changing M6 to CL

[Assaf]

Hi there,
I own an M6 which I used to use a lot, but not so much lately, since I'm now focusing in medium format.

In 35mm I mainly used the M6, and mostly with a 50mm lens (Zeiss Planar). I rarely use wider angles, and I really like this lens, and would like to have an M body for it.

Some people wouldn't understand me, but I feel that the M6 isn't the right camera for me now, for the following reasons:
1) It's too heavy. It's particularly important when I carry both medium formant and 35mm.
2) It's very very expenssive. That makes me think twice before I take this camera out. And, I also have other things to do with the money now.
3) I still don't find the sense in the funny loading/downloading mechanism

I'm thinking about a CL (or Minolta CLE) but would like to ask about the following points:
1) Is the meter accurate? Is there any issue with it at all?
2) I understood the the RF is not as good, but would it be an issue using only 50/2 (and maybe 40/1.4) lenses?
3) Is it easy to handle, load/unload film
4) CL or Minolta CLE?

Is it a good idea at all? I hate to sell the M6 because it's a very good copy, CLE'd, upgraded VF etc. But I don't have enough money to keep this camera just for the sake of keeping it.

thanks for reading, answers would be welcome
Assaf

[raid]

I just sold my CL but I kept the M6. If you will use a fast 50mm lens or a longer lens, then the viewfinder of the CL will be less helpful than the viewfinder in any M camera. The meter may have to be recalibrated or rewired to accept available batteries. The CL never felt as rugged as the M3 or M6 which I own.

The meter is accurate when it works.

The camera is very easy to load since the back opens for film loading.

The CLE is more expensive and more difficult to repair. Unless you want aperture priority, go with the CL.

Get the CL+ 40mm Summicron as a package deal if you decide to get a CL. For the CLE, you would need the Rokkor 40/2 for [supposedly] better glare control.

[Beemermark]

IMHO you should go for the CLE, better meter, more reliable than a CL, longer RF base, better everything. The 40 is a nice little lens. The CV 40 is nice and fast. I carry it for the same reason you want to - it's a lot smaller and faster than the M6. I have two (had one posted for sale but it might have expired).

[Assaf]

Thanks for the comments guys.
I only realized now that the magnification on CL/CLE is 0.60/0.58. Well, that's too little to me, and not the best choice if don't wide angles at all.
So, I guess I stick with the M6 for the time being, or think of another alternative
thanks
Assaf

[Michiel Fokkema]

I did have a cl and a CLE. Sold them and kept the M6, the M6 is just sooo much better

Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema

[takeda72]

Great thread for me right now...

I own an M6 (with just one lens, a Summicron 35 IV) and now I found a CLE + Rokkor 40 for 200 dollars. Its cheap but both camera and lens need a CLA.

I love my M6, but I guess that maybe it will be good to have AE once in a while.

What do you guys think? Makes sense to have two bodies? Or is it better to save my money for a 50mm lens?

Thanks.

[WoolenMammoth]

I have an M6 which I detest. A CL was my first leica. Its an amazing camera. Some comments:

If you are used to the feel fo the M6, do not expect that from a CL. It doesnt feel like a toy, but it is not built to the same standard. This is more of a tactile comment rather than one of reliability. The shutter release plunger on my particular CL is a bit swampy compared to an M6 and the lock time of the shutter is nowhere near as fast as the M6. None of this was an issue in any universe until I got an M6 though.

With a big 50 like a planar on a CL it can be a little off balance, but totally usable.

The rangefinder patch is smaller than an M6 and the base is shorter. I would not want to be focusing a 1.4 lens on a cl body. 50mm is definitely the longest focal length I would really want to use on that body. It is a thing of beauty of the 40 cron though.

The camera handles easily and is stupid easy to load, the entire back of the camera comes off for loading. There is a tendency for the plastic arms to break off the loading spool, so make sure you have a good one when you buy.

The meter is hands down the best meter I have used on any camera. If you know how to use a spot meter you will do a little dance when you start using a CL. I say this as a guy who thinks the M6 meter is abysmal.

