View Full Version : Leica CL VS. Voigtlander Bessa R
Hello
I'm buying my first serious RF body. But before I go and spend all of my money to camera I would like to hear your opinion which one of these would be better. I think I'm leaning towards the leica, but you can try to talk me out of it. I am looking for a camera that I can take with me every time I leave home. The leica could be ideal because it's smaler. I think I'm going to buy more serious body later (most likely a r3A or some "real" leica) and then I could use the cl as a backup body and carryallday camera. Thanks for advices.
Here's some of my thought's about the good's and bad's of the cameras. Someone could verify the ones marked with question mark.
CL
+ It's Leica
+ Small
+ Better build (?)
+ M mount
+ more silent than the bessa
+ Looks better IMHO
- They are getting quite old.
- Risk of getting a dead meter/shutter etc.
- Viewfinder
Bessa
+ New
+ Better metering (?)
+ Much better viewfinder (?)
- More plastic parts
- Not as well build
- "Only" m39 mount
Brian Sweeney
03-24-2005, 10:33
I do not have a Bessa, but do have the Leica CL and a lot of other "classic" RF's. The CL can easily be serviced if you get one at a good price. $128 will get a CLA at Essex. The camera has a sharp VF/RF, smooth advance, and is not loud. As a "take-itanywhere" camera, it is as small as any compact 35mm RF. As a backup, I drop it with its 40mm F2 into a lens compartment of a Field Bag.
back alley
03-24-2005, 10:36
the best start up kit nowadays, considering cost and future growth etc. is the bessa r & 35.2 outfit.
joe
wlewisiii
03-24-2005, 10:38
If I were in your spot, I'd get the Bessa as my starting camera. Right now they are still available from Cameraquest (and elsewhere) with the 35/2.5 for $425 whereas a CL with the 40mm lens will set you back a minimum of ~$600. That $175 will buy a lot of film that can get you going.
Once you have the Bessa, then you can start saving for the Leica of your choice. That may be the CL, a M7 or even, if you're like me, a M5 :) Plus, while the Bessa is only screw mount, any lens you buy for it can be adapted easily to your later camera.
Most folks around here like the CL. I don't - I find it too small to use comfortably and the meter needle is backwards to every other match needle camera I've used. Plus there are the eventual issues with parts availability. In the end, after shooting some test film with the CL before selling it for my friend, I wasn't really sad to see it go.
Hope these comments are of some help,
William
MCTuomey
03-24-2005, 12:07
I'm a newbie, too, Toni. The problem with making a decision on your first RF is you need to differentiate personally between RFs to make the decision well. But to differentiate personally you need to have experience with at least one RF. For that you need to have an RF which you don't have because you haven't made the decision which to buy. Argghhh!
For my part, I chose to buy a new Bessa rather than a used Leica or equivalent. Why? Because I was worried about getting a used camera that would need ongoing care. I wanted something reliable out-of-the-box, as much as possible. Also, I didn't have a lot of money and didn't want the unknowns of potential repairs hanging over my head.
It is your first RF, so don't worry overly much. It won't likely be your last ;-))
i'm not a fan of the 3 led meter display, so i'd get a cl, r3a, or r2a over an r or r2. the cl's meter display is intuitive once you see it's aligned with the direction you must turn the shutter speed dial or aperture ring, and the r*a's row of shutter speeds is excellent.
back alley
03-24-2005, 14:51
It won't likely be your last...
truer words were never spoken...;)
joe
Huck Finn
03-24-2005, 17:40
Some additions to your list:
CL
+ will focus a few inches closer than a Bessa R (about 31" vs 35")
- only has 40mm frame lines built in, diminishing the RF strength which is with wide angles
R
+ new AND warranteed
+ longer effective base length
CL, again
+ Removeable back with a Rollei 35/Zeiss Ikon type hinged pressure plate
- Need to pocket the back while loading film
If my Bessa R was built this way, I truly be a happy camper. Seriously.
Andrew, do you figure the removeable back/hinged pressure plate design holds the film flatter?
I am only a Bessa R owner, I have no Leica so I cant say much on the CL. But I can say lots on the R. The only one I need to say is this: Its cheaper. From what I have seen anyway.
Either way they both do the same thing and thats taking pictures.
Frank, that's my theory and my Rollei 35S seems to have it down pretty well. If nothing else, it inspires confidence.
I believe the CL also calls for some workaround on the mercury battery problem...
But I think small size of the CL and its inconspicuous appearance are advantages. And that it hangs vertically from its strap attachments. :)
I just got a CL - haven't even finished my first roll of film with it yet, and have been using a Bessa R for quite a bit of time, here is my thoughts so far:
The two great plusses of the CL are its compact size for carrying, and its much more quiet shutter (the loud shutter for me is the worst point about the R), but in my hands it does not feel as comfortable/ergonomic as the Bessa R; I'm particularly displeased that the wind-lever always has to stand out for shooting/metering, and I don't like the strap-lug placement, which makes it impossible to use with a short wriststrap. It does feel a bit more solid, though.
Unless you really, really need the quiet shutter, and have very limited space (after all, the Bessa R with a 35/2.5 will also fit most jacket pockets), go for the Bessa!
Roman
Toni,
Monetarily, I don't think you'll do too bad with either choice. The prices of CL's are pretty stable, so even if you don't like it and resell it, you won't lose much, if anything. And the R's with the 35/2.5 are such a bargain right now that I can't see them selling much lower on the used market (depending on condition, of course).
