Thoughts on Minolta CLE

[bideford]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After admiring the CLE for a while I found myself in a position where it was impossible to pass on a very clean CLE and 40mm Rokkor at a very reasonable price.

 

So before I comment further is the so called "b****** son of Leica" welcome here?

 

Thought I better ask........

 

James

[Bateleur]

Its a bit quiet ... but I'll take the risk ...

 

I think so for as an admirer of the CL which has been a faithful companion, the CLE and its own 40mm owes it legacy to Leitz and is a worthy subject on this forum.

 

Personally I'm interested in your experiences :-)

 

Regards

Charles

[MarkP]

Such a shame that Leica didn't develop the CL into a mini M7 as did Minolta (with that nice set of three lenses :28/40/90).

 

I bought a very nice Leica CL (out of Leica snobbery) and a very nice camera it is.

I probably should have bought a Minolta CLE.

[TomB_tx]

Puts' Leica Chronicle notes that Leica engineers said they provided sketches and concept for the CLE to Minolta.

[bideford]

I was starting to wonder if I had just pointed to the elephant in the room....

 

I only got the 40mm M Rokker with the CLE (so cannot comment on the kit 28/90mm lenses) but it is a fine piece of glass - small/light and very reasonably sharp even wide open. Only tested quickly on my M but initial looks also confirm its sharpness (again wide open).

 

In every respect it is a baby M7 - simply lacking a meter in manual mode. Having run off a number of rolls, B&W (400 and 400 pushed one stop) and colour (200/400) the meter is also pretty damn good in most situations.

 

Only tried a 90mm TE and a 21mm CV but both lenses performed well - even focusing the 90mm with the smaller rangefinder base/window was not as difficult as I expected.

 

 

So with an M and M6 and why did I get the CLE? I travel a bit with work, frequently on the train, and I wanted a smaller (and frankly cheaper) camera. I tried an X100 - a fantastic camera, and one I use often for long exposures with its fixed lens (and therefore clean sensor) - but somehow it simply did not work for me (maybe I'm too used to a rangefinder now). For while I used an Olympus 35RC - again a lovely camera but then I was tempted by the CLE....

 

The 40mm M Rokkor on the CLE is a brilliant package. Almost an M but at sub £400 (lens included!) quite a revelation!

 

So is the CLE and either kit M Rokkor lens of sufficient Leica pedigree to post here or is it only allowed with a Leica lens attached or alternatively the M Rokker on a Leica....?

 

James

[MarkP]

Well there are posts here with made-for-Leica and Leica-badged Minolta, Kyocera and Angeneux equipment so I don't see why we can't post with Lieca-designed and Minolta-badged equipment.

 

Any moderators keen to comment?

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that the CL and 40 Summicron (with 400 ISO B&W) is indeed such a nice little combo to wander around with.

[gberger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My wife had one for several years. Yeah, a mini M7; however, she wanted the real thing (M7), so the CLE went to KEH.

[Jaybob]

Initially, I was a fan of the CLE/28 Rokkor combo I had. In the end I prefer the heft of an M6 for metered shooting and the 35 and 50mm focal lengths.

 

The 28 Rokkor lens was just ok.

[timde]

Film Forum might be better?

 

I've been using one for the past few months, with a 28 Elmarit and a Voigtlander 40mm. The Leica lens is significantly better, but the Voigtlander has some character that is sometimes welcome and sometimes not. Also works well with 90 Elmarit (mid 2000 version) but more difficult to focus - my eyes are part of that problem, the other is the VF is a fraction out vertically which makes getting exact focus difficult for that lens.

[colonel]

How often do the rangefinders go off on these things and are they easy to adjust ?

Is the answer the same as any M6 ?

[TomB_tx]

How often do the rangefinders go off on these things and are they easy to adjust ?

Is the answer the same as any M6 ?

I've used my CL since the early 80s, carrying it backpacking and bouncing in bicycle handlebar bag. The rangefinder has never needed adjustment.

However, with the shorter RF base length it is not as precise focusing as a normal M model; hence Leica's use of 40mm f2.0 and 90mm f4.0 as standard lenses.

[Krusty]

Was there a successor to the Minolta CLE or was this the last M mount camera from Minolta?

[a.noctilux]

Was there a successor to the Minolta CLE or was this the last M mount camera from Minolta?

 

Sadly enough that CLE was the last M mount Minolta.

 

...If we don't admit Konica Hexar RF which is a kind of "bigger/motorised/more M size/larger base RF CLE".

Konica became part of Minolta/Sony later on, after Hexar RF.

[Einst_Stein]

The focus accuracy is lower than M. That will eat up the sharpness. I have read frome some where the lost is about half of what the lens is capable when Shoot after bokeh. Long depth of focus shots are less affected.