How good is the CL's VF/RF compared with an M4 VF/RF

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was wondering whether I should send off my CL to get the VF/RF looked at. Compared with my M4, the RF patch is not nearly as bright or visible. My M4 has had an RF total rebuild by Peter at CRR some 18 months ago, with a new mirror and a spring clean and is therefore in perfect working order. What I am not sure of is how good the CL RF was when new or in perfect condition. I don't want to spend around £150 on it, only to find it is only a margin improvement and currently, it is usable as it is, in reasonable lighting.

 

It certainly does need a simple clean, as some cack handed repairer in the past, before I owned it, has managed to get dirty finger prints on the inside of both the VF's object and viewing glass. However, I can get simple cleaning like that done locally by my excellent local repairer, Kelvin at Protech near Uckfield. Otherwise it would need to go off to Alan Starkie at Cameraworks-uk if the mirror needed replacement. Alan currently has my 1© standard for recovering, my III (type F) for a partial repaint, recovering, RF rebuild and a new curtain and my 5cm Hektor for an internal clean. Peter at CRR who used to do my RF work has stopped taking new business for the time being, after the sad death of his wife last autumn and I am not sure if he will ever restart. 

 

Wilson

[M9reno]

I've been looking for a good CL over the past couple of weeks, and had two nice copies in my hands.  To answer your question, the viewfinder/rangefinder was clear and bright, certainly the equal in that respect to its nearest Leica relative, my M5, which has recently been looked after by Malcolm Taylor.  

 

The fact that the VF/RF is so nice is what leads to the following frustration: namely that I can't seem to find a CL with a properly working light meter.  Both of the above-mentioned CLs just could not get a decent, dependable reading.  Readings were at least two if not more stops wrong, bad outdoors and worse indoors, using fresh batteries.  I thought this might be a case of pay more, get more, but even a minty CL from a very reputable dealer has a light meter problem.  Argh!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[M9reno]

Oh, and I have an M4 as well, and see no major difference between the clarity of its the VF/RF and the CLs.

[pop]

.... using fresh batteries.  ...

Just to make sure: you do use batteries of the correct voltage, don't you?

[willeica]

I've been looking for a good CL over the past couple of weeks, and had two nice copies in my hands.  To answer your question, the viewfinder/rangefinder was clear and bright, certainly the equal in that respect to its nearest Leica relative, my M5, which has recently been looked after by Malcolm Taylor.  

 

The fact that the VF/RF is so nice is what leads to the following frustration: namely that I can't seem to find a CL with a properly working light meter.  Both of the above-mentioned CLs just could not get a decent, dependable reading.  Readings were at least two if not more stops wrong, bad outdoors and worse indoors, using fresh batteries.  I thought this might be a case of pay more, get more, but even a minty CL from a very reputable dealer has a light meter problem.  Argh!

 

My CL has a clear viewfinder/RF patch. You may be looking at CLs which have not been adapted to take modern batteries as the original ones were taken off the market due to safety concerns. My CL had been adapted to take modern batteries before I purchased it. You can also use Wein Cells as I did with my M5 which had not been so adapted. See http://macfilos.com/photo/2016/4/26/leica-m5-small-battery-company-wein-cell-battery-solutions?rq=Sarsfield

 

 

William

[M9reno]

Thanks, Philipp and William.  I tried the equivalent alkaline cell to the original, namely the V625U.  And I also have an MR-9 adapter for the silver oxide 386 cell.  See:

http://www.smallbattery.company.org.uk/sbc_px625.htm

 

Tried both, but neither resulted in readings that were even close to accurate.  I suppose I might have gotten two converted CLs, but I imagine that this would have been made known by the sellers, or even noted in the camera (e.g. on a sticker near the battery compartment or inside the bottom cover).

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The V625U delivers 1.5 Volts, while the original CL needs 1.35 Volts, according to its manual. Of course, it's perfectly possible for the old CdS-Cells to age and become inaccurate. Then, there's the small area of the image that is actually metered by the light meter. This can yield funny readings when comparing to a light meter which sees a wider angle. If the difference is consistent, you could compensate by selecting a different film speed.

