wlaidlaw Posted December 16, 2007 Share #1 Posted December 16, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Before I damage either my expensive WATE or my cheap CL, does anyone know for certain if I can safely mount the WATE on the CL. Otherwise, I suppose it is a phone call to Nobby at MK tomorrow. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 16, 2007 Posted December 16, 2007 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here Can you use a WATE on a CL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
xjr Posted December 16, 2007 Share #2 Posted December 16, 2007 A man who can afford a WATE can also afford an M-camera [ even a used a M6 ] to put it on ....with respect ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted December 16, 2007 Share #3 Posted December 16, 2007 Wilson-- No reason not to do it: Lens doesn't protrude from rear of mount, mount is standard M. Besides the use of an external finder, the only matter of interest would be the metering. The CL meter doesn't have the shield that the M5 meter has (looks like a coiled spring) in front of the cell. But the WATE is designed for a fairly straight ray path anyway, so the M5 probably wouldn't meter any better. Both will probably meter better than the M8 (just my assumption). --HC Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekimel Posted December 16, 2007 Share #4 Posted December 16, 2007 My first Leica was an old CL and I have a hard time picturing a WATE on it. Strikes me as a bit cumbersome (especially if you opted for the "Frankenfinder" as well). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckart Posted December 17, 2007 Share #5 Posted December 17, 2007 Every Lens you can put on M8 you can put on a CL too. If it is usefull to do that is another question, but harmless in every case, because there is no M- camera with less space inside than a M8. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 17, 2007 Share #6 Posted December 17, 2007 Every Lens you can put on M8 you can put on a CL too. If it is usefull to do that is another question, but harmless in every case, because there is no M- camera with less space inside than a M8. The meter cell of the CL is mounted on a swing arm pivoting in front of the shutter. I would have guessed that it can hit lenses protruding too deeply into the body. Am i missing something here? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share #7 Posted December 17, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The meter cell of the CL is mounted on a swing arm pivoting in front of the shutter. I would have guessed that it can hit lenses protruding too deeply into the body. Am i missing something here? Yes that is precisely what worries me. As for the comment "if you can afford a WATE you can afford an M6" - it is because I have bought a WATE, that I can barely afford a Kodak Instamatic, let alone a CL or M6. I have an old CL sitting down at my French house which my neighbour is happy to send up to me in the UK. I would just like to see what sort of results my WATE produces at the full frame 16mm rather than the resultant 21mm on my M8 and the old CL sprang to mind for only the cost of a parcel. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted December 17, 2007 Share #8 Posted December 17, 2007 Because of the meter arm--ingenious design, BTW; it actually fires the shutter!--there are a few lenses that you can use on M8 that would damage CL. For example, the 21/4, 21/3.4 and earliest 28/2.8 all can be used on the M8 but protrude deeply enough not to allow metering (instructions p 86). One would damage the CL by attempting to use those lenses on it. The only thing to worry about with the CL is whether the lens protrudes into the body cavity far enough to damage the meter arm. As I said above, the CL and the 16-18-21 are completely compatible. The lens protrudes only very slightly into the body, not far enough to cause problems. The CL is a jewel. Unfortunately, I use mine seldom enough that it keeps gumming up while I'm out shooting something else. --HC Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share #9 Posted December 17, 2007 The CL is a jewel. Unfortunately, I use mine seldom enough that it keeps gumming up while I'm out shooting something else. --HC Howard, -well that's a coincidence. My next door neighbour in France, who is a professional photographer, has just collected the CL from a cupboard in my house, where it has been sitting unused for the last 4 years. He reports it is not firing at all and there appears to be a wrinkle in the shutter blind. I now recall that it was put away in the cupboard because it was behaving badly from time to time. You would push the shutter release and nothing happened. Then after you had put it down, it would fire after a few minutes. It is not worth getting the blind replaced and doing a CLA as I can get another one for about half the £200 that that would cost me. The alternative is, after my Summicron 50 and Elmar 50 lenses have sold, to get a S/H M6 instead of the Summarit 75 I had planned on getting. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjr Posted December 17, 2007 Share #10 Posted December 17, 2007 I do apologise for my comment , could not help it ! The lense is superb ,I know, have one ! As for the CL I am not sure the metering will be correct and not sure about the relationship between the camera axis and the viewfinder.I think once you use it on a non-digital M- camera you will be suitably impressed. Forget the VC 15mm etc.....this is the real thing but DO WATCH the metering region ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted December 17, 2007 Author Share #11 Posted December 17, 2007 I do apologise for my comment , could not help it ! The lense is superb ,I know, have one ! As for the CL I am not sure the metering will be correct and not sure about the relationship between the camera axis and the viewfinder.I think once you use it on a non-digital M- camera you will be suitably impressed. Forget the VC 15mm etc.....this is the real thing but DO WATCH the metering region ! Well it looks as if my CL, which was a fairly battered, very well used one when I got it about 7 years ago, is on its way to the great Leica home in the sky. I will bring it back to the UK sometime next year and take it to Protech to see if it is a realistic job to repair or as I suspect, a write-off. The metering was at best, mostly less accurate than my guesswork, so it would need a new cell as well. It might well be better to spend money on a decent M6 TTL as a better long term bet. