Leica CL or Minolta CLE? A hands-on comparison

A guest post by Peter Becker, who owns and uses both cameras himself. The basics of the rangefinder are covered in the last chapter. Cover photo: on the left the Leica CL with Summicron-C 40 mm, on the right the Minolta CLE with Voigtländer Nokton Classic 40 mm. Photo: Peter Becker

A question that not only I have asked myself again and again. And it can't be answered definitively. That's why I own both cameras. I even have two of the Minolta CLE. That makes it easier to always have the right film loaded, depending on the task.

At some point I'll buy a second Leica CL.

But in my opinion, which is the better tool? Which one do I prefer? I'll leave that open here. But everyone can decide for themselves, based on their own priorities when photographing and their own tolerance for suffering, with the help of my description.

And a decision needs differences. That's what this is about here.

Let's get started...

Contents

1. The viewfinder gives this camera class its name
2. The Minolta's metering system
3. The Leica's metering
4. Similarities
5. Which battery the two need
6. Which camera I use when
7. What counts when buying used
8. How a rangefinder works

1. The viewfinder gives this camera class its name

Originally, the Leica M6 was my working tool. It's also a rangefinder camera.

Why no more Leica M6? I wear glasses and can't get close enough to the viewfinder with the M6, because I needed a screw-on diopter correction for it. Whatever the reason... I don't have this problem with either the CLE or the CL. I can see the focus patch sharply enough. That's why I first traded one M6 for two Minolta CLE. I later sold the second Leica M6 as well.

Since we're on the topic of the viewfinder, let's take a closer look at the viewfinders of the two candidates.

The focus patch in the middle is roughly the same for both. On some cameras it has too little contrast, which has to do with a loss of quality in the rangefinder optics. After all, these cameras are around 40–50 years old. Servicing the camera can improve this.

Then there are also frame lines, which are displayed depending on the lens. This is an important point that also sets both cameras apart significantly from the Leica M6. That's because both cameras have fewer lines than the M6. The Leica CL has frames for 40, 50 and 90 mm. The Minolta has 28, 40 and 90 mm, which also corresponds to the lenses that could be ordered with the Minolta (Rokkor).

This is where you already notice a big difference, because the always identical visible image has to be larger on the Minolta (image field of 28 mm plus a bit). If you like to shoot wide angle, you'll be happy. If you prefer to shoot with 40 mm, 50 mm, or 90 mm, the CLE has the disadvantage that the frame is smaller within the overall field of view. The 90 mm square in particular gets uncomfortably small.

Rangefinder cameras are mostly suited for landscapes, street, or close-up portraits anyway. The ideal focal length for everyday shooting is 40 mm on both cameras. The owner of a Leica CL is happy because they also have the 50 mm frame. Of course you can also mount a 50 mm lens on the Minolta, but then you have to imagine the frame yourself.

But that's not too bad, because users of these cameras are usually more tolerant of hardship than other photographers anyway.

In principle you can attach anything with an M mount to either camera. You either imagine the frame or use a suitable clip-on viewfinder.

With the Leica there are limitations with certain lenses, because some lenses can hit the metering cell. For example, you can collapse the old Elmars, which can then damage the metering cell. You can help yourself by sticking a strip of tape around the barrel, which limits how far it can be pushed in.

The Minolta also has limitations with certain lenses. If they protrude too far into the body (e.g. with the Jupiter 12), the metering cell gets partially shaded, which leads to overexposure. In that case, manual metering is required.

That was a lot of text just about the frames.

But there's more to find in the viewfinder, and that's where the cameras diverge completely.

Let's start with the Leica CL. Besides the frames and the focus spot, there's the light meter needle on the right side. It's simple and systematic. In the middle of the area where the needle moves, there's a rectangular notch. When the light meter is switched on (camera cocked and the wind lever slightly flipped out), there's only one task: bring the needle roughly into the gap.

That's it, clear and simple. More on that under the topic of light metering.

In the upper area of the viewfinder there's a bar showing the shutter speeds. The set speed is marked with a red bar.

There's nothing more to see in the Leica's viewfinder.

The viewfinder can be viewed excellently while wearing glasses.

