CL body with a defunct meter? They can be found dirt cheap and you will not miss much by losing it except for the fantastic lens.

<p>

The Minolta CLE is also a nice camera, but with an electronically controlled shutter. And it is quite a bit more expensive than the CL. On both cameras the lenses are equally outstanding.

<p>

Of course one can get a new Bessa R with a lens from Stephen Gandy. Depends on whether you like the camera or not; but for the price you cannot go wrong much.

Bill, first of all thanks!

 

I would buy from *bay as from a dealer...it depends, since I think those cameras are not easy to find in good conditions...so I'm just looking around!

I finally bought a CL about 6 years ago and loved it. My son talked me out of it for a summer work/study program in Israel. I soon found another one. I had both "adjusted" to work with 1.5 volt cells and neither one has given us any troubles other that the take-up spool fingers self destructing on one, brittleness from age. This is an easy to get standard Minolta part. It's become my primary carry around camera and I probably shoot 5 or 6 rolls a month with it. Should the meter ever become unrepairable I'd still use itas an unmetered camera. None of my M bodies have meters.

You know what I'd suggest. Get a CL with a totally busted meter for a discount price - the meter is always going to be its weakness - but with a good crisp rangerfinder. Then use the saving to get the new Voigtlander VCII Meter ($159 from Cameraquest). I've just done this and the VCII is miles more sensitive and accurate than the built in meter ever was and is so small that it barely makes the package any larger. It also holds the exposure reading which the original VC meter did not (Steve Gandy forgets to mention this crucial improvement on his web site).

 

Add either a 90mm Elmar C (about $250-300) or a Voiglander 90mm f3.5 APO Lanthar ($319 Cameraquest) for good measure. And enjoy until the bug eventally bites you into buying a black paint M4...

Thanks guys!

Can you suggest me the best place to get it?

I know *bay can be the best for burgains...or not?

I had a CL that had a meter that never worked right despite several trips to the techies. I finally had them remove the meter arm and the other electronic ganglia and wound up with a terrific compact camera. With the Red Scale Elmar collapsed it is a first rate pocket camera that you can have with you at nearly all times. Mine was stolen. I then got a CLE which was also a terrific camera but I finally succumbed to the lure of an outrageous collector price and then bought a M6. I miss the CLE but reason tells me that by now I would probably be facing expensive repairs. Unlike the old Leicas, its life was too short to have developed enough salvageable spares for cannibalizing so in the long run I think a more modern camera is a better deal. The CL on the other hand, even sans metering, has much the same potential as other old Leicas. If the price is right, grab it and run

Get a CL, with or without working meter and don't look back! My CL works great and is my everyday camera. Do not go thru ebay, too many cameras being sold and sold and sold again, it's a great site to buy a troublesome camera! Buy from a private seller you can talk to first, and get a return privilege or buy from a camera store that'll give you a 30 to 90 day warranty.

I used to have a CLE. Nice camera, but I didn't like the metering. It is auto only. No meter lock (would that have been difficult to include?). No metering in manual. Why, why, why? I asked a Minolta person and he admitted that it was a recognised mistake, and that it was going to be rectified in the CLE 2 by adding exposure lock, but that sales were lower than expected. Of course the CLE 2 never came.

 

I also though that the metering pattern was a bit misguided as well: it is an averaging meter, not centre-weighted or semi-spot. They threw away meter sensitivity by putting a tochnilogically-advanced pattern of white dots on the shutter curtain. I guess they did that to replicate the average reflectance of film because the shutter timing was affected by the meter reading off the film after the shutter had been opened. Believe it or not. I didn't believe it, so I compared the shutter speeds with white and black paper in the gate.

 

I didn't like using it with transparency film because of the metering.

 

Best,

Helen

If you'd really like to have an M3, then you're a good candidate for a CL, with or without a functioning meter. The CLE's have a circuit board in them for the electronics. When that goes sour, good luck getting it repaired. The CL will go on forever as a mechanical camera. I've had mine 30 years, the meter's been repaired twice, and I still love it. I've used it for several of those years without the meter working. As for ebay, I've only had one problem in four years, and even that worked out eventually. I look for someone who has over a hundred positive feedbacks (and 99% positive at that), I ask them if I can have a 7-day trial to run a roll of film through it (good sellers will say Yes), and I bid only enough to make the difference between ebay and a dealer really make a difference. I'd suggest looking for a camera that has definitely been used but not abused. If it looks mint, like it's sat in a closet all its life, the grease inside the lens and the body may be stiff as a board. It's best to get one that's been exercised somewhat regularly. Besides, it'll be cheaper.

I recently purchased a CLE from a photonet member with no regrets. The price of $400 seemed fair and functionally the camera was great. I considered the CL but I've read that over time the RF optics may go bad due to silver issues on the pentaprism. My CLE has a bright contrasty RF comparable to an M4 or M5. I also like the fact that the CLE has a longer RF baselength than the CL and has a 28 frameline. BTW, frameline accuracy on the CLE is more accurate than my Leica MP as it is slightly tighter for composition at longer distances. This is partly due to it's minimum focus being 0.8m instead of 0.7m. It's meter pattern is bottom weighted, not average patterned. Regarding the electronics, unless the camera is splashed or dunked in water or the wrong type of flash is used how likely is it that the eletronics will fail? I may, however, be whistling past the graveyard with that last statement.