For me, given the choice between an M6 and a CL I would give up the M6 Instantly to keep the CL without even thinking. It all depends upon how you intend to use the camera. Love my CL to death.

[Assaf]

OK, very interesting comments here so far
few more questions

1) regarding the magnification. Aren't the 40mm and 50mm framelines too on the VF? BTW, what's the magnification and EBL of a Canonet QL17 (that's my point of reference which is not and M camera)

2) Do both CL and CLE have AE and a manual override/ mechanical shutter?

3) Can the Minolta CLE be fixed at all? Mecahnically and electronically?

I even thought of a little Leica Minilux. A friend has this camera and it give stunning images. But I prefer a mechanic body, and I don't trust the Minilux to be too reliable...

takeda72 (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/member.php?u=21433) - I think the answer to the question whether to keep both bodies or not is very personal. If you think of selling/tradint the CLE+Rokkor, talk to me.

Thanks
Assaf
2)

[CCCPcamera]

Have you considered a bessa? Much lighter, very functional, easy loading, good quality, and much much cheaper... I agree, the m6 is silly expensive, but using your zeiss lens on the voigtlander would be agreat I should think.

[Doug]

I like the CLE, have two, one since new. Note that the CLE has viewfinder framelines for 28, 40, and 90mm. The CL does not have 28mm framelines, and the CLE does not have 50mm. The CLE has AE and non-metered manual, the CL does not have AE. They are totally different cameras, the CLE coming along later as a Minolta-only product after the cooperation with Leica was over.

FWIW, the 28mm CLE framelines are very easy to see, with some space around them for easy composition. Excellent for a combination of 28 and 40mm lenses, but not my choice for 50mm.

The CLE can be fixed and cleaned like most any camera, and there are specialists with parts and expertise. Some people avoid the CLE on fear of failing electronics. But my camera repair guy notes that it came along before integrated circuits, so individual electronic components may be replaced, the trick being determining what part failed.

I have not had any part failures in either CLE, but my original one seems to need the electrical switch contacts under the shutter speed dial cleaned at least every 10 years. :)

This is a light, fast, inconsicuous camera of very high quality. It also features TTL flash control and can readjust shutter speed during long exposures as light changes. I cannot speak to the usability of the CL, never having used one.

[Keith]

Some one mentioned the option of the Bessa ... an R3A with it's 1:1 magnification is great with 50mm lenses and is also very light and much the same cost as a good CL when you factor in the warranty etc of new as against a used CL that may need a CLA or meter cell etc.

I had a CL/Minolta and didn't really like it much ... it's no M ... it's just another camera and has nowhere near the build quality or feel of a genuine Leica.

[steve kessel]

I had a CL and traded up to an M6. No comparison. The M6 fells so much bvetter in the hands. I took some good shots with the CL but never liked cocking the shutter to activate the meter. Stick with what you've got. And don't be inhibited by having an "expensive" camera.

[photogdave]

I have both, love both, and have no intention of selling either.
The M6, obviously, is best for low light focusing and using a wide range of lenses. It has that "built like a tank" feel that inspires confidence. I agree with comments about the meter - I don't like it much either. I use my hand held Gossen when convenient. I strongly disagree that it is difficult to load. It is MUCH easier and quicker to load than the CL!
I love the CL for its ergonomics, VF information and meter. Mine had a broken meter when I bought it and I had it fixed and updated for the newer battery type for about $200. It's been almost two years and no problems so far. It IS a very reliable camera. I've had no problems focusing fast lenses like my 35 1.4, or long lenses like the Elmar-C 90mm f4. The Summicron 40mm is a really nice lens.
I love them both but if I could only have one it would be the M6 for its greater flexibility.

[CCCPcamera]

I personally don't understand the whole mystique about leicas. They're beautiful yes, but any quality camera can take as good pictures. I could understand if they were not so incredibly expensive. I've tried a leica CL in a shop in Ottawa and I really wasn't that impressed with the feel, it just feels like a point and soot type camera, nothing special. I really prefer my bessa, it's a much more substantial camera.

