Comparing Apple to Orange: CL vs R7

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Recently I picked a R4s with $70, but soon disappointed due to the ugly viewfinder. But my desire for a 35mm film camera is aroused.

Now I am considering a decent R7 and CL. Either will be limited to 1 or 2 lenses and will be accompanied by M240. Granted, R7 can be replaced by any other Rs, such as R6.But for now ignore that difference.

Were it R7, I will pair it to 35-70mm/f4 with 80-200/f4 as an optional lens.  Were it CL, i would pair it to 50mm Summicron with 90mm Elmarite as an optional lens. 

Yes, I understand this is not apple to apple, and "it depends on what I want to use it for".  Well, simple, I want it for fun. 

You comment? 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[mann61]

Hi, 

i have R4,R-E and R7 as well as a few R8s. The level of sophistication of the R7 can't be ignored however the electronics is dated and prone to failure. My one is fine on manual and aperture but will not work on programme or time. The R-E is simpler because it doesn't have programme mode.

With those two excellent lenses ( I have the 35-70/4) I would suggest the R8. The price of the R7 and R8 are roughly the same. The R8 is the finest Leica SLR along with the Leicaflex. The latter will not take those two beautiful lenses.

So I suggest a beautiful R8 rather than a Minolta based  R7.

just my suggestions 

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, mann61 said:

Hi, 

i have R4,R-E and R7 as well as a few R8s. The level of sophistication of the R7 can't be ignored however the electronics is dated and prone to failure. My one is fine on manual and aperture but will not work on programme or time. The R-E is simpler because it doesn't have programme mode.

With those two excellent lenses ( I have the 35-70/4) I would suggest the R8. The price of the R7 and R8 are roughly the same. The R8 is the finest Leica SLR along with the Leicaflex. The latter will not take those two beautiful lenses.

So I suggest a beautiful R8 rather than a Minolta based  R7.

just my suggestions 

I am not considering R8 and R9 due to the lack of repair/service. The older Rs are somewhat more maintainable. I appreciate you suggestions.

But my question is CL vs. R's.    

[mann61]

I really don't think that is necessary true. All R cameras,being old, are not really serviceable. I have 6 R8s and not had a problem with any of them. I bought my first one in 1998/9. The rest I've bought secondhand over the years from a reputable dealer in Germany. Such beautiful cameras so aesthetically pleasing.

DM

[earleygallery]

I don't think anyone here can tell you to choose between an  SLR or a CL rangefinder, very different and only you can decide what you prefer.

Why is your R4s viewfinder 'ugly' ?

[Einst_Stein]

5 hours ago, mann61 said:

I really don't think that is necessary true. All R cameras,being old, are not really serviceable. I have 6 R8s and not had a problem with any of them. I bought my first one in 1998/9. The rest I've bought secondhand over the years from a reputable dealer in Germany. Such beautiful cameras so aesthetically pleasing.

DM

How serviceable of R8, R9 or R7 can only judged according to the infos from the accessible Leica service experts. You may have different access source or different interpretation. I have perfect respect. This is not about opinion. I can only judge from my accessible resources. Ignoring the serviceability, I perfect agree R8/R9 are nicer in every way than R7 and the earlier version.

Due to these discussions, I am thinking maybe CL is a better choice, and better yet, maybe I should consider M3.

  

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, earleygallery said:

I don't think anyone here can tell you to choose between an  SLR or a CL rangefinder, very different and only you can decide what you prefer.

Why is your R4s viewfinder 'ugly' ?

I know someone would say this, but don't be so sure yet.

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by Einst_Stein

[Ko.Fe.]

IMO, CL and R are dead ends by now.

If I want to have fun with SLR, Canon EOS is fun. If I want RF fun it is Leica M, any.

This Saturday I walked with EOS 300 and M4-2.

 

R is for rudiment, sorry, comparing to EOS and CL is cut limited comparing to any M.

But people could have fun with something I wouldn't touch with ten feet pole

Edited March 24, 2019 by Ko.Fe.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, Ko.Fe. said:

IMO, CL and R are dead ends by now.

If I want to have fun with SLR, Canon EOS is fun. If I want RF fun it is Leica M, any.

This Saturday I walked with EOS 300 and M4-2.

 

R is for rudiment, sorry, comparing to EOS and CL is cut limited comparing to any M.

But people could have fun with something I wouldn't touch with ten feet pole

With a proper adapter， Canon EOS can take R lenses to do what Leica R can do, almost. 

To take Leica M lenses, it can be Leica CL, M, Bessa R2, Rollei 35RF or Zeiss ZM. CL is the cheapest and nice choice.   

  

[mann61]

I believe digital is boringly dull and therefore no fun at all. Do people want to play with computers? The most common sight in the urban landscape is people looking down at a smartphone. A digital camera may take good pictures. Then comes the post processing in front of another computer. The law of diminished returns.

Fun for me is the best Leica (R8) loaded with Rollei film and Stand developed in RO9. Such fun!

[MarkP]

Maybe an R6.2 which should still be serviceable for some time to come.

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, MarkP said:

Maybe an R6.2 which should still be serviceable for some time to come.