I've owned an R. The noisy shutter was a deal breaker for me. But aside from that, it's a good camera.
Thanks for everyone for the advices.
I have decided to go with the cl. The cheap look and the plastic parts of the r scared me away and theres just something about the cl that fascinates me. There aren't also any proof how durable the R is because it's so new camera. R could be more easier to shoot but it just doesen't have that something.
Have someone used 35mm lens in cl. I have heard that the the outer lines in cl's viewfinder are aproximately 35mm. How hard it is to compose the picture with 35mm lens. In the first place I thought to get The 40mm f:1.4 Nokton to go with the cl, but the bokeh seem's to be so ugly that I'm now considering the 35/1.7 Ultron (Yes I know the 40mm rokkor/Summicron-C). Karen Nakamura seem's (http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?LeicaCL.html~mainFrame) to use 35mm in his cl.
I have both, and they complement each other. I use the R with my J8 50/2; the CL with my CV 25/4 (or, when on holiday and only bringing the CL, my Rokkor-M 40/2). I can no longer live without either. I use them for different types of shooting and for different situations.
If I were you I'd start with the R and progress to a CL (and a little later probably to a nice M2 or M3). Buy from a reputable dealer who offers a warranty. Replacing the swing arm meter is possible (Sherry Kraut? does that). The mercury battery might not be a problem if you live in the US; outside the US you'll have to come up with your own solution (buying those batteries on eBay for instance).
Huck Finn
03-26-2005, 04:46
Toni, since you prefer a 35mm lens, why not consider a used Bessa R2? It is has an all-metal body instead of the R's plastic body & it has 35 mm frame lines. Prices for a used R2 run less than a CL - & a CL body can be hard to find without the 40 mm lens since the CL/40-Summicron combination is often sold as a package.
Toni, since you prefer a 35mm lens, why not consider a used Bessa R2? It is has an all-metal body instead of the R's plastic body & it has 35 mm frame lines. Prices for a used R2 run less than a CL - & a CL body can be hard to find without the 40 mm lens since the CL/40-Summicron combination is often sold as a package.
R2 would be nice, but they are sold out in most places. They are also much more expencive than cl. Finding a cl body only isn't a problem.
theres just something about the cl that fascinates me.
Toni, I think it's good to go with the camera that speaks to you. It's often that visceral connection that counts more than comparative features.
Now, if I could only quit hearing so many of them :D
Gene
Huck Finn
03-26-2005, 07:48
Toni, I'm suggesting a used R2, not a new one.
If the CL is the camera for you, terrific; I'm just not sure if it makes sense to pick a camera with frame lines that are different than your primary lens. There are terrific 40 mm lenses available for the CL, inlcuding the Minolta Rokkor 40/2 & the Rollei 40/2.8 as well as the CV & the Summicron-C.
Regarding the bokeh of the CV 40/1.4, I've seen some really nice bokeh with this lens & I know a portrait photographer that loves its look wide open for his professional work. A number of things affect bokeh, including lighting, the business of the background, & the distance of the subject from the camera& from the background. Pictures you've seen may be examples of bad photography rather than bad bokeh. I also wonder how often you are planning to shoot at f/1.4 & f/2, which is where bokeh will be a big factor. As you stop down from there, it becomes less of an element in the picture.
Just my 2 cents . . .
The problem is that I am dreaming about buying some "real" leica someday and there arent other leicas with the 40mm frameline.
The used r2 seems also be more expensive than the leica. I live in europe, so I can buy the used cl from german and I don't even have to pay customs inside the EU area.
Brian Sweeney
03-26-2005, 09:05
Go for the CL. If you get the 40mm lens it will bring up the 50mm lines on the M's. It does not take too much imagination to "see" the 40mm FOV around the 50mm lines. I have used the 40mm with the M2 and M3.
This folder is with the 40mm Summicron on my M2.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php/cat/749
None of the images were cropped from the scanned negative.
Huck Finn
03-26-2005, 13:37
Ahhh . . . Visions of Leicas dancing in your head. :D
Go for it! :cool:
Huck
Honestly, I lean towards the CL. I really like it... though, I would prob. have a 21mm for my standard lens... and neither camera has a viewfinder for it. Interesting... a 35 would be my number 2 lens. So I am a weiord one on this:)
I like my CL a lot. Small, stealthy black, fairly quiet, great meter and pictures. Rokkor 40 lens. I'm now using it more than my MP!
If you want a warranty then get the Bessas. They seem like very good cameras - I may even get an R2A someday. The Bessa R Rangefinder Body*w/ 35/2.5 C at $25 US is a great deal.
But a CL is really a cool little camera.
Way
Got one!
After losing numerous auctions in ebay I finally won one. You can find the auction from here (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7503427565&fromMakeTrack=true)
I allmost bought a m2 in one stage, but I'm glad I didn'd because I would have any money left to buy lenses. :rolleyes: But I have to get one of those M's in someday because I realy fell in love with the m2 when I tried it in one local shop.
I ended up getting the cl with the orginal 40mm, so no more trouble at choosing a lens. I think it was the best solution.
I also ordered a new skin (http://www.aki-asahi.com/store/html/cl/lizard-yellow_b.jpg) for it from the aki asahi. It is going to look so good!
Looks great, Toni, and this should serve you happily for quite a while! Excellent lens (some say even better than the 50 'cron), and an capable camera unassuming in appearance. A Voigtlander 75mm Heliar would make a good longer companion to the 40, if you can manage the lack of built-in framelines (there is a separate viewfinder available). And at the wider side a 28mm or perhaps 25mm too, also calling for an accessory viewfinder.
