New M body for CL lenses?

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by steve_george|3, Apr 1, 2015.

  1. I guess I'm just dreaming, but why doesn't somebody (Leica, Minolta, Voigtlander, whoever may care) produce a small full frame digital body with frames for 40mm and 90mm lenses? As the owner of two Leica CL bodies with defunct meters. plus a 40mm Summicron C and a 90mm Elmar C, I can tell you one person who'd buy one! And I'd guess there are more of you out there.
     
  2. You could always try a Sony A7 full frame digital with an adaptor for your lenses. A lot cheaper than Leica depending on the version of A7. Some of the die hard Leica guys like Steve Huff have dipped their toe into the Sony pool.
    http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/tag/sony-a7-leica/
    I handled An A7 II the other day for the first time (around $2k with a 28-70 kit lens) and it was pretty nice with a small, light weight body and lens. I'm out of Leica over two years now with only occasional withdrawal pains. I just couldn't prioritize the price of a new Leica full frame digital camera but if I had anticipated the Sony A7 I would have kept at least a couple of the Leica lenses. Good luck!
     
  3. Thanks Gil. I've seen photos of the A7, but not tried one, partly because it looks too much like an SLR! However, I might be confusing looks with behaviour. No, something that looked like a CL (or a Minolta CLE) would be my preference. It wouldn't even have to have an LCD screen, like the M60. It should be cheaper to produce then, shouldn't it? Well, maybe not...
     
  4. Similar functionality to the CLE or CL is unlikely to be produced. The A7 series has to have a VF (electronic) to handle variable focal length optics (zooms). Two or three possibilities exist:
    The cheapest is a mint used M8, wherein the 40 mm lens would be an effective 52 or 53 mm (50 mm VF), The M9, or possibly ME, also equipped with an optical range and viewfinder like the CL or CLE, would work fairly well using the 35mm (for 40mm) and 90 mm framelines. The M240 also provides live view via the LCD screen.
    Doing without an LCD screen might save something but would require an additional readout screen for viewing various camera and photo-making parameters. It would not really reduce price I believe.
     
  5. Thanks Arthur. I agree that the A7 needs a viewfinder, but why not an optical viewfindert? And why stick it like a wart on the top plate?
    The M60 manages without an LCD screen, and what does that stop you doing? (not you personally, I suppose I should say "what does
    that stop one doing"). The only things I can think of are altering the white balance (which I never do anyway) and checking the battery. A
    battery meter would be a small addition. So, small minded camera manufacturers, produce a reasonably priced full frame digital camera
    with 40mm and 90mm frames and I'll buy one.
     
  6. +1 for a good M8. For around 1200,-, you get a true rangefinder, which is the whole point. Fiddling around with focus peaking and EVF delay is just not my cup of tea. The 35mm frames of the M8 are very tight save up close. I use a modded 40mm Cron on the M8 to bring up the 35mm frames and it works like a charm, only close up the frame is too tight as expected, but it is easy to compensate.
     
  7. Sorry no fool frame, but as close as it gets. 1.33x is really not that bad!
    00dDPr-556041784.jpg
     
  8. I am sure there are others besides you who use a 40/90 combination: but a few dozen or a few hundred users are not likely to appeal to the economic instinct of a camera manufacturer. I have been using a Sony A7 for under two months, after thirty years of M Leicas, and am doing well enough. The absence of frame lines does not trouble me as I have used, and use, SLRs also -- and I have no particular feelings about the wart on the top plate. To replicate in an optical finder the functions of the A7's EVF may only be possible if its size is increased to ten warts or more.
     