As far as I know, according to a Leica service expert, R6 or R6.2 is not necessary easier than R7. But it has the advantage that it’s electronic part does not affect the operation except the light meter.  From another source, the R6/R6.2 does not have lower failure rate than R7. It is really boiled down to which is more robust, more Complicated electronics or more complicated mechanics. I don’t think there is countable statistics on this matter, but I tend to think the difference in robustness and serviceability between the two are not as intuitive as I originally thought. 

I was told it is similar between Nikon FM2/FM and Nikon’s later electronic rich film cameras. 

 

 

[Einst_Stein]

4 hours ago, mann61 said:

I believe digital is boringly dull and therefore no fun at all. Do people want to play with computers? The most common sight in the urban landscape is people looking down at a smartphone. A digital camera may take good pictures. Then comes the post processing in front of another computer. The law of diminished returns.

Fun for me is the best Leica (R8) loaded with Rollei film and Stand developed in RO9. Such fun!

To say digital is boring is perhaps too much. I like digital more than film, but there is something in film that is irreplaceable by digital yet. 

[Ko.Fe.]

7 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

With a proper adapter， Canon EOS can take R lenses to do what Leica R can do, almost. 

To take Leica M lenses, it can be Leica CL, M, Bessa R2, Rollei 35RF or Zeiss ZM. CL is the cheapest and nice choice.   

  

 

CL is the camera which has limited service. All cameras you have listed have very limited if no service. Except M. 

 

Technically it is possible to adapt R lenses on EOS, but if no R lenses accomulated already, here is no reason to do this. IMO. For use.

Canon EOS is also single use film system now, but those where made in millions and cheap. Canon EF lenses works on digital EOS and R cameras. EF lenses have lower cost with more choice and many of them are still supported by Canon. Which has way better service than Leica. And many of those lenses are still used by professionals. R are more like collectible defunct now. As any manual focus SLR lenses. IMO.

[Ko.Fe.]

5 hours ago, mann61 said:

I believe digital is boringly dull and therefore no fun at all. Do people want to play with computers? The most common sight in the urban landscape is people looking down at a smartphone. A digital camera may take good pictures. Then comes the post processing in front of another computer. The law of diminished returns.

Fun for me is the best Leica (R8) loaded with Rollei film and Stand developed in RO9. Such fun!

If fun is your reason, then film is fun. For limited amount. Then you using film for photography, but not just to feel good in front of computer, posting at forums, it quickly becomes as no fun routine. 

And if you not printing in the darkroom, like some of us still do, here is no film photography, but computer scans.

 

The tale about PP is boring indeed. Many of us learned how to get image ready for print SOOC.

[pgk]

21 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Recently I picked a R4s with $70 ..... I want it for fun. 

You comment? 

At $70 its cheap enough to try and find out you didn't like it. I'd apply the same to any R or CL. Buy as cheap as you can, try and if you really like either then sell off what you have and buy as good a copy as you can find or have you existing one fully CLA'd whilst its still possible. Equipment can and does fail but if we all worried about 'what ifs' then life would be no fun at all, let alone cameras.

Edited March 24, 2019 by pgk

[tom0511]

The Cl can take all your M lenses and your M 240 can take  the CL lenses (are we talking about film CL?).

The CL is a compact film M with a little more electronics.

My vote goes for the CL.

[Einst_Stein]

47 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

 

CL is the camera which has limited service. All cameras you have listed have very limited if no service. Except M. 

 

Technically it is possible to adapt R lenses on EOS, but if no R lenses accomulated already, here is no reason to do this. IMO. For use.

Canon EOS is also single use film system now, but those where made in millions and cheap. Canon EF lenses works on digital EOS and R cameras. EF lenses have lower cost with more choice and many of them are still supported by Canon. Which has way better service than Leica. And many of those lenses are still used by professionals. R are more like collectible defunct now. As any manual focus SLR lenses. IMO.

Of course it is to use Leica glass. Same glasses for Leica digital. Canon glass is not considered.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jmahto]

On 3/23/2019 at 11:06 AM, Einst_Stein said:

Recently I picked a R4s with $70, but soon disappointed due to the ugly viewfinder. But my desire for a 35mm film camera is aroused.

Now I am considering a decent R7 and CL. Either will be limited to 1 or 2 lenses and will be accompanied by M240. Granted, R7 can be replaced by any other Rs, such as R6.But for now ignore that difference.

Were it R7, I will pair it to 35-70mm/f4 with 80-200/f4 as an optional lens.  Were it CL, i would pair it to 50mm Summicron with 90mm Elmarite as an optional lens. 

Yes, I understand this is not apple to apple, and "it depends on what I want to use it for".  Well, simple, I want it for fun. 

You comment? 

 

When I wanted to get back to film again (used Konica film in 90s) along with my digital M, then I went through similar thought process.... Not to bore you with details, I skipped R due to maintenance worries, skipped CL due to dated electronics,  got Nikon FM2, had some fun, then was drawn to M2 (and IIIc). Now I treat my M2 and M240 as film and digital back to my M lenses. If I get bored with RF then I pick up FM2 or my old Konica. Any working film camera will do.

[Einst_Stein]

Thanks for all the advise. It is clear enough to me I should only consider Leica M so that I can use the same lenses for digital and films.

Due to the price, I might get a CL for now. I think the cost is about 1/4 of an M. The worst scenario is the bad reliability. If it did happen and I still want a film camera, I will get an M3 or so.

Thanks again everyone.