See how we can help you suffer Gear Acquisition Syndrome? :D
David Murphy
04-26-2008, 18:19
the best start up kit nowadays, considering cost and future growth etc. is the bessa r & 35.2 outfit.
joe
I agree - it's a fine combo. Later you can move on to Leica M (by then you'd probably be seriously GAS afflicted and wanting an M3 anyway). Thanks mostly to Voigtlander, M39 in now a good choice for modern as well as vintage glass. The opening of the FSU helped too.
In fact there's a beauty of a Bessa R for sale here right now (I am not the seller nor do I know him).
The CL HAS to be the choice here. But not because it's a CL... but because it has the framelines for the best lens, in value-vs-$$ terms, that's available.
There are a host of other reasons, including the CL's absolutely brilliant metering ... (OK, when it works). A analogue needle is functionally superior to match diodes, and even oddities like the placement of the shutter speed dial make real sense in practice.
But the first and best reason to buy the CL is the Summicron C, a lens that gives results just as good as the V4 35mm Cron, with a far lower pricetag and bullsh*t quotient.
myoptic3
04-26-2008, 21:25
I had the same problems w/ my CL that Roman had. It just felt awkward to shoot with. The viewfinder magnification is much less that a Bessa, and I just couldn't get used to the shutter dial position. Had a Bessa R, and although it worked fine (until the crappy rewind lever broke while simply rewinding the film) I gotta admit it felt toy-camera like. The shutter firing shook the whole camera. Still, some people love them. I think I would recommend the R3a. Used they are very reasonable. If you want an in camera meter, and it sounds like you do, this is your best buy for the money.
But the first and best reason to buy the CL is the Summicron C, a lens that gives results just as good as the V4 35mm Cron, with a far lower pricetag and bullsh*t quotient.
agreed. my venture into rf started with a CL + 40/90 combo, and now still use them all, esp the summicron-C (extensively). Its even my 'normal' lens when using the MP (maybe its time to get another, instead of swapping lenses between the bodies?). The only other lens i now own is the cv 28/3.5, which is a great piece of glass itself.
I think I'm going to buy more serious body later (most likely a r3A or some "real" leica) and then I could use the cl as a backup body and carryallday camera.
Buy a body that will seamlessly fit into the backup role. I cannot recommend the Bessa T highly enough. Here are some shots I have done with it (http://www.flickriver.com/photos/primelens/tags/bessat) and it has been just wonderful - never hindered me for a second. It will take the M mount and it's long base length will focus with the best of the M bodies, which the CL's tiny EBL won't. It's light to carry around, and is fully mechanical, only needing batteries for the meter LEDs. The perfect backup.
I have had a real hard time deciding to sell mine to partly fund an M2 and an Ikon, but it is really difficult to part with it. The external VF puts many people off, but once you look thru a good brightline finder, you'll realize what a joy it is to use.
-A
Anupam, I checked out your photos linked above and have to say wow, they are really impressive. I'm partly inspired to be more creative, especially by some of your cool motion shots, and partly depressed realizing how lousy my own pictures are by comparison. Really, incredible. Thanks for posting.
BillBingham2
05-23-2008, 20:11
A,
I have to agree with you, the T is a way under rated camera. When you stick a bright line on her she ROCKS! It was hard to part with my two, but they went to good home and I think are very happy.
B2 (;->
BillBingham2
05-23-2008, 20:16
I have to agree with Sooner, all good stuff, a few are GREAT! Very well done Sir.
B2 (;->
Thanks, guys - you are too kind.
Travelbug
05-28-2008, 00:34
I would go for a CLE. No batterie problems. No metering cell in the way of recessed lenses. TTL flash ability. Shutter times in the finder. 28/40/90 finder with a wider rangefinder base.
The R2A and R3A aren't much more expensive and are much better than the CL or the R (imo). Just start with an R2A and any 35mm lens. If you're not sure if RFs are for you and you don't want to spend much money, buy a nice cheap fixed-lens RF.
I got a CL for two main reasons - to use as a backup body when out with my M6, and as a smaller (and cheaper) camera to carry around when not specifically out shooting - I got it serviced at CRR Luton and it's in sparkling condition now. Not long after I got the CL I fell to the temptation of a Summicron-C 40. And it's such a great combination that it's now often my camera/lens of choice when I go out shooting. The S-C is a superb lens, and a screaming bargain at today's prices - I think every CL should have one.
I would go for a CLE. No batterie problems. No metering cell in the way of recessed lenses. TTL flash ability. Shutter times in the finder. 28/40/90 finder with a wider rangefinder base.
No metering in manual.
Philipp
Travelbug
06-19-2008, 23:41
No metering in manual.
Philipp
Most Leica's don't have metering and I hear not many complains about that :D. As long as you don't suffer on lack of memory it should be not a problem to read the metering in automatic mode and transfer it to the manual mode or simply use an extra light meter. Oh ... forgot ... the CL has no AE mode.
Most Leica's don't have metering and I hear not many complains about that :D.
Oh, for me metered manual was the decisive reason to go for a Bessa R instead of a CLE (or an M2). I'm comparing with the Bessa, not the CL. AE would be nice, I admit, but I use metered manual more often than I miss AE.
As long as you don't suffer on lack of memory it should be not a problem to read the metering in automatic mode and transfer it to the manual mode or simply use an extra light meter.
I had a Canonet before that. It doesn't have metered manual either. It's true that you can take manual shots that way but it is major suckage in my opinion. If I want to take the camera away from my eye and fiddle around with it I don't need a rangefinder.