[wlaidlaw]

I was lucky to get a CL, where if the RF is not all it might be, the meter works perfectly with a Small Battery Co PX625 replacer. I checked first with the PX625 replacer out of my MR-4 Leica meter and a bodged 1.5V alkaline cell, to find my CL had not been altered from the original 1.35V. An RF service is probably easier than a meter repair. 

 

I will take the CL to Protech, who are local for me, for a simple clean of the RF and get Kelvin to have a good look at the condition of the mirror to see if it needs replacing. It may just be dirty, especially if a previous owner has been a smoker. I trust Kelvin to clean the mirror without removing any of the half silvering. I have to take my Graflex Century over to him anyway, as the flash contacts on the Prontor shutter have died. I thought it was my Graflash and made the mistake of looking it, with a #25B bulb in it, when I accidentally shorted out the cable contacts. I was seeing a blue circle for the next hour. 

 

Wilson

[M9reno]

The V625U delivers 1.5 Volts, while the original CL needs 1.35 Volts, according to its manual. Of course, it's perfectly possible for the old CdS-Cells to age and become inaccurate. Then, there's the small area of the image that is actually metered by the light meter. This can yield funny readings when comparing to a light meter which sees a wider angle. If the difference is consistent, you could compensate by selecting a different film speed.

Indeed - the bottom-line problem on both meters was the temperamental and erratic nature of the readings.  There seemed to be no obvious way to compensate for the deviations.

Edited January 16, 2017 by M9reno

[jerzy]

VF in Ms has 2 cemented prisms, one of the cemented surfaces is coated as half mirror. Advantage is that half mirror will not be dusty or dirty, does not oxidise, disadvantage is that with older Ms it gets yellowish because of Canada balsam used for cementing.

CL VF has a half mirror, similar to LTMs. Although half mirror coating seem to be harder than in LTMs dust and dirt may residue on it,and thus producing weaker patch. Most probably cleaning will cure it and replacing half mirror will not be needed

[wlaidlaw]

Alan Starkie of Cameraworks has very kindly offered to send me two CL mirrors FOC. One is a reasonable condition salvage job, the other has been cut from bulk stock of the correct thickness half silvered glass. It is modern spluttered coating rather than the original vacuum deposition, so will last better. I suspect a previous owner was a heavy smoker as you can still smell tobacco on the camera. The innards of the RF may well be nicotine stained. My M4 had grown a full botanical garden in the Canada Balsam in the jointing of its two prisms, so it was like looking through a cottage window, with ivy growing all round it. It is lovely having back to the condition it was when I got it in 1967. 

[ph.]

Clear glass is one issue, measuring accuracy another. I assume you are aware of the effects of  measuring basis and enlargement as well as of the cam steepness of CL v\s M lenses. Leitz made a special point of the latter.

 

p.

[wlaidlaw]

Clear glass is one issue, measuring accuracy another. I assume you are aware of the effects of  measuring basis and enlargement as well as of the cam steepness of CL v\s M lenses. Leitz made a special point of the latter.

 

p.

 

According to Malcolm Taylor, the only Leica camera on which the CL lenses give a significant error is the M5, due to the way its RF roller interacts with the angle ground cam on the CL lenses. I cross checked my 40mm Summicron-C after it came back from a rebuild with Malcolm on my M240 (RF focus against optical with zoom on the EVF) and it was accurate at all distances. When Kelvin has my CL, if we change the RF mirror, I will get it collimated on his optical bench to make sure RF focus is correct. I mainly use my Summicron-C on my CL, so there would be no error. When I have used other M lenses, such as the 35 and 28 ASPH Summicrons and 50 ZM Planar on the CL, I have not had any problem with misfocus. 

[ph.]

Yes, many comments on the cam issue claim that Leitz only did this to avoid C lenses being bought instead of "proper" M optics. I have used the last non asph version summicron 50, and  a thin tele elmarit 90 on it, no problem.

 

p.