ujjwaldey8165 Posted March 21, 2009 Share #1 Posted March 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I own a Leica IIIc + 50/ f2 Summitar. I have put together some money; and now am in a position to buy either a M3 or a Leica CL + 40 mm summicron. I have a read up a lot on both but cant make up my mind. As far as I can see CL advantage : small, with a lightmeter, modern lens M3 : better built, classic, but no lightmeter Whats would be the suggestion of the more experienced folks out here : Cl or M3. Also, what would be a reasonable ( price and quality) 50 mm lens if I go for the M3. I would be grateful for any advice Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Hi ujjwaldey8165, Take a look here Suggestions on buying a Leica. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted March 21, 2009 Share #2 Posted March 21, 2009 M3, built like a tank, has framelines for your existing lens - which you could use with a screw to M adaptor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted March 21, 2009 Share #3 Posted March 21, 2009 I have an M3 DS and it's an extreme joy to use. The viewfinder/rangefinder is excellent and when the feel of the camera is so great that you want to take pictures all day long. I've had good success with an Elmar 50/2.8, which can be found for ~$500. I also got a Summicron 50 (new version) for $750 in 'demo' condition and it's better in many ways. Each lens has its own look. Elmar 50@2.8 on M3: Cron 50@2.8 on M7 (with flash bouncing off white card): As far as metering goes, I did get a separate meter to cary with me, but since I use almost exclusively B&W I mostly guessed when outside. My general advice when people want to buy a camera is to hold both at the store and see which is most comfortable. This is the camera you will use the most. Both the M3 and CL will provide great results. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 21, 2009 Share #4 Posted March 21, 2009 I own a Leica IIIc + 50/ f2 Summitar. I have put together some money; and now am in a position to buy either a M3 or a Leica CL + 40 mm summicron. I have a read up a lot on both but cant make up my mind. As far as I can see CL advantage : small, with a lightmeter, modern lens M3 : better built, classic, but no lightmeter Whats would be the suggestion of the more experienced folks out here : Cl or M3. Also, what would be a reasonable ( price and quality) 50 mm lens if I go for the M3. There are pros and cons, and to some extent you have hit on some main ones. The 40mm Summicron on the CL is an impressive lens. But any Leica standard lens < 50 years old will produces very fine results, and your Summitar is also pretty good. The differences, as far as I can see, are very subtle. Your pictures will rise or fall based on your eye and to some extent your technique - not your lens. The M3 (I have one and love it) has a viewfinder that is about as good as range/viewfinder design has ever been. And the rest of the canera is a mechanical marvel. The lack of a meter is, for me at least, not an issue, and perhaps an advantage. I usually carry a separate meter, which I use for precision. If you choose your favourite film and learn exposure from experience, a built in meter can be more of an annoyance than a help. I think this is likely a minority opinion, but I'm sticking with it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rontr6 Posted March 21, 2009 Share #5 Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) I've owned both over the years, I would say it's no contest, the M3 is a far better camera, it has the quality feel of a Leica whereas the CL feels cheap and nasty, so saying it does take very good pictures. The only advantages of the CL are the built in lightmeter and it's lighter weight and smaller size, it's big disadvantage is it's build quality, which is definitely not Leica, it's a fragile easily damaged camera whereas the M3 is built like a brick outhouse and will last forever. I wouild also look seriously at the M2 which has the attraction of a viewfinder to suit 35mm lenses. Ron Edited March 21, 2009 by rontr6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujjwaldey8165 Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share #6 Posted March 21, 2009 Thanks everyone, for the response Michael, what you said is so true : Your pictures will rise or fall based on your eye and to some extent your technique - not your lens.. Yet, one does try to cover up for one's incapability with better gear; such a mistake Woody : great photos there. Holding the camera in hand is always the best way; unfortunately I dont have that luxury at the moment. I still am working to understand the difference in the 'looks' of different lens; I probably need more experience. Ron : since you have used both the camera; you are possibly in the best place to help me out. You say that the CL is easily damaged. Is there any non Leica camera you would compare the build quality to? Its very difficult for any camera to stand upto m3 in build quality; but is CL so fragile as to not even consider it? A light meter is rather indispensible to me now; I use colour; and dont have enough experience, or use consistent film to guess-estimate the exposure accurately. So its either M3 + a MR4 or a CL for now. That said; I am going to experiment with a roll with pure visual estimate for exposure and then getting it hand corrected at Jessops. Wonder what the results would be. Thanks again Ujjwal Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted March 21, 2009 Share #7 Posted March 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) the cl is a superb camera..I don't see it as fragile at all....great ergonomics, superb metering and very compact... i have no complaints at all..... andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted March 21, 2009 Share #8 Posted March 21, 2009 For those sort of prices you could get an M6 Classic but there again I am biased as I feel the M6 Classic is the finest most iconic camera Leica have made and the first not to be designed in house. The Leica CL is a lovely camera especially if you get it with the 40mm lens which often accompanies it. I would also advise to buy from an authorised dealer who should give you at least 6 months guarantee- Check servicing costs on Leica- Having said that you will get good guidance here but in the end you will have to decide. I wish you well. You will never regret your Leica choice Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 21, 2009 Share #9 Posted March 21, 2009 ...the M6 Classic is the finest most iconic camera Leica have made and the first not to be designed in house. Really??? Who designed it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujjwaldey8165 Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted March 22, 2009 For those sort of prices you could get an M6 Classic You will never regret your Leica choice Kenneth What would be the price of M6.My quick net search shows that a m3 is going for 399£, and a CL + 40mm for about that price. I thought a M6 is over 700£; am I wrong? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 22, 2009 Share #11 Posted March 22, 2009 Really??? Who designed it? I think he means the University of (iirc) Munich cooperated in the design of the electronics. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