Viewfinder of the Leica CL, simplified: at the top the speed scale with the set speed, on the right the light meter needle with the notch, plus the frames for 40 and 50 mm. Drawing: Ausgeknipst, based on the original manual

Now for the Minolta...

Besides the frames and the metering spot, there's just a bar with the speeds on the far left. The speed chosen by the camera is marked with small LEDs. Not great to see if you wear glasses, but it works.

Viewfinder of the Minolta CLE, simplified: on the left the speed display, a light dot marks the chosen speed, plus the frames for 28, 40 and 90 mm. Drawing: Ausgeknipst, based on the original manual

That's all there is to the viewfinder.

2. The Minolta's metering system

Here the cameras differ even more than with the viewfinder. While the Leica is always operated fully manually, the Minolta has aperture priority. You choose the aperture and the ISO, and the camera sets a matching shutter speed (from 1 to 1/1000 second).

So actually ideal...

Unfortunately, Minolta forgot to give the camera a proper manual mode, so that you could make a manual setting using a light meter needle (like on the Leica) or something similar.

You can only take a reading beforehand with the automatic mode, read off the shutter speed, and then set it manually. In tricky lighting situations, this can be necessary. In automatic mode, you can also use the dial to correct the exposure by ±2 stops. And you have to correct it every time there are strong differences in brightness in the image and these make up a significant portion of the important part of the frame.

When the proportions are balanced, the Minolta works perfectly. For shots taken in the evening on the street with streetlights or lit windows in the frame, the images come out slightly underexposed.

But 90% of the time, you can rely on the automatic mode. The metering is center-weighted, with the lower half of the frame counting slightly more. If the battery is dead or the electronics are faulty, the Minolta no longer works.

3. The Leica's metering

That works completely differently. This is already shown by the technology with the metering cell. This cell sits on an arm that swings in front of the shutter curtain when the shutter is cocked, and disappears in a flash when you release the shutter, before the shutter opens.

This already indicates that the Leica meters selectively, meaning only a small circle in the center of the frame. If the scene is evenly lit, this works just as well as in tricky light, because you simply meter selectively at the spot where you need the correct exposure.

You simply turn the aperture or shutter speed until the needle is in the center. Then you check the other spots in the scene and see how much they deviate. Thanks to the needle, you can wonderfully estimate how far off it is from optimal. Better than the LED stuff on the Leica M6.

What's especially helpful here is that you constantly see the set shutter speed in the viewfinder (from 1/2 to 1/1000 second). The dial positioned right next to the shutter release is the most brilliant part of the CL.

Hats off to the developers!

Overall, I like the CL's metering system better than the Minolta's.

Because the CL has, so to speak, a built-in exposure lock: once I've metered an area and set the camera, I can freely change the direction I'm pointing the camera. The values don't change without my doing anything.

The Minolta CLE doesn't have this. I can't lock the reading in automatic mode, and the actual exposure is even continuously metered directly off the film after the shutter is released, until the required amount of light is reached.

Another difference between the cameras:

If the battery in the Leica CL is dead (can only be changed with the film compartment open!) or the electronics are faulty, you can keep shooting without any problem. In that case, you estimate the exposure or use a handheld light meter.

4. Similarities

Now I'll move on to the things where the two cameras differ very little.

When it comes to loading film, the Minolta is more modern, as it has a hinged back door. The film has to be threaded exactly like on the Leica. The Leica CL has a removable back, so the camera dangles from one side of the strap and the back from the other.

The two cameras from behind. Photo: Peter Becker

That's why I make sure to change the film on the Leica while sitting or resting it on some surface. You also have to open and close the pressure plate. But none of this is rocket science. I would have preferred the M6's system here. With that one, I could even change films in very low light.

With both cameras, after loading the film you should wind on and release the shutter once, then rewind the film slightly until you feel resistance, and afterwards check whether the rewind crank turns as you wind on. This prevents blank films after developing.

Another thing the two candidates have in common is the body shape. Size, shape and weight are similarly pleasant. The same goes for the genuinely lovely feel in the hand, almost sexy. Although the Leica has a bit more of that.

From above: the Leica CL on the left, the Minolta CLE on the right. Photo: Peter Becker

Still, they're both little masterpieces of engineering that you love picking up just for the feel of it. They exude the charm that almost all rangefinder cameras share. With both, you can feel the high-quality build.

