This Old Camera: Leica CL 50 JAHRE

Updated: First two test rolls scanned and notes are provided below in italics based on the results.

This is a first thoughts post and I have a lot of them.

Recently went on a 7Artisans M mount bender (exhibits A, B, and C). I like them all so much that, as much as I tried to fight it, I was drawn to purchase an M mount film body again. (Makes no sense, but if you are looking for photography to make sense you are likely not doing it right.) After much obsessive research, I settled on trying out a Leica CL.

It is very early in my ownership yet, but I now realize I have not been listening to the right voices with regards to the Leica CL. And not the voices in my head mind you. I always agree with the voices in my head.

But those other voices… The internets will let you down sometimes. Took a moment for me to realize that the shortcomings listed by the internets did not apply to me.

Short rangefinder base length does not focus apertures wider than f/2 and lenses longer than 90mm well. But…
- I do not enjoy focusing at 90mm given the tiny bit of rangefinder real estate available to frame with in the middle so a longer lens than that will not happen.
- The main lens I intend to use with it is an f/2. Plus it is easy enough to close any other lens down to f/2.
- The Bessa R2 (first shot below) I had has this same narrow base length issue and I never had a problem focusing the 7Artisans 50mm f/1.1 with that. In real-world use this is not an issue. The Leica CL (second shot below) focused the same lens at f/1.1 without issue.

Not built as well as a proper M.
- What is?
- It is built a far sight better than the Voigtlander Bessa R2 I had. Considered it to put behind my 7Artisans lenses, but gave it back two frames into a return trial run once I remembered how “squishy” it felt in hand. Pretty to look at though.
- My CL example feels like a small monoblock brick compared to most any other camera I own. My fairly new A7III already has corner scuffs while this camera from 1975 does not have a single one.
- The consensus of my photo nerd grouping is that the Leica CL is built just fine. Better than any of us expected.
Some M lenses will not work on it.
- Um. Don’t buy those.
Was built in Japan, not Germany.
- I use Russian cameras.
Some say it is fragile and if the camera breaks it may not be repairable.
- I use Russian cameras.
- Time will tell, but this camera feels robust in hand and not at all fragile.
Viewfinder not as good as a proper M.
- What is?
- I use Russian cameras.
- The photo nerd grouping approves of the viewfinder.

And it does not stop there. Leica M adherents look away now. Nothing to see here.

Because… (Swivels head around checking for Leica M adherents within earshot.) Psst… I really like the Leica CL. I mean a lot. Come closer… So far more than the.. (Checks over shoulder again.) …the M3 I had. And I really liked that camera. Could say I loved the M3. Why did I sell it, then? Fair question. My inner ~~cheapskate~~ budget-minded self (one of the voices) has great issues. That voice views a camera body as a shutter equipped light-proof appliance to hold a lens the proper distance from the film plane. It does not give one whit about heritage and could not make sense of a non-internal-metered 35mm body for such a princely sum. (Easily swooned by non-metered medium format bodies, however.) All the poetic “look and feel” prose in the world offered will not sway it. After the Leitz M pixie dust fog cleared I agreed.

But there’s more. The CL has perks in my book.

I really like the vertical shutter dial orientation. Works great with the in viewfinder shutter indicator. The Bessa R2’s dial was more awkward and had no readout in viewfinder.

Shares a near-silent cloth shutter with the M rather than the metal thwack of the metal shuttered Bessa.
1/1000s shutter speed like the M and Bessa.
In viewfinder meter readout is great. Good old needle readout. And so far the “upside-down” underexposed up/overexposed down has not been an issue for me. Took a few minutes, but I have adjusted. I did like the Leica Meter on the M3, but still prefer metering in the viewfinder. I prefer a needle to the three lights in the Bessa R2.
The way the meter is turned on by pulling out the winder slightly is a nice touch. Much preferred over the Bessa R2 light shutter press method
Has a mechanical shutter so if the meter ever packs it in you are still good to go.
Small. Quite small and tidy with the 7Artisans 35mm f/2 attached. An M3 is not large, but with the Leicameter attached it was not what one would call small either. A good looking rig, however.

Bottom and back of the camera come off for easy film loading.
I find this camera to be quite the looker.

Can technically still say I own a Leica. I am not completely immune to Leitz pixie dust.
Now for the big one. This camera costs far less than what I paid for my M3 and M3s cost even more now. Less than half of what a clean, fully functional M5 goes for. Costs less than a quarter (almost a fifth) of what a clean M6 goes for.

Yahtzee. Jenga. So on and so forth.

Now, look. I have nothing against Leica M bodies. Just wished they cost less, but that is not reality. If you have got it like that then like Zero Mostel said in the (original and only one I acknowledge) Producers, “…baby when you’ve got it! Flaunt it! Flaunt it!”

I sincerely mean that. If I had it like that I would do the same… Maybe. I really love a good deal. Bang for buck is my first consideration always. I am a guy that could technically pay more for a vehicle but takes great delight in daily driving a Trooper surplus Charger bought for peanuts.

Would rather it over any fancy pants and reasonably priced civilian variant or other escalating aspirational four-wheeled conveyances. My Dadmobile is more than good enough for the task at hand and looks good doing it. The same applies here.

Samples from the first two test rolls.