Philipp
Bessa's a throw-away, eventually. The CL, no matter it's ultimate condition, will be desirable to somebody, will justify repair (eg Sherry Krauter).
IMO you'd be smarter to get a Leica IIF or IIIF, or a IIIC (even less expensive) and a Gossen Digisix meter. It's a better camera and meter than Bessa or CL, even though it's 60yrs old (they'll live longer than M6).
spiderfrank
07-20-2008, 08:42
I am an happy owner of a Bessa R: it's cheap, affordable, well built, with a beautiful and clear finder. It also felt two times in the concrete with no problems (the plastic top and bottom covers can damp the shocks more than an all metal body): I think it's the right choice to enter in the rangefinder world, you can buy them new with warranty and they don't use obsolete mercury batteries.
Also, i cannot understand why to buy a screw mount Leica (oh, yes, it's a Leica), when there are much more beautiful (yes!) and cheap Kievs out there:
Compared to a screwmount Leica a Kiev is a much more modern machine: it has a huge rangefinder base (a joy to use), metal shutter, prismatic rangefinder mechanism, one single ring to select all the speeds,
combined rangefinder and viewfinder, faster speeds, and you can buy from Fedka or an other good seller a "clad" camera with a real "return warranty" for less money than a "no-warranty" old Leica.
And about the lens: my Jupiter-8 and my Heliar 103 are both better then my Summitar: don't forget that the Jupiter where Zeiss copies...
pesphoto
07-22-2008, 07:56
While I dont agreee that its a throw away as another stated.....
...mine fell on my kitchen floor and is in the shop for a verticle and horizontal alignment fix. But I do love using the Bessa R overall.
I am an happy owner of a Bessa R: it's cheap, affordable, well built, with a beautiful and clear finder. It also felt two times in the concrete with no problems (the plastic top and bottom covers can damp the shocks more than an all metal body): I think it's the right choice to enter in the rangefinder world, you can buy them new with warranty and they don't use obsolete mercury batteries.
Also, i cannot understand why to buy a screw mount Leica (oh, yes, it's a Leica), when there are much more beautiful (yes!) and cheap Kievs out there:
Compared to a screwmount Leica a Kiev is a much more modern machine: it has a huge rangefinder base (a joy to use), metal shutter, prismatic rangefinder mechanism, one single ring to select all the speeds,
combined rangefinder and viewfinder, faster speeds, and you can buy from Fedka or an other good seller a "clad" camera with a real "return warranty" for less money than a "no-warranty" old Leica.
And about the lens: my Jupiter-8 and my Heliar 103 are both better then my Summitar: don't forget that the Jupiter where Zeiss copies...
spiderfrank
07-22-2008, 08:51
Bad luck to you... Or good luck to me?
The only results of my two "crashes" are some "brassing" on the bottom corners of the body... Somewhere in the net you can find a tutorial to set yourself the rangefinder alignement: I didn't have to do that, but the screws should be under the flash shoe.
pesphoto
07-22-2008, 08:54
Thanks, Ive seen the alignment tutorials, but figured it could use a CLA also and didnt want to risk horsing up the alignment more than it was. It was pretty far off. Now Im just trying to save up the money to get it back from the shop. :(
Bad luck to you... Or good luck to me?
The only results of my two "crashes" are some "brassing" on the bottom corners of the body... Somewhere in the net you can find a tutorial to set yourself the rangefinder alignement: I didn't have to do that, but the screws should be under the flash shoe.
Vincenzo Maielli
08-10-2008, 02:38
I own both Leica CL and Bessa R2. In theory, the Bessa R2 have all the features to work better than the Leica CL, but the practice is very different.
The rangefinder effective base lenght of the Bessa R2 is 25,16 mm, while in the Leica CL is 18,90 mm. The finder of the Bessa R2 is more big and brilliant than the finder of the Leica CL. On the contrary, the rangefinder patch of the Leica CL is more much better contrasted that the same element in the Bessa R2, that is very dramatically poor, in comparison; afterwards, the Leica CL is absolutely better in the focusing operation, in all light conditions, particularly in the available light. Furthermore, the rangefinder patch of the Bessa R2 suffer for a slightly misalignement in the vertical compositions. The same element, in the Leica CL, is always perfect.
The only real advantage of the Bessa R2 is the meter, based on the silicon cell, that is better for rapidity of use than the CDS cell of the Leica CL. But this disadvantage is fully surmountable whit the proper experience.
At last, the Leica CL is more compact and light than Bessa R2.
In conclusion, i have no doubt; the Leica CL is sensibly better than Bessa R2, because the most important thing in a RF camera, the rangefinder patch, is very better in the Leica CL, in comparison with the Bessa R/R2.
Ciao.
Vincenzo
I do not have a Bessa, but do have the Leica CL and a lot of other "classic" RF's. The CL can easily be serviced if you get one at a good price. $128 will get a CLA at Essex. The camera has a sharp VF/RF, smooth advance, and is not loud. As a "take-itanywhere" camera, it is as small as any compact 35mm RF. As a backup, I drop it with its 40mm F2 into a lens compartment of a Field Bag.
I have one in great shape, but the meter is dead, or playing dead, do you know if people are finding reasonable service for the meter?
Regards, John
back alley
08-10-2008, 06:05
iirc, sherry from golden touch can service the meter.
iirc, sherry from golden touch can service the meter.