When I have one with me in the city, people approach me with curiosity more often than with any other camera.

We've covered the most important part...

5. Which battery the two need

The Leica is the older of the two, from a time when 1.35 V mercury batteries were the ultimate solution. Those no longer exist. So you have three options: either you get a service done at some point and have the light meter converted to modern 1.5 V batteries. Or you invest a few euros and buy a Varta rechargeable battery with USB charger from Ausgeknipst.

Disclaimer: We sell some of the products that appear here. Even so, the article is meant first and foremost as help and not as a sales pitch.

I'm very happy with that solution. With my CL, I then have to set the sensitivity a bit higher. The last option is a handheld light meter. But that would be a shame, because the Leica's metering is better, faster and more accurate.

The Minolta runs on standard 1.5 V cells. Sometimes there are contact problems at the on/off switch or the shutter speed dial. So far, switching it on and off a few times or turning the dial back and forth has always been enough to bring the thing back to life. Dust or oxidation...

6. Which camera I use when

Finally, I'll try to describe in which situations I prefer which camera.

For me, both belong to the always-with-me cameras, and for both the 40 mm is really the right compromise for street photography, for found subjects, incidental views, or even landscapes to some extent. Even portraits work well with it.

In normal light, the two cameras are evenly matched, but the CLE is clearly faster. Especially as a quick street shooter. If I set the distance to 5 m and the aperture to 5.6 or 8, I'm unbeatably fast for street, sports, or kids playing.

Once evening comes and streetlights, car headlights, motion, or large dark areas enter the frame, the Leica CL is my first choice.

Of course, I can also set the CLE to manual. At 400 ASA, 1/125 second and aperture 2, I can shoot pretty much anything in the city for an entire evening. The black-and-white films I use cover the deviations well.

If I want to use wide angles, for example my favorite lens, the Summaron 28/5,6, then the CLE is my favorite. If I want to use 50 mm or 90 mm, then the Leica is better again, because these frames are larger in the overall viewfinder and the Leica offers a 50 mm frame.

Bottom line, you can do the same with the Minolta CLE as with the Leica CL. You arrive at the same picture with both, but not necessarily by the same path.

7. What counts when buying used

In terms of price on the used market, the two are close together. Because if a CLE works, it works properly, thanks to the electronic control. The focus system is rarely out of adjustment, because it is more simply constructed than the Leica's.

The biggest problem with the CLE is that a defect is almost always a total loss, because there are no spare parts and almost no one willing to open it up.

The Leica CL is often cheaper to buy, and with a bit of luck you can use it right away. But if servicing is needed, you end up paying the same overall as for a Minolta CLE.

However, total losses are rare with the Leica. There are still spare parts and workshops that repair it. Even a broken cable on the rangefinder arm can still be fixed.

And one more warning: both cameras have cloth focal-plane shutters. So you should definitely make sure that with fast lenses, the sun doesn't shine directly into the lens. Burn holes are a common problem with such cameras.

Individual small holes can be repaired with Liquid Tape.

8. How a rangefinder works

For the benefit of readers without experience with rangefinders, who may be reading my text only out of interest: with a rangefinder, you focus by bringing a measuring patch into alignment with the viewfinder image. Compared to an SLR, the rangefinder camera stands out for its clear viewfinder image, which is always exactly as bright as the actual ambient light. This makes manual focusing easier in poor lighting conditions.

However, compared to an SLR, the viewfinder also has disadvantages, because you don't see a preview of the final result: neither the depth of field nor the brightness, and despite parallax compensation, not exactly the frame either. And compared to an SLR with autofocus, there are naturally further disadvantages.

About the author

Peter Becker shoots analog film, collects cameras, and is particularly knowledgeable about old lenses. On unblind.de he shows his pictures and writes about conversions like his Holga in widescreen format.

Read more

• The original manuals as PDF: Leica CL (German) and Minolta CLE (English), at Butkus Camera Manuals.
• Stephen Gandy has described both cameras in detail on Cameraquest, with lots of technical details: Leica CL and Minolta CLE.
• In our guide: Electronic rangefinder cameras compared, from the Yashica Electro to the Minolta Hi-Matic.