Jump to content

Officially announced: discontinued!


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am happily using Leica CL as well as my other M bodies

I think everyone saw this announcement coming at some point, but I used it only with my M lenses, I personally would never buy expensive or not expensive APS-C lenses especially with proprietary mount and electronic components, I just simply do not see the the point.

I will still extensively use my CL, its small efficient and has a lot of usability in my workflow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, lct said:

Firmware updates would be due if there is a bug to fix but adding new features for free can only depend on the good will of Leica.

It would be a nice gesture and it would cost them pennies. Low risk/cost, high reward, in terms of public image. 

The core firmware has already been released for Q, M and SL bodies, they just have to fine tune it to the CL specifics and do some testing to make sure it doesn't break anything else. With that I mean it won't take them a year of work, because 80-90% of the job has been done, but a few weeks. 

Edited by Simone_DF
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jev said:

I am happily using Leica CL as well as my other M bodies

I think everyone saw this announcement coming at some point, but I used it only with my M lenses, I personally would never buy expensive or not expensive APS-C lenses especially with proprietary mount and electronic components, I just simply do not see the the point.

I will still extensively use my CL, its small efficient and has a lot of usability in my workflow.

I agree when it comes to primes, but the zoom lenses are very useful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, hdmesa said:

"Another six years of comprehensive customer care" sounds like a six-year Passport Warranty added onto to the existing warranty and having nothing to do with an end date to serviceability.

That sounds rather nice and one might wish it to be a correct interpretation. But wouldn't this be announced. with rather more fanfare? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

That sounds rather nice and one might wish it to be a correct interpretation. But wouldn't this be announced. with rather more fanfare? 

 

It's hard to know since it's a translation that may or may not have gotten the nuance of the original statement right. I'm sure we'll hear something from Leica soon.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

They'll guarantee serviceability for the next six years. What else could they mean? They're not going to grant an extended warranty to existing customers, and there won't be new customers for very long. We can get solid clarification by asking Leica directly but I suspect that they'll elaborate with this same statement. "We'll be able to fix it until 2028 but what happens beyond that comes without guarantees."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You are dreaming. 
Comprehensive customer care is totally different to comprehensive warranty!!! 
Repairs won’t be free ! 
 

Your CL will be entitled to paid repairs 6 years after purchase date. 
Under the 2 years warranty it will be free though. 
 

Edited by nicci78
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not sure why repairs should be free for more than 2 or 3 years Leica warranty, unless this is another Reward For Staying On Gift i mean :D. However, this grumpy old lawyer considers the Leica statement unclear about what support CL/TL users are entitled to expect. It is not an official statement though if i understand well so wait and see what Leica will explain finally.

Edited by lct
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lct said:

Not sure why repairs should be free for more than 2 or 3 years Leica warranty, unless this is another Reward For Staying On Gift i mean :D. However, this grumpy old lawyer considers the Leica statement unclear about what support CL/TL users are entitled to expect. It is not an official statement though if i understand well so wait and see what Leica will explain finally.

And if a lawyer considers their statement "unclear," well, that's exactly the way Leica wants it to be.  As for what Leica "will explain finally," I don't need a crystal ball to predict:  nothing.

I've already decided that if either of my CL bodies becomes unusable, I'll figuratively (for the pedants) bury it with honors.  No way will I pay LCAP's intake fee (which is currently similarly "unclear") only to be told that actual repair would cost more than the camera's residual worth.

Use of the CL and lenses makes me still a Leica shooter, but my time as a Leica customer is also "discontinued."  Permanently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will use my CL for as long as it lasts. It has served me well and will serve me well for some more years I hope.

My hope is that an L-alliance member (or a new one) will offer a new body sometime in the future. I would like to continue using the excellent lenses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, pop said:

I still think it's not a statement by Leica at all. It fails to meet so many requirements for any kind of correspondence, even internal memos, that I maintain my doubts. Mere amphigory.

Hard to believe that this statement has been checked by lawyers anyway as its wording is amateurish at best. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2022 at 7:06 PM, ramarren said:

The Leica CL film camera was a wonderful design and an extremely popular model. They certainly didn't want to discontinue it when they did ... BUT, that camera was a collaboration with Minolta. And Minolta did not meet spec on so many cameras, needing rework before even being packaged, that selling the CL amounted to shipping about $40 per camera out of the company. No company can survive that for long, they were losing money on it hand over fist and had to pull the plug. 

Minolta customers weren't as picky as Leica customers on the quality control, evidently, and Minolta negotiated to continue using the CL name as derivative on the CLE model ... which had no Leica DNA in it at all. It was a design based on the Minolta XG SLR (IIRC) in large part, it just resembled the orignal CL. The CLE was a very advanced design for its day, and pretty expensive; it had a number of flaws (just like any other camera, really) and a relatively limited run (supposedly somewhere around 34,000 units total produced according to Steve Gandy @ CameraQuest.com). I think they were made for almost as short a period as the original CL (2-4 years max). 

The modern digital CL has been on the market since 2017, so it outlived the production lifespan of both the CL and CLE models. I wonder what the total number of units sold is. I suspect units will prove to be significantly longer lived without service than either the original CL or the CLE models, both of which didn't have the greatest reputation for reliability.

Personally, I loved the film CL and had three of them over the course of years, and made many photographs with them. The CLE never appealed to me much ... Too much electronics for my comfort in its day. 