Thanks, I was checking out her site, I have heard the repair rates are high on the meter, so I have not even sent it in. Previous owner did not have a battery to check it, camera is in cosmetically great shape.
Probably time to find out, if expensive, I should sell the body.
What happened with Toni? I just saw the OP on this was a while back, ;-)
Regards, John
back alley
08-10-2008, 08:43
the cl works well without a meter also, just like many of the m cameras.
I'd say these are different cameras since they use different optics. I own both and I like both so I couldn't vote on this poll.
Al Kaplan
10-14-2008, 05:48
The only "mechanical" thing that might break on the CL is the grey plastic thingy on the take-up spool. The fingers you stick the film under tend to get brittle after a few decades. You can still load the camera no problem when one breaks off but you can expect the others will soon break also at that point. It's the same part that Minolta used in their SLR cameras for years, so getting it replaced should be no problem.
CameraQuest
10-19-2008, 19:45
#1 there is no Bessa R1. There is a Bessa R.
R vs CL, I would choose the CL.
R2 vs CL, a tie.
R2M vs CL, the R2M is the easy choice in my opinion.
Stephen
I have just last week received a CL, recently serviced by Sherry Krauter, and I am more than positive surprised. Albeit, the aluminum of the rangefinder prism is deteriorated to a certain degree, focusing is still very good and the meter works very accurate. I really like the meter needle on the right side with the shutter speeds on the top. The camera is very intuitive to use and albeit small not to flimsy.
didnt like the CL and sold it. Love the bessa R. not to mention all the srew mount lenses available.
John Robertson
11-10-2008, 11:38
I have both, and use the Bessa more often, the CL is too small, and the meter system
is unreliable and now a bit dated.
The rubber lens shades, perish very easily, must be the type of rubber, as I have rubber shades for my Foca and Arette which are older but still perfectly OK.
The silvering in the RF goes with age, look the wrong way through the R/F window
you will see black spots showing where the silvering is going.
didnt like the CL and sold it. Love the bessa R. not to mention all the srew mount lenses available.
A basic factor in favour of the CL is its M mount.
An M mount camera like the CL can be fitted with M mount lenses and screw mount lenses via adaptor.
A screw mount camera like the Bessa R can only be fitted with screw mount lenses. No M mount lenses can be used.
A basic factor in favour of the CL is its M mount.
An M mount camera like the CL can be fitted with M mount lenses and screw mount lenses via adaptor.
A screw mount camera like the Bessa R can only be fitted with screw mount lenses. No M mount lenses can be used.
Frank has forwarded the decisive issue.
It's the same story as why the Neerthentalian tribes went extinct while the Crew Magnum survived. And at least in camera gear I myself am even not a Neerthentalian, but some sort of dyno with my Kiev/Contax mount !
Cheers,
Ruben
januaryman
12-19-2008, 12:28
The Bessa R was my intro into non FSU screw mount cameras. Still have it. Have since acquired a Canon P and 2 Leicas. Still use the Bessa. LTM lenses are as good as and CHEAPER than the M equivalents. It's a great place to start, with no major electronic worries. And it works without batteries in case you run dry. I don't think the CL does (or am I thinking CLE?)
Anyway - Daring to disagree with Ruben, the availability of M lenses should not be the decisive factor. It's a minor factor.
The CL works with no batteries. Only the meter would be non-operative. The spot meter is a nice feature of the CL, in fact what I'd consider a major point in it's favor, but a CL with no meter is still a CL, and as such, a very nice camera to use. There aren't many options when it comes to compact M-mount bodies - make that NO options.
That said, the CV bodies are slick pieces, and seem to hold value far better than I'd prefer (I'm either poor or cheap lol). IMHO they cost what they are worth, and the fact you don't see used CV bodies going for a fraction of their new price is a testament of their very real value and quality. Personally I'm always torn between a CV body and a good CL. The rangefinder base is comparable, but the CL metering and shutter dial is the trump card for me. I suppose at some point I will have to own both a CL and CV body.
As has been said, an M mount Bessa is a better thing unless you already have LTM lenses or an M mount body. IMHO, being restricted to LTM lenses is like being restricted to dating former supermodels - you are doing fine if that's your only limitation :) But being able to mount M lenses as well with a single LTM-M adapter is a better situation, all else being equal. Just tack US$50 to the price of an M-mount Bessa.
Realistically, tack US$50 per LTM focal length you own if you go with the CL, since the Bessa's have manually selectable framelines making the "right" adapter a foolish expense. (That makes a mountain out of a molehill, don't let "improper" framlines stop you from buying a camera. I dislike extraneous framelines as much as the next, and the CL only has 40mm always visible, with the 50mm and 90mm depending on the lens mount. Just go with the smallest frame in the finder. 50mm is slightly smaller than 40, and 90 is slightly larger than the rf spot.)
IMHO, buy a CL if you want a very compact body for LTM or M lenses. Go with a Bessa if you want a cheaper alternative to an M body. The CL has a spot meter, which if you never used one in a camera sounds like a meaningless distinction. The CL is worth it just for the small size. Paradoxically, if you like fast lenses the Bessa is probably better from a handling standpoint - the CL is a small body that is easily over-balanced by a large lens.
Dave Wilkinson
01-13-2009, 10:11
Frank has forwarded the decisive issue.
It's the same story as why the Neerthentalian tribes went extinct while the Crew Magnum survived. And at least in camera gear I myself am even not a Neerthentalian, but some sort of dyno with my Kiev/Contax mount !
