Leica CL - Leica M6: Built quality

[arotron473]

Do you know what points make the built quality of Leica M6 superior to CL's built quality? Or better, is it any difference in built quality bettwen these two cameras?

I am not talking about rangefinder accuracy. Just for the material, the way that they are getting old, the resistance to dings, dents and scratches, the quality of mechanism and optics, etc.

Thank you.

[Assaf]

Used to own an M6 and currently own a CL.
I think that metal (and its finish) in the M6 is of a higher quality, and also the vulcanite covering.
In addition, the RF optics and the light meter don't always survive time in the CL as in M cameras.
That being said, if you get CL in good working condition, it's a camera which is built better, and more likely to survive many years, than most of the cameras in the world. I'd say that if you're working condition is such that you actually need a camera as robust as an M6, you're either a war zone photographer, or a tank driver...

[George S.]

Agree completly with Assaf's reply. That says it in a nutshell. I'm a longtime CL and M6 owner. ( Among a few other Leicas ) ;)

[Al Patterson]

I've never owned a M6, but my CL is better built than most of the other cameras I own.

[sonofdanang]

What Assaf said is true.

I too, own a CL. I've had a few other M-bodies (M3 M4), but this is the only one currently in the bag.

The CL is very well-built. (Minolta built it.) As well built as the Nikon FM in the bag, perhaps better, EXCEPT FOR THE TAKE-UP SPOOL. Everybody else does this better. I have never been able to understand Leitz's thinking in this area. Konica, Canon, Nikon, even in their most budget models, have far better designs.
If you buy a working CL, try to find a broken Minolta SLR with the same take-up spool and scavenge it as a spare - the CL one is the same and will eventually break.

That aside, the CL is, in my view, just about the perfect blend of elements required for RF work - within the context of the way I work.

[sonofdanang]

The CL offers many advantages that the M6 doesn't - stealth being the highest on my list. It just seems to be less obtrusive. I can hold it in my hands with the 40mm lens and only the lens protrudes. Spread the fingers slightly and I have the rangefinder function. With the 28mm and 12mm, I use hyperfocal or scale focus and a BL finder and even then it is all but invisible.

The second advantage is film loading - despite all I said above. It is easier than any M body , M6 included (personal experience). though not as foolproof as the lovely little Hexar AF/RF or Canon anything or Nikon anything. I can live with this, of course, as the difficulty of loading film is kind of moot for someone who spent time as a youngster on a 4x5.

The CL is a gem of a camera.

[bambamphoto]

Yeah, my takeup spool is held together with superglue right now. Sherry Krauter (sherrykrater.com), will replace if for you with a replacement one that has a metal insert and will not break. It's an amazing camera. I never miss focus with my 40 as the mechanism is overdamped (therefore slower focusing) but allows for microfine adjustments for that reason. Even wide open, I don't miss.

[sonofdanang]

... I never miss focus with my 40 as the mechanism is overdamped (therefore slower focusing) but allows for microfine adjustments for that reason. Even wide open, I don't miss.

The dampening struck me as odd when I first got it. Now I love it as I generally set hyper or scale and go. It's nice to know that it wont move unless asked.



________
Looking for a 24 or 28mm in LTM or M - beater condition okay!

[TEZillman]

arotron473

I would suggest that you click on the link for CameraQuest.com that you will find on this page. Once you get there, click on "camera articles" and then click on and read the article about the CL. It should answer most of your questions about the CL's place in the Leica world. My own experience is that its a fine camera but its not an M (nor was it ever meant to be).