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted December 18, 2007 Share #12 Posted December 18, 2007 Wilson-- Sorry about the CL. It really thrives on use. I don't know why it is so prone to shutter problems when allowed to rest. There's another thing to keep in mind about it, and that is that it was designed for a mercury-oxide battery that is no longer available through normal outlets. Using the current alkaline cell that looks the same gives completely bogus meter readings. Some folks on the forum scour eBay for the original battery; some even have them stashed frozen for later use. I'm aware of one company which supplies functional replacements. I'm sorry to say, its upkeep may be more trouble than it's worth. All the best! --HC Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share #13 Posted December 18, 2007 Wilson--Sorry about the CL. It really thrives on use. I don't know why it is so prone to shutter problems when allowed to rest. There's another thing to keep in mind about it, and that is that it was designed for a mercury-oxide battery that is no longer available through normal outlets. Using the current alkaline cell that looks the same gives completely bogus meter readings. Some folks on the forum scour eBay for the original battery; some even have them stashed frozen for later use. I'm aware of one company which supplies functional replacements. I'm sorry to say, its upkeep may be more trouble than it's worth. All the best! --HC Howard, I had one of those adjusted voltage output Zinc/Air PX 625 replacement batteries but the light meter was still hopeless. However I got so used to not having a meter with my IIF, that it was never a huge problem. I spoke to Jo at Protech yesterday evening, arranging my M8 recovering (I am going to go for black kid in the end, as I think the verdigris may look a bit Prada). A CLA plus new shutter curtains plus new meter cell and recalibrate to work on normal silver oxide cells rather than the quite short life, zinc/air, is going to be between £200 and £300 depending on work required. As it is a far from mint camera, it is just not worth it - into the display cupboard. I have got an old Jupiter 50 that I can put on it to make it look like a complete camera, since I part-ex'd its old Rokkor 40 for the Elmar-M earlier this year. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted December 18, 2007 Share #14 Posted December 18, 2007 Wilson-- I'm not surprised you already knew more than the little I did about the alternative battery. Sorry about the condition of the camera. It had its place and time. I really liked the 'thwump' of its shutter, and its compactness. But mine is also sitting inoperable because of the expense to repair and the probable lack of use it would get in any case. --HC Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 19, 2007 Share #15 Posted December 19, 2007 A CLA plus new shutter curtains plus new meter cell and recalibrate to work on normal silver oxide cells rather than the quite short life, zinc/air, is going to be between £200 and £300 depending on work required.Wilson Then again, £200 for a perfectly functioning/refurbished CL isn't that bad.........or it's £200 off the price of an M6 I guess. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted December 19, 2007 Author Share #16 Posted December 19, 2007 Then again, £200 for a perfectly functioning/refurbished CL isn't that bad.........or it's £200 off the price of an M6 I guess. James, If the camera was in otherwise nice condition, I would agree but it isn't. I bought it about 6 to 7 years ago, when I was getting frustrated with my Contax G1 and G2's AF idiosyncrasies, to see if I would like to change to M series as my main camera system. I seem to remember I paid about £150 for the whole thing (it would have been £250ish if I had gone for the 40 Summicron instead of a Rokkor). It had/has a pretty stiff winder and I went back to the G series after having all the AF systems internally cleaned and recollimated, which improved them to the point they were acceptable if not good. Very accurate but often refusing to pick up focus. I only rarely used the CL afterwards until getting the M8 at the beginning of this year. I then took the CL along on a few occasions as a back up. However the shutter release was at that point, starting to have a mind of its own and the winder was stiffer than ever, so I put it back in the cupboard and p-exed the Rokkor for a new coded Elmar-M 50. I had thought about getting another CL or CLE as a back up but they are getting a bit long in the tooth and shutter release and/or blind problems seem to be common e.g. Howard's one. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_newell Posted December 19, 2007 Share #17 Posted December 19, 2007 As for the CL I am not sure the metering will be correct I can't see any reason why the meter, if working, would not give a correct reading. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 19, 2007 Share #18 Posted December 19, 2007 I can't see any reason why the meter, if working, would not give a correct reading. Because Mercury 625 1.35V batteries are not available any more and 1.5V replacement ones don't give the same reading AFAIK. But i don't own a CL personally so i might be wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted December 19, 2007 Author Share #19 Posted December 19, 2007 Because Mercury 625 1.35V batteries are not available any more and 1.5V replacement ones don't give the same reading AFAIK. But i don't own a CL personally so i might be wrong. That is correct, which is why you use a Zinc/Air battery, that at 1.3v is close enough. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted December 19, 2007 Share #20 Posted December 19, 2007 Confirm, I also use Zinc/air 1,3V batteries, easy to find and cheap, and the CL meter works right; such batteries have short life, but that is not a great problem with CL...meter is activated by advance lever... one can make it work for few seconds... and if it's down... well, for me it's the way I often worked with my M4... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.