Cheers,
Ruben...er...can someone please explain ? :eek:
...er...can someone please explain ? :eek:
Neanderthal man (like the Bessa R) it is believed, had a limited ability to adapt, compared to Cro Magnon man (like the Leica CL and an M mount lens adaptor), and became extinct, while the Cro Magnon branch continued.
i'd have to say the cl, of course... ,-)
seriously, apart from plugging a little shamelessly, i feel it's just so much better than the two bessas i've had, a t and an r3m. sure the rf could be more accurate (it's not the camera to focus action shots with a 90mm), and the vf different, but the rf holds alignment, the film sprocket holes don't always fall in between frames, it just feels a whole lot more solid. and it's smaller too. best i stop writing about it before i change my mind about selling it ,-)
david.elliott
04-06-2009, 03:51
Argh, I wish purely voting did not top threads. :|
Got my CL 2 weeks ago, using a pre-asph ron 35mm, Summmarit 50mm and a vc 15mm on it. I love it's size, meter layout in the VF.Plus the shutter dial is in the perfect position, in my point of view, it score better than an M6! The only down size is it is over 30 years old, just hope it will work without problems but I broke the frame count spring on the first day already. Did a test roll few days ago, meter is right on, even the Summarit performs better on it with film compare the output from the said lens with a Pana G1.
The 35mm lens on a 40mm frame line is not much of an issue, just add a few more seconds on taking a shot as one need to eyeball the frame from left to right then up and down beyond the frame line a bit more. As with the 35mm lens, both the 40mm and 50mm frame line show up, so it is not hard to figure out where the 35mm frame is going to be.
Is it really that hard to find the battery, do anyone knows?
It's not that hard. There's a number of alternatives to the battery, and even mercury batteries pop up regularly on eBay over here. I currently have mercury PX625s in both the M5 and the Canonet.
The nice thing about the old meter circuits is that they don't eat the battery as long as it's dark, so if you leave the lens cap on a battery will last for a long time.
On another note: is there a way to unsubscribe from a thread?
EDIT: There seems to be. Edit your own post, go to "Go advanced". Under "Additional options", there's an option "Thread subscription". Change that to "Do not subscribe", and the thread at least shouldn't pop up in your User CP when someone else votes.
Thanks for the info, rxmd. So the batteries is something I don't need to worry about.
It's not that hard. There's a number of alternatives to the battery, and even mercury batteries pop up regularly on eBay over here. I currently have mercury PX625s in both the M5 and the Canonet.
The nice thing about the old meter circuits is that they don't eat the battery as long as it's dark, so if you leave the lens cap on a battery will last for a long time.
On another note: is there a way to unsubscribe from a thread?
EDIT: There seems to be. Edit your own post, go to "Go advanced". Under "Additional options", there's an option "Thread subscription". Change that to "Do not subscribe", and the thread at least shouldn't pop up in your User CP when someone else votes.
You're giving up so early in the thread, after only a few years?. ;-) My avatar was a current model when this started?
And no one mentioned that the CL also has 50mm frame lines.
PentHassyKon
11-26-2009, 11:55
I voted for the CL by buying one! My 1st interchangeable lens RF.
Decision was made easier for me in that I got it for less than an R2M. I still have to get a lens for it though.
I think I'll still eventually get one of the R's, probably the R3 but I'd like to see how things go with the CL before I can say for sure
ethics_gradient
12-10-2009, 22:43
I doubt the CL is much more reliable than an R, it seems like half of the ones on eBay have broken meters. As far as my experience, I bought a CL with the 40mm lens on eBay. Jammed within the first 20 shots or so. Returned it to seller. The shutter is barely quieter than my R3a, if you want quiet, you can buy a much cheaper fixed lens RF with a leaf shutter. The Bessas have their own issues (peely skin, RF vertical alignment coming undone), but I think they make better starter cameras.
I liked the size and "feel" the CL and would like to own one someday as a secondary body, but hopefully one without issues.
The nice thing about the old meter circuits is that they don't eat the battery as long as it's dark, so if you leave the lens cap on a battery will last for a long time.
So is this definitely true of the light meter circuit in the CL? I just picked one up recently and decided to take it traveling over christmas instead of the bessa or the hexar, but I was a little worried about the advance lever getting pulled out in my bag or pocket and draining the battery.
Also, I have picked up a few of the wein cell non-mercury replacement batteries. As I understand it they have a shorter life than the mercury originals, so roughly how long can I expect one to last under normal usage? 5 rolls? 25? 50? I really have no idea.
I've been using an old battery from an Minolta SRT and it has been working fine, exposure on the photos are good.. So including age of battery and usage ( about 4 rolls so far ) Mine's not a powerhog, I think.
I'll be ordering adapter shortly.
So is this definitely true of the light meter circuit in the CL? I just picked one up recently and decided to take it traveling over christmas instead of the bessa or the hexar, but I was a little worried about the advance lever getting pulled out in my bag or pocket and draining the battery.
Also, I have picked up a few of the wein cell non-mercury replacement batteries. As I understand it they have a shorter life than the mercury originals, so roughly how long can I expect one to last under normal usage? 5 rolls? 25? 50? I really have no idea.
A year at least, in my experience. After a year I forget when I put the new battery in, so I can't say definitively. All it provides is a very tiny amount of power to move a needle relative to the amount of light. And the CL has a built-in tester to let you know when it is bad.
The fact that the CL is leading the poll only goes to show the power of brand names...
filmtwit
05-06-2010, 08:52
The fact that the CL is leading the poll only goes to show the power of brand names...
