Minolta CLE - how does it compare?

I saw a Minolta CLE kit (with 28,40, and 90) for sale for about $1500.

Stephen Gandy gives it a good write up but how does it compare to a

Leica M6 - in terms of build quality as well as functionality?

The CLE is not built to compete with M6. It's an entry level

rangefinder system. I have a set and I really enjoy the overall

system concept. Smaller and lighter weight than M6 and very

comfortable to hand held.

<p>

But no AE lock on exposure. And while you switch to manual, the meter

turn off. This is a design flaw. Luckily there's EV compensation but

a bit slow to get to.

<p>

All three lens got the same filter size. The viewfinder/range finder

is just like a 0.52x M6, clear and contrasty. Shorter base has less

focusing accuracy so 90mm lens only open up to f4.

<p>

TTL capability with Minolta flash.

<p>

Lens performance wise, IMO, good but not as good as Leica M. I

sometimes use mine with 35mmf2 summicron (uses its 40mm frame line)

and 90mm f2.8 elmarit (bring up 90mm frame line correctly).

<p>

Overall, it's a fun system for me and offer many interesting

alternative. For example, use the CLE as a backup. (much lighter than

bringing another M body and when you want to go automatic) I use

Rokkor 28mm on my M6. CLE got a self timer! Use a SF20 flash in the

aperture mode and let CLE do ambient automatic exposure to get slow

motion effect etc etc... With my CLE I have absolute zero appetite to

the new M7.

<p>

Finally, beware... many people has problem on the relaibility of its

electronics. Mine also went into shop once but fine afterward.

<p>

Cheers, Chi

I have both an M6 and a CLE kit. They are different cameras and I

like both. The CLE is a very enjoyable camera to use, and makes a lot

of sense as a system. It had aperture priority twenty years before

the M7 and now is a fraction of the cost. It has TTL metering and TTL

flash. It is smaller than an M6 and with the 3 lenses makes a perfect

compact travel kit. It feels great in the hand. It loads far easier

than an M6. It only has 28/40/90 mm framelines, but truthfully that's

all you really need. The 40mm lens is very sharp. Lately I have been

using my CLE with the 40mm Rokkor that came with it, plus the newer

Voiglander 28 and 90mm LTM lenses with M adapters. The 28 mm Rokkor

lens is an excellent lens but has a history of problems with lens

coating separation, so you should have it checked. It does not have

AE lock or independent manual metering. Basically if you want to use

manual metering you have to take an AE reading and then switch to

manual mode. Overall, I think it is a wonderful system with a few

drawbacks. $1500 is a very good price. You should grab it.

David, its a great camera although some prefer mechanical cameras but

I find this no problem at all. THe more acurate shutter speeds from

the electronic shutter make up for this over my CL. Not to mention

its not hard to have spare batteries with you. I must disagree with a

few things Chi has said. Firstly To say that the lack of metering in

manual is a design flaw implies that this practise was a specific

mistake to this camera. This is a 70's designed camera. Many

comparison cameras of the same period do not have metered manual

either. ie Olympus RD, Canon QL17, Minolta 7SII other compact

rangefinders of the 70's. The fact that the CLE's electronics were

based on XG1 series SLR's that didnt meter in Manual at the time

meant it didnt get metered manual. If the CLE came out later when the

XG-M came out maybe it would have receieved metered manual. No

dispute metered manual would be nice, Period flaw maybe, design flaw

no. Secondly he states the exposure compensation that generally

overcomes most of the lack of metered manual problems is slow to get

to, I strongly disagree, its on the shutter spead dial with a single

action press a release and turn at the same time, it can be activated

while still looking in the viewfinder if your proficient with the

direction and feel of controls. Thirdly he states the Minolta lenses

are not as good as Leicas. THe 40 and 90 are multicoated versions of

the Leitz 40C and 90C and clearly their equal if not superior for

their lower flare. Only the 28 which has a coating blistering problem

lets the lens side down. Often people will mention servicing problems

which seems to often be a problem for USA users. Here in Australia

mine is really maintained by a popular camera tech. Loading is great.

Its not an M, true, but thats why I bought it, it offers certain

things that I preferred over the M. It does depend on what suits you

best.

no one has mentioned so far the key feature of the cle -- it is the

only camera in the series (cl, cle) that actually couples perfectly

with the m lenses. the cam and cam arm shape differed slightly on

the cl (apparently per leica's request -- you figure out why!!),

making it hard to focus long m lenses on the cl accurately,

especially at wide apertures. in my view, the cle is almost an ideal

platform for m lenses. it may not be built to m6 standards, but the

all metal build quality is VERY high. it feels like a brick in the

hand. the led metering system (no matchstick as in the cl) is

excellent and easy to use. the RF is as brite and clear as the

finder in the m6, although it does suffer from lower mag and

effective baselength. the electromagnetic release is smoother in my

view than the release on the m7. the camera also has the classic

horizontal travel cloth shutter that made the m series famous. (as

an aside, erwin puts goes on at length in his m7 review to explain

what a challenge it was for the m7 designers to build an electronic

release around the leica cloth shutter [instead of going with, say, a

copal shutter a la g2/hexar rf]. didn't minolta already surmount

those technical probs in the cle??) finally, the camera's best

feature is its SIZE. it is considerably smaller than an m7ttl, and

fits in the hand (or coat pocket) in a way that the m cameras don't.