  9. Steve, like others here I suggest an M8 as a budged DRF. You don't even have to pay 1000 Euro anymore for one of these. I would suspect some repair tech to be able to cobble a dedicated 40mm frame into one. M9s should drop to 2000 Euro sooner or later too. Personally I don't mind the M bodies' bulk that much; since I can't afford enough of them to suffer from it.
    A dedicated CLE-D? I believe everything speaks against it. According to rumors (Wikipedia quoting Rockwell) Leitz discontinued the CL to make profit on Ms. - Right now Leica tries to push ME sales with 1000 Euro discounts (or dealers are splitting the 2k discounted "starter kit" with 50 & 75mm for that purpose).
    Some 120k CL units ere made. - Considering reality & time that might mean a potential market of 40k people. - You hold 2 CL bodies, a 3rd made it to the landfill so why should every body ever made mean a customer? When I am guessing like a merchant I'd suspect an even shallower market. While the CL looks like a cool thing in its days, right now we have every MILC ever made including Leica's very own T marketing it's awesomeness with the ability to use M glas via module (Ricoh) factory made (Fuji, Leica T) or available (Sony) adapters.
    With a very respectful bow towards the Sony A7s I doubt the majority of customers to need & appreciate full frame.
    If we talk full frame and spending a lot of money for it - I assume Leica would try to make a CL D in Wetzlar and charge the usual for it, if they were foolish enough to start another inferior project instead of working hard to come out with something above the M (240) - I fear few customers might have your laid back wisdom of grabbing CL and calling it a day. - I used to read through the Pentax forum here at the dawn of DSLRs countless posts like: "I have $700, shall I really dare to buy a Pentax although they don't make a $5000 300mm f2.8?"
    Cameras sell via associated dreams and myths like al these fast cars crawling through the trafic jammed & speed limited rush hour and of course via features.
    The original CL must have been a cutting edge high tech camera at its time. The D version would be a quaint toy like Ms, while T's incorporate all the "modern" stuff. - For a somewhat features conscious shopper the lack of any OIS and the most likely less spectacular high ISO perfomance and JPG processing might be relevant too.
    I am no big fan of chimping, but I doubt "displayless" to be good approach for a camera project. First of all: there are unfortunately some things worth setting in a menu (and be it just dialing a missing lens code into a Leica) and critical shots where histogram chimping or a look at blown out highlights warning are helpful. - I really see no sense in a light compact camera that demands me to carry a laptop along to check my images and I'd apreciate the ability to switch to live view to work around an ill adjusted RF.
    While existing heritage lenses lead to camera purchases I am tempted to guess that camera makers hope for follow up lens sales and everything being said I believe there should be a ballance towards the lenses being more expensive than the camera. - The pair of CL lenses is about 700 Euro? - So it is calling for what kind of camera? - 6k as usual? - What could be sold to a CL D owner? maybe a 21mm? - What else?
    I haven't looked closely at the Sony A7 line yet; I am waiting for a A7s II with OIS, but maybe the plin 7 II is good enough for you?
     
  10. Thanks guys, but it’s not whether I can afford a new camera that’s my main concern. The 40 and 90 were my first Leica M lenses, and the CL I bought to go with them my first Leica M body (it worked at that time!). But I’ve since moved on, and have owned, successively, an M2, an M4P, an M6 , an M6TTL (with 0.58 finder) and an MP (also 0.58).I now have an M9P, and I have M lenses (excluding the 40 and 90 for the CL) from 12 (a Cosina/Voigtlander) to 90mm. No, what I miss is the CL’s pocketability, and the fact that I never used to worry about accidentally leaving it somewhere and kissing goodbye to well into four figures worth of kit. I guess the relevant question now is “Is anybody interested in buying a 40mm Summicron C, a 90mm Elmar C, both near mint condition, two CL bodies with dead meters and various accessories including the system case?”. Thanks again guys.
     
  11. Straight as an arrow, he came to the point.
     
  12. Point made. Why don't you advertise the kit in classifieds? Otherwise, I'll offer $500 shipping included to Europe for the two C lenses.
     
  13. Knut, for $500 I'll send you the lot. Send me the address (my email pluto@soton.ac.uk) and I'll email you a bill. Is Paypal OK?
     
  14. Steve, I think this should be in classifieds. PM sent.
     
  15. Get your meters fixed.
     
  16. Thanks Bill, but easier recommended than done. Apparently Leica has stopped offering repair parts for the CL meter.
    CRR Luton used to tepair CL meters, but now say they can't do it. I wouldn't know who else to try in the UK.
     
  17. I liked the CL myself very much ... but... I found the r/f was fairly easily knocked out of alignment, which ultimately doomed it for me. The "real" Ms are much tougher in this regard as I never had an r/f issue with them. The closest Leica have to the CL now is the Leica T line, but it's not really the same.
     
  18. I agree Robin: the "T" is more of a CL analogue than a CL replacement i.e. it's price relative to the M is similar to the CL's
    compared to the contemporary M5, but it's actually nothing like the M.
     
  19. I'm kind of stuck on the "Wikipedia quoting Rockwell" comment, and am late to the thread, again.
    My M-mount lenses (28 through 90) are all very happy in use on a Sony Alpha 6000, using a Fotasy LM-NEX adapter. The images are as good or better than on M-mount film bodies.
    The only sticking point is the 1.5x factor in going from the full 35mm frame to APS-C, but that's not impossible.
    Using aperture priority (or manual, sometimes), all I have to do is focus the image in the finder or on the LCD. The same body accepts my Nikon lenses as well. No need to sell off stuff you like.
     

Share This Page

1111