[Assaf]

CCCPcamera, I don't know about the CL because I never saw one. But when you hold an M camera, you'll probably know why it's so expenssive. The built quality is very impressive they are very robuts. Comparing them to Bessa and ZI (and I tried both) is like comparing a Toyota to a vintage Mercedes Benz.

But who needs a Mercedes Benz just to take you to work? Well, not me. And there are few thing I find irritating in the M6 besides the price and weight - the metereing, the film loading, and the very inaccurate framing on 50mm lenses

I'll give another look to an R3A a good friend is selling. But I don't like this camera either...

[suckerpunch]

I once owned a CL. I loved it's size and compactness, shutter speed dial location made it fantastically fast and easy. The problems I felt as others have mentioned was the faulty meter issues, the plastic take up spool is prone to breaking, and it is definitely not as "solid" as your M6. You will miss the relative silence of your M6 shutter for sure, as the CL is a lot louder. But I will give it the advantage in lightness and pocketability.
good luck with your decision.

[photogdave]

There is no frame-line for your 50.

There is a 50mm frameline. It only shows up when you mount a 50mm lens.
I have not had any issues mounting any of my Leica or Voigtlander lenses.

[feenej]

I never understand why people get so concerned about meter acuracy. Isn't you meter just sort of a suggestion, or a starting point? My buddy bought a Canon A1 and never used it because he said that the meter is half a stop off. Huh???

[Palaeoboy]

The CL officially does not work with lenses set up for the M camera, however the CLE will work correctly with M lenses. The use of M lenses on the CL will be forever debated. See Cameraquest for a good discussion of the limits imposed. There is no frame-line for your 50.

Absolutely not true. The CL's sales brochure and Instruction manual state that most of their range of lenses is perfectly usable on the CL just not the older 28's and 21's with a deep rear element which also applies to the M5. The rumour to which you refer is the use of the two CL lens when used on M's not the other way around.

You will miss the relative silence of your M6 shutter for sure, as the CL is a lot louder.

A properly functioning CL is only slightly louder than an M6.

I really prefer my bessa, it's a much more substantial camera.

Then you probably need to handle the CL again, its robust and far better wearing than any of the bessa line. The Bessas with viewfinders arent any more compact than M's.

I had a CL and traded up to an M6. No comparison. The M6 fells so much bvetter in the hands.

If the criteria for the purchase of any camera is purely feel then by all means buy a M3 and wind it and fondle it without actually taking photos, but to dismiss a CL because of this its clear those dont understand the objective of this camera. Its feel is by no means cheep but its deigned to be more compact and lighter. There would be no point to its existence if it was like an M.

In answer to the OP. If you just want to use your 50mm Plannar then the CL would be the better option to a CLE as it has no 50mm framelines. The CL is designed to focus a 50mm f2 so your plannar will work fine although it really is at its best with a 40mm.

I was one that started out with M's that hardly ever got used. It was the CL and CLE's that got me back to rangefinders for the compact nature and functionality, especially that the 40mm focal length proved to be so versatile. I laugh when I hear people say you can "upgrade" to an M but for me I "upgraded from M's to CL's/CLE's. By the sounds of it a CL may be the ticket for you too.

[sanmich]

Assaf

I have some M's. I had a CLE that in itself is a brilliant camera with a summicron-c which is a brilliant lens. I sold it because it was some kind of parallel system with my M's. I couldn't mount my 50's and 35's on the CLE, and the 40 on my M's (I know I can, I just like accurate framing).

So I bought a CL. Had some problems with it, but it ended to work great. Excellent little camera. One thing I didn't like was the vertical hanging. I wanted it as a bang around camera, but it was in such a good shape that It didn't make sense, so I sold it for a good price.

If you are concerned by weight and size, go for the CLE (if you want AE which is great) or with the CL if you need more control on exposure. They are both great combos with the 40. putting your planar on one of them (the CLE has no FL for it) would destroy all the compactness you look for.

