I have a Leica CL (NOT Minolta) which I purchased new just before they
went with that other company. Yes the lightmeter is on a winging arm
located dead center in front of the film. I didn't get this camera for
the body, it was for the lens. I traded a Rolli 35 in on it and the
Rolli had a roll of film in it with about half of the shots taken so I
rewound it and left the tail out of the cartridge. I then loaded this
roll of film into the CL and later took the remainder of the shots.
When I received the film back from processing, the difference between
the Rolli lens and the Summicron was like the difference between driving
at night with the old style incandesent headlights on the car vs the new
halogen headlights. I know that the Rolli lens wasn't a great lens, but
it was a good lens. By the way, the CL is another camera that uses the
hated mercurey cell. Other drawbacks are where said cell is located
inside the camera and that the back and bottom shell come off as a
seperate piece to change film and change the battery (ie - no changing
during midroll). Mine is in mint- condition with maybe 10-15 rolls thru
it for the simple reasons that it is too expensive to carry and most of
all, it's not fun to use.
<><<><><><><><><>><>><><
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> "When the Leitz/Minolta CL had been out for a few years, you couldn't
<><><> snip <><><>
> The CL was distinctive on two counts. First, it had interchangeable
> lenses. This made it attractive to people who wanted a small, versatile
> RF camera but couldn't afford an M Leica.
>
> Second, it was the first Leica RF with a behind-the-lens meter. (I
> _think_... Someone correct me if I'm wrong. But I don't think the M5 had
> shown up at that point.) The meter was literally behind the lens, on a
> little arm. It took a spot reading of the central area of the scene. You
> had to make sure you didn't accidentally point the camera at the Sun for
> an extended period.
>
> Was the CL a "good" camera -- well-designed and sturdy, with good
> lenses? I don't know. Is it worth $1000 used? I don't know. But it was
> definitely _not_ a cheap P&S camera.
>
<><><> snip <><><>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|