Despite it being a Minolta underneath.
chris7521
05-06-2010, 20:52
The fact that the CL is leading the poll only goes to show the power of brand names...
Perhaps but, it is a great little camera and i love mine. Of course I'm sure you would get different results with this poll in the Bessa forum. I'm sure a Bessa works well also though I have never used one.
Steve M.
05-06-2010, 21:31
Wow. This thread started in 2005!
I had a CL several times, and I sold my last CL last year. I got a Bessa R. It failed on the first trip with it. My CL is missed, but I was wise enough to keep the Summicron-C and 28mm Rokkor. One day, I may get a CL again. We'll see.
Jim Simmons
07-06-2010, 22:40
I just have to jump in and remind folks of just enough of the CL's history to put the "Minolta underneath" comment in perspective. The CL was designed in Wetzlar Germany by Leica's design and engineering staff. They partnered with Minolta to manufacture the body. If you've worked in a camera factory in the 1970s (I have), you'll know that the jigs and tools to manufacture and assemble and adjust the camera are an important part of end quality of the instrument. These components were made in Germany and then installed at the Minolta factory, along with German assembly engineers moving to Japan to get the assembly process off the ground. I have no doubt that Minolta manufacturing people worked with the Leica people to refine the assembly line processes, but the body of the CL is very much a Leica-generated design and implementation. The 40mm Summicron-C and 90mm Elmar-C were designed and built in Wetzlar. The camera is not built to the same toughness or tolerance standards of an M-series Leica, but in my opinion they are as close to M quality as you can get without being an M.
Fact is the CL uses a battery that is now hard to find. Also the CL is more difficult to reload than the Bessas. And I´ve had some difficulty to read the CL exposure needle...
That said, results with both cameras are pretty much the same.
Can anyone tell me if CL (or the CLE for that matter) would work with Summicron 35 pre-asph aka v4?
Ronald M
07-07-2010, 02:36
Save longer and buy a quality Leica camera.
Option 2 is a CL and send it to Sherry and she will make it like new. She has all the upgraded and spare parts.
Besa is a consumer grade camera. They don`t impress me much.
In the last year, I bought like new Nikon F2 for $200 and virtually unused Nikormat for 65. Those are pro build quality cameras.
You ca nuse M mount lenses on you Leica when you get there.
Can anyone tell me if CL (or the CLE for that matter) would work with Summicron 35 pre-asph aka v4?
Yes, the lens will mount and focus properly. Beyond that, I can answer only for the CLE. The 35mm lens will cause the CLE to display 28mm viewfinder framelines. A 40 or 50mm lens will show the 40mm framelines. A 28 or 90mm lens will show the 28 & 90 frameline pair.
Buy the newer, more durable camera with better shutter, viewfinder and meter: Bessa R/R2
nakedcellist
07-29-2010, 21:09
I had both. Loved the CL, it is small and quiet, a lot quieter than the Bessa. I only sold mine to finance the M6. Had the Bessa R, nice camera, never used it much, a lot more noise than a CL, sold mine.
ChrisPlatt
10-03-2010, 16:05
FWIW after opting for the Leica, OP never posted again in over five years...
Chris
Soothsayerman
10-03-2010, 16:17
I'd probably get a CLE on second thought...
ChrisPlatt
10-04-2010, 07:11
I owned a Rollei 35 briefly. Based on that experience
I wouldn't touch another 35mm camera with rewind crank on the bottom.
OTOH the ergonomics of the Bessa R are quite good. It is quite pleasant to use.
Chris
Brian Levy
10-26-2010, 14:57
I am a little confused by this poll. The Bessa is in size and functions more comparitive to a full sized M model than the CL/CLE. Also, it boils done to whether as a purchaser you prefer new with a waranty vs. a used model of some decades that to get generally will need servicing to bring back into specification.
The CL after so many decades has proved itself as a reliable and robust body. Mechanical meters usually need service between 5 and 10 years when they are in a tuner or receiver and these do are not usually subject to the elements. The battery issue is common to many cameras of that period and later. The camera can be recalibrated or a CHRIS adaptor used and the issue becomes a non-issue.
Yes, top plates and bottoms are more prone to denting or brassing than an M but not any more so than most other cameras.
Yes, the camera is small compared to the M series but there are many reangefinders/viewfinders that are as small and smaller. I find it somewhat amusing that a number of these other cameras are loved as they are small but the CL, it almost becomes a liability. Control layout and use does not follow the norm buy after sitting back and thinking about it and how it works plus some practice, it all makes sense. I'm amazed other camera makers have not done it.
I've not used a Bessa but in handling the body, I found it to be of about the same material quality of the CL but not of the same fit and finish and QC possibly less stringent as the advance and shutter on several of the same model each had a different sound and feel. I do not remember the model I was looking at but, I wanted to buy one but walked away thinking I'd rather buy an M or add to the Bronica system.
If I was not already enamoured with the CL feel, advance and shutter or the M body, the Bessa would be a no brainer. It is a competent body and I think as robust as most any camera. If I were a professional traveling, I do think it would be my camera of choice as it is newer and if it hit the deck, water, crushed or whatever, it would not be a major loss. It is the M body of years ago. Meant to be a beater in any environment and treated as a disposable asset. As a nonprofession, I do not subject my equipment to the same abusive uses and using an older vintage camera is less of a concern. However, I would still would be torn as a professional between a new Bessa and a properly serviced M body.