Where are you located Ba'arets?

[CCCPcamera]

I don't know, the CL just didn't seem to be worth the money. I'm sure it's a great camera though. Really most are. I did look at an m4 in a shop in calgary and it was awesome, but that was the same day I bought the bessa which was sitting right beside it in the case, all things considered I think it's a better deal. When I'm old and rich I'll buy a leica! What about the Zeiss Ikon? Now that looks like an AWESOME camera.

[Assaf]

OK guys, many thanks for your answers.

I think I'm beginning to make my mind up, as to giving the M6 a new home and looking for a new 35mm camera for myself.

The thing is, I mostly use a 3.5E Rolleiflex (Schnieder lens) these days. By far, the loveliest camera I've ever had. It's fun to use, gives amazing images, I like it and other people (including strangers I meet and want to take their pictures) like it as well. It's an old and not expenssive camera and it weighs like my Leica+lens...

I don't find the M6 fun anymore, and it's ridiculously expenssive. The only thing I like in this system is the Planar lens I'm using which is absoloutly amazing. The nasty thing is that the M6 50mm framing is really really bad.

I'm giving up the CLE because I want the 50mm framelines and don't want AE. I also don't care too much about the metering since I use an incident light meter if there's a doubt.

I would even trade the 50mm focal lenght to 40mm. I had it on a Canonet QL17 and found it very versitile. I also liked the Canonet, but it didn't feel robust and the VF was too dark.
If the CL is something between a Canonet and an M6 in terms of VF/RF and build quality, then it'll probably be right for me. Is it so?

The only thing is that I really like in my M system is the Planar. It gives great colors, very sharp yet with lovely focus trnasitions and totally flare free. Is the 40mm 'cron substantially different in it's signature? (can this question be answered at all?)

Anyway, thank's you all,
Palaeoboy (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/member.php?u=3499) thanks you for helping me making up my mind and you're comments would be welcome

PS, the M6 is not yet for sale, but if you're interested I'd be happy to receive PM's about it (it's CLE'd, upgraded VF and wonderful condition)

PPS - Last thing - does anybody here have experience with using 50/2 lens on CL?

Sanmich (Michael) I live in Ramat Aviv, and you?

[Assaf]

CCCPcamera (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/member.php?u=22538), regarding the ZI - it's a nice camera but it isn't in M standard. I found three annoying things about it :
1) the shutter is very noisy (to my taste)
2) the back of the camera is covered with rubber which tends to wear off
3) more importantly - the VF is bright (but not as contrasty) and when I used it it tended to fade when I moved my eyes

and still iit's a very expenssive camera. too expenssive for me

[Paul T.]

It's so subjective thats it's hard to comment on what would work for you; but the CL is a GREAT camera. The metering is fantastic, far superior to the M6... the feel is very different to an M but not necessarily worse, I love its compactness, the readily accessible shutter speed dial, and the fact shutter speed is visible in the VF. Oh, and the fantastic quality of the photos you get with the 40mm Summicron. The camera works perfectly with a 50/2 or 50/1.8 lens.

[CCCPcamera]

Too bad about the ZI. The viewfinder looks bright (I haven't tried one) but I can understand what you mean about it fading at angles, I think this is a similar problem with lots of rangefinder cameras. Your right, at that price it should be perfect. Funnily enough, by far the cheapest camera I have owned with a very quiet shutter is the kiev 4. I know I know it's not even in the same league as a leica, but I think it's interesting that a machine so cheap can have something most expensive cameras lack. The shutter in that thing is beautiful actually, and it's all metal too. Come to think of it it's a zeiss copy, you'd think the new ikon could have a quiet shutter too then!

[micampe]

Hi Assaf,

I would even trade the 50mm focal lenght to 40mm. I had it on a Canonet QL17 and found it very versitile. I also liked the Canonet, but it didn't feel robust and the VF was too dark.
If the CL is something between a Canonet and an M6 in terms of VF/RF and build quality, then it'll probably be right for me. Is it so?

