While the M cameras with the 0.72x viewfinder* have almost three times higher accuracy the CL rangefinder works fine for what it’s designed to do. The rangefinder window is placed closer to the viewfinder window resulting in lower accuracy. The big one is focus accuracy – the narrow width of the camera forced a reduction in size of the rangefinder. The small size of the camera also brought some necessary compromises. Two frame lines are always visible together, reinforcing the cluttered impression. The 50 and 90mm ones are alternating, one or the other always shown. Additionally the CL has fewer framelines than its larger cousins – only 40, 50 and 90mm framelines are available – limiting what lenses can be practically used on the camera. The viewfinder is also smaller and of lower magnification. The additional information displayed in the viewfinder compared to the earlier M:s makes for a bit of a cluttered view.
There are some trade offs with the design however. The shutter speed dial (note overlap of top plate), arm mounted CdS meter cell in front of the shutter curtain and a look through the viewfinder with the meter indicating proper exposure at 1/1000th. This combines to one of the most convenient control set ups for light metering and choice of shutter speed among the M-mount cameras. A through the lens spot meter is connected to a meter needle along the right edge in the viewfinder indicating proper exposure as well as under or over exposure and by how much.
#Bubble shooter arantius full
The chosen shutter speed is also conveniently indicated in the viewfinder – a indicator needle runs along a strip with the full set of speeds at the top edge of the finder. While small, the unconventional placement on the front plate makes the dial easy to turn with a fingertip, even with your eye to the finder. The first part of the puzzle is the shutter speed dial. This makes it one of the easiest M-cameras on which to set up good exposure. Fortunately those refinements were carried over to the CL as well. Most changes to the M5 compared to the earlier M cameras had to do with determining and setting exposure and shutter speed efficiently. Read my full reviews of the CL lenses – Summicron-C 40 / Elmar-C 90 The entire outfit could be brought everywhere without fuss. A matching tele lens was also offered – the Elmar-C 90/4, offering reach at a very low weight and size. Designated C for Compact the lens was not only tiny but also delivered excellent performance, living up to the Leica name. With the bundled Summicron-C 40/2 the camera was marginally larger than many compacts with comparable specifications. Smaller in every dimension than all other M mount cameras and at 365 grams it was close to half the weight of the M5. Its innovative design truly delivered on the promise of compactness. Produced by Minolta in a new Portugal factory, the CL could be sold at a very reasonable price. Offering almost everything the M5 did in a smaller, cheaper package it outsold the M5 two to one. Designed in conjunction with Minolta the Compact Leica was introduced in 1973. The only silver lining in this mess was the CL. The sales of the M5 was a disappointment, needing deep discounts to leave dealers shelves. While succeeding in its sophistication the resulting camera was as big and heavy as the SLR counterparts as well as very expensive. Their attempt at modernising the M line and offer one of the most sought after features at the time – through the lens light metering – was the M5. It had failed to take off and was before long sold at a loss (but still at twice the price of the Nikon F). Their own SLR effort – the Leicaflex SL – was widely regarded as far too expensive, heavy and not sophisticated enough. Leica had tried to counter the competition in a number of ways without succeeding. Everything at far lower prices than Leica’s cameras. The Nikon F was the main rival – offering more flexibility, a wider range of lenses as well as integrated metering. Facing stiff competition from Japanese SLR:s, sales were in steep decline. Looking beyond all that however, it offers a number of unique qualities and rare capabilities in its dignified family. Perhaps most bothersome to purist the camera wasn’t even built by Leica themselves. It’s not as pretty as its cousins and constructed more cheaply.
It has a less flexible viewfinder and the rangefinder is not as accurate. It’s easy to disregard the CL as an ugly duckling, as the odd one out in the almost majestic Leica M-mount family. Editorial Posted October, 2015 Leica CL – The ugly duckling
0 kommentar(er)