i'd VERY happily forego the ae lock/dx sensor and any other upgrades

on the m7 if they had just made the camera as small as the cle. AND

BY THE WAY -- THE CLE HAS A SELF TIMER!! i think they are great

cameras. that's why cle bodies consistently sell around the $1000

mark (tamarkin curretly has two for $1149 each, body only). but

don't fiddle with the rokkor lenses (although they are quite good for

the money and very compact). slap a 35 asph on the cle and really

have some fun. oh yeah, one last thing, in my experience, it is the

CLs that have the chronic electronics probs (although really no worse

than other 40 year old match stick meters). the solid state LED

system (with no moving parts) of the CLE is FAR more reliable

occasionally the contacts in the speed dial need cleaning on a camera

that has sat for many years (they were not gold plated), but that's

usually it. good luck!!

Looks like the other posters got everything covered. I'll just add

my 2 cents that I think the CLE is a superb camera and one of the

favorite ones I have ever owned. If mine ever breaks and I can't get

it fixed, I'd be looking for another one. The 40 Rokkor is superb--

also one of the best lenes I have ever used-sharp as a pin wide open,

zero distortion, nearly flare proof, annd super compact. The camera

has a fast responding, very accurate shutter and meter. Very quiet

and smooth operating camera. The finder is very clear, bright, and

clean with no extra lines to distract. You get used to popping it

off auto and on to compensation or manual in difficult lighting.

Main drawback to the camera is lousy fill flash--but this is the case

with the Leica M cameras as well. If Minolta re-released this camera

with 21st century updates, it would still be a most appealing m

camera. By the way, how hard is it to clean the contacts under the

shutter speed dial?

One point about the CLE that I didn't see mention of in the other

responses is that, in AE mode, it continues to meter off the film

during the exposure. (At least I've been told it does. If not, I'm

confident that a participant more knowledgeable than I will correct me

on this.)

<p>

The advantage of this approach is that the CLE will adjust exposure

<i>mid-exposure</i> in rapidly-changing lighting conditions, such as

shooting in night clubs and such. That may also explain why it doesn't

have AE lock.

cleaning the contacts is not that hard, but really should not be

attempted unless you are very comfortable servicing electronic

cameras. a small but not insignificant amount of disassembly is

required. apc camera in haverhill mass does a good job with this.

the camera continues to meter during the shot. this can be a good or

bad thing (usually good).

Many thanks for your comprehsive answers. I'll check out the camera.

What a shame an updated version is not still being made.

If I could find a good quality CLE with 3 lenses for $1,500 I'd buy

it in a hurry. Great price for what you've found, since a first rate

CLE in Tokyo (where it was made in the first place) costs $1,000 to

$1,200 just for the camera body. My local camera store has the

Rokkor 28mm and f/4 90mm lenses for sell at about $700 each - which I

think is way overpriced. The store owner tells me that for some

reason, CLE gear is now suddenly popular again and the prices reflect

the revived demand for htis classis equipment.

I think of the CLE as a baby version of the new M7 minus a few

features.

thanks guys I'm goimg to check out a s/h body for aboui 700.

<p>

incidently,

can u put a 50 f1 on the CL?

DR: dual range 50mm Summicron from the early 60s, users rave about it.

Re the CLE: shortly after posting this question, the camera was

snapped up by an eager buyer, may be co-incidentally. Ah well, never

mind, I'll stick to Leica M.

>... but how does it compare to a Leica...

<p>

Btw I babysat a mint CLE for a few months before I got the Leica rf bug a year later. Played with the camera a bit but didnt put film through it . The body was just another plasticky Minolta, like the used SLRs selling for $100 or less on Ebay. If anyone is really interested in the CLE because of the optics, why not buy the lenses and use them on their Leicas?

<p>

The CLE was built with parts from the Minolta XD1,2,3 line of electronic SLRs. Reliabiliy and build quality would be the same as those cameras while the price is way higher. Funny how the CLE gets the oohs and aahs now that it's out of production while the VC BEssa R is the poor country cousin? Both cameras are built on their respective companies line of cheap SLRs of the time. Will the Bessa R will be venerated like the CLE someday? All the arguments against buying a VC Bessa should apply to CLEs too.

how about the NOctilux F1 -will that haVE ANY PROBLEMS on th

CLE ,chaps ??

Ben, according to Stephen Gandy, the Noctilux 50mm f/1 can't be used

on the CLE. See here for details on the CLE's lens-compatibility: <a

href="http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm">http://www.cameraquest.com/c

le.htm</a>.