It is no different than having to decide on whether to buy a vintage car and new car. Both will get the job done, it boils down to feel and what it is used for. A car used by a taxi company can not afford down time while a Sunday driver seldom needs a warranty,
It happens it is even ess of an issue for me as both the M body and the Bessa body is a bit too large for me. I prefer the LTM bodies and the CL and if I were buying tomorrow I'd probably opt for a IIIG with a collapsible Sumicron 50 and a low profile 35. f/2.8-3.5 is fine for me or max ap. The original concept of the Leica was it be a small camera, a goal only minimally compromised by the end of the LTM body but all but lost with the M body. The CL in my mind is the only M mount camera from Leica to go back in time and meet the original specification.
eddie1960
11-11-2010, 11:15
R2m with either the 35 2.5 pancake or splurge an extra $50 and get it with a 40mm 1.4 nokton
that's the package i'm putting pennies in a jar for (I've used a CL a friend owns and it is a beautiful little camera but getting long in the tooth)
Brian Levy
11-12-2010, 16:44
Just send it in for a service and it will act like a new kid on the block. Compared to the Bessa where is the CL long in the tooth? Just curious as when I tried the Bessa it reminded me more of an old camera in layout, feel and sound than the CL. The CL reminded me more of a current smaller RF such as something from Canon, Nikon, etc. but a Leica engineered, designed and specified version. The CLE of course was the logical result of the Canon, Nikon, etc. designs taken to their ultimate concept whereas the CL was not as it stayed with the Leica mechanical camera mandate of the time.
Shane Guthrie
01-20-2011, 22:56
Hi all
First, thanks for running RFF. It helped me with this one:
I had a similar decision to make six months ago. I wanted to try out rangefinder photography, having only used SLRs, and the excellent camera store I use in Perth offered an R3-A, an R4-A or a CL. I chose the CL as it worked very well, it was cheaper than the Bessa options, and it was smaller. My original reason was wanting a camera to carry around all day, every day.
I was doubtful before getting it, but the confidence people on the forum had in the camera and lens swayed me. I now find that mine doesn't suffer from meter or battery problems as quite a few have mentioned of theirs.
I'm addicted to the CL now. It's costing me a fortune in film and processing.
Avoid that CL like the plague, they are nice, cool looking but poorly built and have a stupid loading style (Leica did it (like their M9+8 also) to keep consistency in their lineage), Bessa is more accurate, meter is better, and actually (I know because I see the insides all the time), the Bessa's are better built then the CL.
For everything that the CL is bad for the Bessa is good for and an improvement on and in many cases excels over Leica.
However we buy Leica M bodies because they go on forever and they are maintainable, and that's really all there is to it.
heatherselkie
07-03-2011, 22:48
I disagree about running from CL's like the plague. I recently got one to replace a bessa. Yes the Bessas are newish and have the meters with lights, but not as well made as the CL-no way. i used my bessa T for less than a year, took good care of it, and when I sold it I was told it looked very used because the finish of the metal parts were scratching and wearing off!
The CL I got has to be more than 30 years old and is in remarkable condition. A few of the dials are stiff, but whatever...and I do not know why people complain about the poor build quality. Yes the CL might have some plastic, but it is very solid, well made, the film lever thing is much smoother than on a bessa and light, but heavy at the same time.
For people without oodles of spare money, it is a way to get a rangefinder Leica.
The film loading business took me less than 5 minutes to figure out, the viewfinder is so wonderful, the meter works fine....And guess what, the batteries are widely available. Mine came with a battery and the camera store gave me a new wein cell for the next million years of use.
And the shutter has a very nice quiet sound. The bessas are very loud compared to the CL and I've lost shots with the bessa because of that.
Only hard part has been that my first roll of film was TERRIBLE! The 'frameline' for a 90 mm lens is imaginary at best, and my only lens currently is a 90mm, so I was very disappointed in myself. Should have started with some cheap film instead of slide film.
So, if you have limited funds, which I gather was the original basis for this question, I would find a CL in great condition. They are so small which is perfect for little people like me, and would be very portable with a small lens. Plus they look hot!
Bessas are really good cameras though.
newspaperguy
12-27-2011, 05:24
Well said, Heather.
The size, or rather the lack of it, is great for tired old fogies like myself.
The addition of a Mr. Zhou case puts the CL in an upright stance,
protecting that pretty top plate in addition to providing a secure grip.
.file:///C:/Users/Rick/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-27.png
newspaperguy
12-27-2011, 08:03
Sorry - bad link to the CL with a Zhou case.
Here's a better one.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=147721&ppuser=20714
The Bessa is easier to use than the CL. No doubt about it.
The Bessa R is a *great* starter camera. Cheap and rugged. Depending on the style of shooting you do and how many lenses you use, its futzy screw mount -- relatively slow and fussy to change lenses with -- may or may not be an issue. I loved my three Rs, but if I were taking another stab at starting from scratch, I'd save up a little longer and pick an M mount body to get going with, a CL or CLE or R2.
I have only bessa r and use j-8 on it...love the camera, since it is quite rare in my communities..
Can anyone tell me if CL (or the CLE for that matter) would work with Summicron 35 pre-asph aka v4?
I know this is bit after the fact, but you would need to check in respect of the CLE, because I recall that my Pre-Asph Summicron 35mm v4 didn't fit my CLE when I tried it. There is a circular 'shield' around the back element of the lens which protects it from damage if you put it face-up on a table etc, but which fouls on a baffle in the camera body. I believe you can remove this shield if you really need the lens to go on the camera, but it then leaves your rear-element without any protection. Much better to get the Summicron-C 40mm.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.