storybrown Posted March 22, 2009 Share #12 Posted March 22, 2009 You have to decide which you "heart" best: they're all fine, but you will not go wrong with a CL w/40 (& 90). It's as sturdy as your IIIc. If you want an artistic tank, esp for longer ranges, get a an SL or SL2. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted March 22, 2009 Share #13 Posted March 22, 2009 I tried a CL briefly years ago before opting for the M3. I also love using the M6, and agree with Kenneth, it is an excellent camera and well worth considering as another option. I much prefer the overall feel of the M cameras; but it's subjective and a good idea to at least get hold of one before you buy, if possible. You can use "modern" M lenses on both M cameras and the CL! It's certainly worth getting another optic at some stage, although the older ones such as your Summitar are still very fine performers, and well made. As for metering, you will be used to a handheld meter with your IIIc. My favorite is the Sekonic 308. The most important thing is to make sure you get a camera that has been recently serviced and is in top working order. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted March 22, 2009 Share #14 Posted March 22, 2009 I think he means the University of (iirc) Munich cooperated in the design of the electronics. As far as I am aware the M6 body design was out sourced to, I think an Italian designer. It certainly was designed by a design house in conjunction with Leica. Somebody somewhere will be able to give you chapter and verse on this Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rontr6 Posted March 22, 2009 Share #15 Posted March 22, 2009 Hi Ujjwal The CL top and bottom plates are made from what looks like black anodised aluminium, the black is very easily marked and the aluminium is very easily dented, so saying it is an excellent camera if you use it in a 'protected' environment, most of my photography is done while hillwalking and I found it too easily damaged, possibly if it had a proper ERC rather than the leather pouch that was supplied it would be a lot tougher. I would also agree with previous posters, if you can afford it the M6 classic, it is excellent, it was my main camera until I went digital. Ron Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 22, 2009 Share #16 Posted March 22, 2009 I own a Leica IIIc + 50/ f2 Summitar. I have put together some money; and now am in a position to buy either a M3 or a Leica CL + 40 mm summicron. I have a read up a lot on both but cant make up my mind. As far as I can see CL advantage : small, with a lightmeter, modern lens M3 : better built, classic, but no lightmeter Whats would be the suggestion of the more experienced folks out here : Cl or M3. Also, what would be a reasonable ( price and quality) 50 mm lens if I go for the M3. I would be grateful for any advice Of course... the issue of CL=modern lenses is only apparent... you could buy a M3 and mount on it a Summilux 50 Asph brand new... . I think your decision has to be based on 3 factors : 1) Sentiment : M3 of course wins by a far... a lovely superclassic, CL is a fine half-breed Leitz-Minolta.. M3 is an item sculpted in history, CL is also historically interesting (first "multinational" Leica, and for someone, "the camera that saved Leica") but surely on a step below. 2) How and where you use: CL is really lighter/smaller : how many times could happen you renounce to take M3 with you for this ? For me, there was a single istance: I always took my CL when skiing. 3) Which are your photographing attitudes: I mean, embedded metering CAN be useful, but many of us don't consider it a definitive issue... when I used (for lot of years) my M4, I ALWAYS took an external meter with me... but could happen that in a day with a pair of rolls exposed, I took it for measuring... twice, once, or even never... As for the 50 ... supposing you don't like to use your Summitar with adapter ring... Summicron classic (not collapsible) would be a someway obvious choice (maybe, considering the DR version), but you are still accustomed to have a f2... think of a Summilux : rather old items aren't so costly, and is a beautiful lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
underground Posted March 22, 2009 Share #17 Posted March 22, 2009 I have a CL W/40+90 The only problem i have with it is, it's very hard for me to focus. the focusing mirror (or whatever you call it) is tiny compared to my M's But other than that it's great little camera, with wonderful results as far as i am concerned. good luck on your leica journey! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 22, 2009 Share #18 Posted March 22, 2009 As far as I am aware the M6 body design was out sourced to, I think an Italian designer. It certainly was designed by a design house in conjunction with Leica. Somebody somewhere will be able to give you chapter and verse on this Kenneth, that's interesting because the body design is basically identical to every other Leica M (apart from the M5!). I hope Leica didn't spend too much money on the 'redesign' Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 22, 2009 Share #19 Posted March 22, 2009 As for the question, I'd also consider an M2, which has 35/50/90 framelines - better if you intend using a 35mm lens of course. The CL was a curious camera in way, another Leica experiment which they didn't develop. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted March 22, 2009 Share #20 Posted March 22, 2009 Kenneth, that's interesting because the body design is basically identical to every other Leica M (apart from the M5!). I hope Leica didn't spend too much money on the 'redesign' Yes James but I am sure I hadn't dreamt it 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.