G

Interesting. But it's not the Minolta I remember from those days. Minolta cameras, as I recall, were well regarded and good sellers. Besides the CL, I extensively used the twin lens reflex Minolta Autocord and it was a quality, reliable, sturdy camera. I had a friend who used a Minolta 35mm SLR and loved it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RSH-Photo said:

Interesting. But it's not the Minolta I remember from those days. Minolta cameras, as I recall, were well regarded and good sellers. Besides the CL, I extensively used the twin lens reflex Minolta Autocord and it was a quality, reliable, sturdy camera. I had a friend who used a Minolta 35mm SLR and loved it. 

+1. the SRT 101was superb too. Minolta was so well regarded that all Leica R bodies had a Minolta base from the R3 to the R7. Let alone the gorgeous little lenses of the Minolta CLE that are still among the best as far as Rokkor 40/2 and 90/4 are concerned. The Rokkor 28/2.8 was very good too but most if not all its copies suffered from Schneideritis with no documented effect on IQ though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RSH-Photo said:

Interesting. But it's not the Minolta I remember from those days. Minolta cameras, as I recall, were well regarded and good sellers. Besides the CL, I extensively used the twin lens reflex Minolta Autocord and it was a quality, reliable, sturdy camera. I had a friend who used a Minolta 35mm SLR and loved it. 

 

4 hours ago, lct said:

+1. the SRT 101was superb too. Minolta was so well regarded that all Leica R bodies had a Minolta base from the R3 to the R7. Let alone the gorgeous little lenses of the Minolta CLE that are still among the best as far as Rokkor 40/2 and 90/4 are concerned. The Rokkor 28/2.8 was very good too but most if not all its copies suffered from Schneideritis with no documented effect on IQ though.

Some of my classmates had the SRT-101 as well, they were excellent cameras. They predated the XG from which the CLE was derived by almost a decade; the SRT-101 was much like the Nikon FM ... A completely mechanical camera with a match-needle TTL meter. Tough and robust. The CLE and the XG series bodies  from which it was derived were more electronic and those were relatively early days for electronics-dependent cameras. 

I had Minolta gear for a while too ... I had a complete XD-11 system in the late '70s. There was never anything wrong with Minolta lenses and the XD-11 was a very advanced body for its day. 

When I say "Minolta customers weren't as picky as Leica customers on the quality control, evidently" what I mean isn't that there was anything wrong with Minolta quality control, but Minolta's standards for finish and robustness simply weren't the same as Leica's at the time. Leica did a good thing by moving to the Minolta SLR chassis for the R3 through R7 as the MInolta XK and shutter were very high quality and the way that the Leica-Minolta arrangement worked was improved from the CL relationship days. IIRC, Minolta delivered complete chassis/shutter assemblies to Leica, which were then finished and inspected by Leica. They were much more modular construction and much more serviceable than the Leicaflex series. The Leicaflex series were built the time-expensive, old fashioned way and prove (according to every photo equipment tech I've ever talked to) to be very labor intensive to service as a result. R series cameras are much more modern in design.

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I just did graduation weekend with an SL2, an M10M and the CL. The CL and TL lenses got a lot of use at the parties and gatherings where a big honking SL2 with a 24-90 is just too much. Big honking SL2 got used at the ceremonies. Used the 55-135 on the SL2 for the long shots. M10M was my seeing in the dark camera.

I left my M11 at home because I wanted the autofocus capability since this was a lot of people pix.

I remain thoroughly satisfied, dare I say impressed by the TL lenses for their size and quality whether used on SL2 or the CL. I'm keeping them. 

When the CL dies there will likely be something like Sigma FPL or something like it to take its place.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't experimented with my TL lenses on my SL yet, but adding the TL 35 Summilux and 11-23 zoom to my 24-90 SL zoom and Elmarit-R 180/2.8 (and converter), gives me effective focal lengths of 16mm to 306mm.  A useful system ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ramarren said:

 

Some of my classmates had the SRT-101 as well, they were excellent cameras. They predated the XG from which the CLE was derived by almost a decade; the SRT-101 was much like the Nikon FM ... A completely mechanical camera with a match-needle TTL meter. Tough and robust. The CLE and the XG series bodies  from which it was derived were more electronic and those were relatively early days for electronics-dependent cameras. 

I had Minolta gear for a while too ... I had a complete XD-11 system in the late '70s. There was never anything wrong with Minolta lenses and the XD-11 was a very advanced body for its day. 

When I say "Minolta customers weren't as picky as Leica customers on the quality control, evidently" what I mean isn't that there was anything wrong with Minolta quality control, but Minolta's standards for finish and robustness simply weren't the same as Leica's at the time. Leica did a good thing by moving to the Minolta SLR chassis for the R3 through R7 as the MInolta XK and shutter were very high quality and the way that the Leica-Minolta arrangement worked was improved from the CL relationship days. IIRC, Minolta delivered complete chassis/shutter assemblies to Leica, which were then finished and inspected by Leica. They were much more modular construction and much more serviceable than the Leicaflex series. The Leicaflex series were built the time-expensive, old fashioned way and prove (according to every photo equipment tech I've ever talked to) to be very labor intensive to service as a result. R series cameras are much more modern in design.

G

Except the R8 and R9 which. are so over-engineered that they are very hard to service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...