Godfrey
Well-known member
The sad part about the CL was that it was very very popular, but Leica lost money on every one they sold due to the amount of OEM rework they had to do and the warranty costs. They can't afford to make another CL on that front ...Exactly! What we both expressed (and I'm sure many others have too) would make a lower prcied alternative interesting. Not just a striped down version of an already exising camera but a new entry level camera that takes interchangeable M lenses ala Leica CL, Ricoh GXR, X2, that has it's own little feature set but clearly being cost effective for both lecia and the consumer is bult into the equation. No one doubted at the time of the CL, that it was clearly a budget made and priced alternative to the Leica M bodies at the time but at the same time, wasn't just a stripped down M4 or whatever M body was the standard at the time.
The CL came out in 1973, following the M5 (1971, which replaced the M4). The biggest thing the CL was lacking compared to the M4 and M5 was the rangefinder baseline. So, to Leica standards, the faster 90mm and the 135mm focal length lenses were no-go on it ... not enough rangefinder accuracy to meet Leica's criteria. The viewfinder was simpler too, with just 40, 50 and 90 framelines. The body was outsourced to Minolta for manufacture, and that's where all the issues came in—because Minolta didn't really grok Leica quality standards and customer demand for quality.
But it is a charming camera nonetheless. I'm happy to have another one again. A digital CL would be superb.