"Why, why, why? I asked a Minolta person and he admitted that it was a recognised mistake"

 

Helen, this is total rubbish. The XG-1 series cameras never had metered manual and thats where the basic electronics comes from although not interchangeable. It was no mistake, just where their technology was at the time. I was in photo retail at the time and sold these cameras new and Minolta were very proud of the camera, nothing they considered a mistake about it. Remember too that at that time there was NO new Leicas with a built in meter for sale. So the CLE was the only M mount camera available new at that time that even had a meter. Since Leica users seemed to reject the M5 with built in meter it, Minolta would have assumed that most like to use seperate meters in manual. The whole mistake theory if based on hindsight in the present now that such electronics are readily available. There was no Auto M or TTL flash M for over a decade after the CLE was discontinued, thats pretty advanced I think. But if you found the system of exposure inacurate with certain films why didnt you use the exposure compensation thats readily built into the shutter speed dial? The poor exposure system you refer too was actually bought off Minolta who held the patent by Olympus for use in many of its OM series cameras who are very well regarded for their exposure systems.

"Helen, this is total rubbish."

 

Ooh, that's a bit of an over-reaction, isn't it?

 

My opinion may be contrary to yours, but it is my honest opinion based on my experience. The discussion is reported truthfully: it is not total rubbish.

 

I was only a professional photographer using the CLE and a few of their meters, so I didn't have your close connections with Minolta. However, I have no reason to believe that the Minolta rep who came to see me to talk about my experience with the CLE would make up the story. If he was only trying to chat me up he made a very good job of hiding it. I still think that it was misguided - you can disagree, but you can't tell me what my opinion should be or that I have misreported anything.

 

Best,

Helen

Helen,

<p>

You should not take offense at Joel's statement. I know he didn't mean you to take it personally. But, the statement that Minolta saw the CLE's electronics as a "recognized mistake" IS total rubbish. (Perhaps you were reporting a very recent conversation with a new Minolta salesman who simply did not know the history of Minolta cameras.) Joel is correct in how proud Minolta was at that time. The CLE was way ahead of anything else available, and, for years, was widely considered the "best M camera Leica never made." The CLE does have OTF metering, regardless of whether you believe it or not. Joel is also correct in the history of the electronics. While we can easily be critical now, it was state-of-the-art at that time. One cannot call "misguided" what was not available at that time. I am certain no offense was meant by Joel, and nor by me, but that doesn't mean your notions of facts are not still wrong.

<p>

OTOH, your opinions about why you didn't like the CLE are perfectly acceptable as your own. It is interesting to know why some people like some cameras and not others. Thank you for sharing your experiences. Sorry you didn't like the CLE. Personally, I bought my two CLE's in 81 & 83, and they remain as frequently used as my M6 & M7 cameras. After 20+ years of use in the tropics, they both work fine. They do have quirks, but any camera does. One simply learns how each tool is used.

<p>

The best thing is how small they are compared to the big Ms. For me, a CLE with it's original grip, the CLE flash and the 24/2.8 is the perfect P&S party camera. Thanks to this forum, I dug out from storage and re-discovered the original Rokkor 40 lens, too. Great little optic I overlooked for years. Yet one more reason this forum is so great.

<p>

So, we all love to hear opinions. But it doesn't mean they are factually correct. Joel is our resident CLE historian. I initially fact-checked him. Now I defer.

<p> cheers, Owen

Thanks Owen.

 

I realise that Joel has much closer connections to Minolta than I ever had, and acknowledged that in my previous post. The visit from the Minolta UK guy came in about '83 or '84, after I had had my CLE for two or three years. He came to see me specifically to ask about my experience with it, and told me that a CLE 2 was being designed. He said that CLE users were being asked for their comments. During the conversation it was obvious that Minolta were proud of the camera. I was quite impressed by Minolta's initiative to come and talk to people like me, and to put development resources into a niche camera like the CLE. You know, it is possible that they could be very proud of the camera while quietly, and informally, recognising that omitting AE lock was a mistake.

 

The guy came to see me because a local dealer had told him that I was a very satisfied professional user who had used the camera in all kinds of adventurous conditions, and who also used Leica Ms.

 

I liked the CLE, used it regularly all over the world and kept it for about 15 years until a friend made me a very good offer for the whole kit in about '96. That twee little leather system case and miniature TTL flash were still unused. I would like to have held onto the 28 mm and 90 mm, but my friend was so excited about the idea of getting an entire CLE outfit that I couldn't refuse him.

 

Of course there are workarounds, but I believe that AE lock is enormously useful for getting accurate exposures quickly with transparency film. I shot mostly transparency film in those days because that's what the clients wanted. I'd already been using AE lock on my Nikkormat EL for a few years before I got the CLE.

 

I'd be interested to hear Joel's comments about the CLE 2.

 

Best wishes,

Helen

Oh, just one other point: I was reporting a conversation with a Minolta representative. I hope that you realise that the report of the conversation is factual, whether or not the Minolta representative was correct in what he said. That is exactly why I reported it as the words of a Minolta rep. OK?

I have owned and used both the CL and CLE. The CL was repaired by Sherry Krauter when the shutter at speeds below 1/60 kept hanging open as if it were on "B". I loved the CLE for its accurate 28 frame lines, fully visible even when wearing glasses. I did not like the CLE's metering, although maybe my sample was erratic or I didn't want to take the time to learn its peculiarities. I prefer the CL for its metering and svelte dimensions, although the CLE isn't much larger at all.

Dear Helen,

 

Thanks so much for the details. How nice to have been on the receiving end of a Minolta follow-up. So sad that the CLE 2 was never (at least, not yet) forthcoming. And, you are oh so right that we did wish it had both AE lock AND manual metering. There are those in these forums who tend to belittle or dismiss the CLE, not to mention carp about how it can?t be very reliable, etc. SO, maybe I over-reacted, too. A mea culpa. I?m not on-line with enough consistency to stake out any presence here, so I don?t post much. Thanks, again, for following through on the post, and giving the history of your experience. I continue to learn from it all. Cheers, Owen