I have never used an M6, but I have the Canonet and the CL (and these are all the RFs I have used in my life, since may, I'm a recent convert :)). The CL's viewfinder looks maybe a bit larger than the Canonet's, it seems clearer and I think more precise. The rangefinder patch is smaller, but it's the Leica one where you can also align the borders and not just the inner image.

The build quality, while good for the Canonet, it is clearly better on the CL. Same goes for the handling: the shutter dial is great and so easy to use, you end up using the camera as if it was aperture priority and I like having metered manual instead of shutter priority (my guessometer doesn't work). The body size are about exactly the same. I was worried about loading the CL but, while not as easy as the Canonet, it really isn't troublesome.

[Assaf]

thanks micampe, and all the rest of you guys

well, I talked to a few friends today and received two surprising PMs
Bottom line, I'm keeping the M6. It's a very good copy. It'll be difficult to find a similar one, and I might use it again sooner than I think.
I can always sell it, and its a good value keeper, so nothing to hurry

I might however, try a CL and see how it feels and then think.
I'll keep you guys posted
thanks
Assaf

[Palaeoboy]

Actually the sales brochure is pretty vague.

Vague?? Under the title "Leica CL Fascinating scope within the full Leica system" it reads. The small Leica CL is a worthwhile acquisition even if you already own an M-series Leica. This is because the CL takes numerous lenses of the Leica M range, offering a highly useful second camera body. Even the old screw-based Leica lenses can be fitted via the bayonet/screw adapter" Its seems pretty plain to me that other M mount lenses can be used on a CL.

[Beemermark]

[quote=Assaf;942030]OK guys, many thanks for your answers.

I'm giving up the CLE because I want the 50mm framelines and don't want AE. I also don't care too much about the metering since I use an incident light meter if there's a doubt.

Not to change your mind but the CLE works great in manual with a handheld meter, there is no camera meter in manual to distract you. Just move the little dial off A and you'll be a real photographer.

[Vincent.G]

Is using a cv nokton 35mm f/1.2 on a CL asking for too much? What about a nokton 50mm f/1.5? Any advice or comments?

Seems that the short EBL of CL limits us to day time shooting mostly. Or am I wrong?

[Benjamin]

If you want to shoot fast lenses with a rangefinder, then it would probably make sense to buy one of the most accurate. The 1.1 Bessa is probably your best bet if you don't want to spend Leica money.

[nakedcellist]

I had a CL, it was my first Leica and I loved it. Very small, very quiet, but I upgraded to a M6. The m6 has a more accurate rangefinder, is a more solid camera but there are a lot of things I liked better with the CL: smaller, lightmeter worked better for me than the one in the m6, does not have the rangefinder flare, speed dial has better handling with one finger and display of time was also very handy. I do not regret selling it, but I would consider buying it again. I also had a Bessa T. Nice camera, but I found to Bessa's much louder than the Leica's.

[jorgef2002]

I have an M6 an M2 a IIIg IIIc and a CL love them all,the CL is at DAG Camera,Mr Goldberg is adding the 3rd lug so it will hang straight I like some for one thing and another for another thing,the CL among other things I like the size the meter works but I do not use it I use the sunny sixteen rule and when in doubt I use my Luna Six, I am sure some guys like the M6 another the M4 etc etc it is all a matter of choice I guess.

[leguaan]

I guess I'm aspiring for an opposite switch -> CL to M6, or more likely CL to M4-P as I can afford keeping only one rangefinder at a time.
I had a Bessa R before with 35 1.7 and 50 1.5 lens, and was hoping that I will be able to use these lens with the CL. I did, but found out that while focusing stopped down to 2 or 2.8 in exteriors (more light) went fine, the pictures I took in interiors were always a bit off. CL is a wonderful camera for brightly lit places or scale-focusing, however I miss the ability to take portraits at dark pubs at f/1.5. With the CL, this simply isn't possible. Therefore, I'm thinking about selling the CL and upgrading to an M camera as soon as my Cashflows settle :)
My advice would be - if you can, keep both and use them for what they're best at. Otherwise, choose according to the type of photography you usually do.

