Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/04/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The responses to the thread could lead one to believe the the CL is less than adequate. This of course is incorrect. It is a very well built, durable camera. The 90mm lens limitation doesn't seem to really be as much of a problem as first viewed since there was a while back some serious discussion that the M6 was really not designed to work with 135mm lens because of the small viewfinder area. The 90mm Rokkor does seem to be a great lens and the 40 Summicron is a true delight and a good compromise between the 35 and 50mm. The CL was not designed to be a replacement for or in competition with the M series, but as a competitor to the other brands, as an alternative to the slrs which had held the major market segment, as a lead in to the M series and as a back up body to the M. It's design is very robust, with the only limitation in reliability being the meter movement which was not better or worse than the competition. It does need cleaning every few years to keep it from becoming sticky. I can't think of any meter which does not have the same requirement. Since it seems good practice to have Ms CLA'd every few years, the yearly maintenance cost should not be materially different (if at all). The CLE is a more advanced camera, but is not longer supported by Minolta and therefore is less of a long term user than the Leica CL. There are some small differences between the Leica CL and the Minolta CL version (also no longer supported by Minolta) and Leica does not repair this model, though it appears to be identical to the Leica. My CL has been the most reliable of any camera I've owned and I recommend it highly. I am not disputing that the CL is not an M is terms of design, but only trying to put it into perspective. Brian Levy Toronto, Ont.