[Pablito]

CLE is for those who like Auto exposure. Not me.
When I owned one, the battery compartment door would accidentally open spilling the batteries. And the camera is useless without batteries. So tape the battery cover with gaffer's tape for insurance.
The CLE seemed very sweet when I bought it but I quickly found it was no good for me.
CL is better but quirky; old batteries so you need adapter or those loathesome Wein cells. Silly meter arm, one more thing to break.
M6 is by far the better instrument. If you learn the proper way to load it you can do it in about 10 seconds. If you are serious about your photography, forget about the money and the value just use it.

[setyotomo]

OK guys, many thanks for your answers.

I think I'm beginning to make my mind up, as to giving the M6 a new home and looking for a new 35mm camera for myself.

The thing is, I mostly use a 3.5E Rolleiflex (Schnieder lens) these days. By far, the loveliest camera I've ever had. It's fun to use, gives amazing images, I like it and other people (including strangers I meet and want to take their pictures) like it as well. It's an old and not expenssive camera and it weighs like my Leica+lens...

I don't find the M6 fun anymore, and it's ridiculously expenssive. The only thing I like in this system is the Planar lens I'm using which is absoloutly amazing. The nasty thing is that the M6 50mm framing is really really bad.

I'm giving up the CLE because I want the 50mm framelines and don't want AE. I also don't care too much about the metering since I use an incident light meter if there's a doubt.

I would even trade the 50mm focal lenght to 40mm. I had it on a Canonet QL17 and found it very versitile. I also liked the Canonet, but it didn't feel robust and the VF was too dark.
If the CL is something between a Canonet and an M6 in terms of VF/RF and build quality, then it'll probably be right for me. Is it so?

The only thing is that I really like in my M system is the Planar. It gives great colors, very sharp yet with lovely focus trnasitions and totally flare free. Is the 40mm 'cron substantially different in it's signature? (can this question be answered at all?)

Anyway, thank's you all,
Palaeoboy (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/member.php?u=3499) thanks you for helping me making up my mind and you're comments would be welcome

PS, the M6 is not yet for sale, but if you're interested I'd be happy to receive PM's about it (it's CLE'd, upgraded VF and wonderful condition)

PPS - Last thing - does anybody here have experience with using 50/2 lens on CL?

Sanmich (Michael) I live in Ramat Aviv, and you?

Hi, i just tried a CL a week ago, and for me it's feels like a upgraded Canonet (with better VF, frame lines, and lightmeter, etc) . I love canonet feels, dont get me wrong (and i have a M2 - love the rounded body for grip in you hand - and that leica "feel") - for me the you should go for CL if :
1. you want compact M with lightmeter, and
2. wanted to use it's 40/2 "kit" - because is light, i dont think attaching your plannar would give a "proper balance" (the CL is way lighter than my m2)
3. ready to use that "small" VF, like canonet (but brighter and better)

my little suggestion is to look for 1:1 finder for your planar, I have a canon P which i love it so much (the VF, it is so good shooting 50 with 1:1 finder) but didn't like the grip. Or maybe a bessa (it has a bright VF and lightmeter plus still under warranty if you bought it new). A Hexar RF might become your consideration also because (its light, because of titanium body i believe) and VF very bright, and its auto :D (ups you dont want this). And i believe you can get those for half or third of the money you spent on M6 (a clean and working canon P is ~ $200 from jiri_e on ebay)

whatever you choose, keeping a gear (in this case a $1000++ M6), and not using it is the worse choice. Have fun choosing your gear !

[raytoei@gmail.com]

I keep buying, using and selling the CL.

Great little camera, it is a compact Leica, and with its Summicron-C, it is really unbeatable.

My only wishlist is for the CL to have a .... Self-timer, this would be useful for situations where I need to use slow-speeds without a tripod.

:)
raytoei