Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica General Discussion / News / Rumors

View Poll Results: Leitz CL or Bessa R2- which to KEEP?
Leitz CL 27 52.94%
Bessa R2 24 47.06%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 12-19-2019   #41
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
I can't figure out what you mean by this. I think language is interfering. Could you explain it a different way?



The 35mm framelines in an M2, M3, and M5 will include more in the viewfinder than we will get in the picture, when using a 40mm lens. I'm sure that's what you meant here.

But the framelines in the M6, M7, and MP are smaller than in those in the earlier cameras. A 40mm lens comes closer to showing what you actually get on the negative, with those cameras, unless you are shooting at minimum focus.

On my M9, I get a little more in the picture than I see in the finder. So the 35mm frameline of the M9 is not so undersized as on M6/M7/MP.
Better late than never.

"Improved from 40 Cron lens. From optics to normal filter." simply means Minolta Rokkor 40 f2 CLE lens. Improved optics including MC and 40.5 filter.
Also, it does matter what you see within the frame, but what lens sees matters even more. 40mm is odd lens to me.

I hope, DAG was able to fix OP camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2019   #42
zenza
Registered User
 
zenza is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Age: 30
Posts: 117
I was having this dilemma deciding which camera to buy and ultimately went with the 30 years newer, hardly bigger, and better in every meaningful way (to me) R2. Nearly a year later and I'm glad I made this choice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2019   #43
pesphoto
Registered User
 
pesphoto's Avatar
 
pesphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: R.I.
Age: 53
Posts: 3,880
R2 all day long...
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2019   #44
rumbliegeos
Registered User
 
rumbliegeos's Avatar
 
rumbliegeos is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 278
Wanted an M mount camera with a meter, especially small. Bought a CL, the meter needed work so I had a prominent CL specialist work on it. After two trips back to get the meter to stop drifting, I sold it and bought an R2. Used it for several years and enjoyed the choice of framelines (not a 40mm fan). But could not get used to a shutter that jingled and a back door that squeaked when pressed. Through a miracle of generosity got an M2 from a friend, really liked the viewfinder and ergonomics and fitted it with an MR meter. It is not small or light, but it is just right for the way I like to work. Given all of that, I'd keep the R2.
__________________
Gerry
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2019   #45
d.dulin
Registered User
 
d.dulin's Avatar
 
d.dulin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumbliegeos View Post
Wanted an M mount camera with a meter, especially small. Bought a CL, the meter needed work so I had a prominent CL specialist work on it. After two trips back to get the meter to stop drifting, I sold it and bought an R2. Used it for several years and enjoyed the choice of framelines (not a 40mm fan). But could not get used to a shutter that jingled and a back door that squeaked when pressed. Through a miracle of generosity got an M2 from a friend, really liked the viewfinder and ergonomics and fitted it with an MR meter. It is not small or light, but it is just right for the way I like to work. Given all of that, I'd keep the R2.
M2 and V3 summicron 35mm (sometimes with MR meter) is my main camera!
The R2 (I sold the CL) still needs repair but is a back up either way.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2019   #46
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbharrill1 View Post

Plus, isn’t everyone with a bessa just settling for the m mount camera they can afford, not the one they truly want? You’ve got the one you want already and it’s the CL!
The same could be said for the CL back in the 80s and 90s... Bessas have appreciated in value at this point. Anything with an M mount is expensive these days.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2019   #47
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,346
I've got a CL, and Bessa bodies in LTM (R), M (T), and Nikon (R2S) mounts. Got the Bessas mainly for the built-in meters, and as back-ups whenever any of the associated main cameras (Leica IIIf, M4-P, and Nikon S2) should need to go in for repairs.

After using the Bessa bodies, I'm more enamored with the main cameras they are supposed to be assisting. And I find myself taking too much time trying to get the metering right, especially on certain LTM lenses that I have to lock focus on Infinity first, take a meter reading, then focus the lens because the barrels turn when I try to set the aperture.

Plus, none of the Bessas feel as competent in usage as the main cameras. The build is a little too light for my tastes.

Their good points are the built-in framelines in the finders; commonality between bodies no matter the mount; built-in meters; metal shutters; the T and R2S take winder grips; the T is good for my super-wide lenses; the R2S has an 85mm frame line; if I break one of the Bessas I'm less likely to fret the repair costs.

I voted for the OP to keep the CL because I would, but in truth he shouldn't be afraid to get rid of either camera if he really doesn't care for it. But a CL would be more expensive to buy again than a Bessa would should the urge come further down the road. Why not keep them both?

PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2019   #48
davidde1000
Registered User
 
davidde1000 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 27
Smile

There is no comparison between the two, really. The Bessa R2/R3/R4 are better cameras than CLs in almost every regard. The RF baselength and the finders are better. They are easier to load. They can focus down to 0.7m while the CL can only focus to 1m. And the CLs are all over 45 years old now. The CL is smaller and its shutter speed dial is really great to use IRL. But the CLE is an all around better camera as well. At the end of the day, it's the lenses that make the shot. I like my CL but it's not the first camera I ever pick up.
  Reply With Quote

Ergonomics?
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #49
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 58
Posts: 2,873
Ergonomics?

CL has rewind knob located on *bottom*.
For me that would be a deal killer.

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #50
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Washington, USA
Posts: 13,280
^^ So does the CLE... I find it not hard to get accustomed to that.
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #51
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidde1000 View Post
The RF baselength and the finders are better. They are easier to load. They can focus down to 0.7m while the CL can only focus to 1m.
I think it’s actually 0.8m for the CL. The RF base is indeed short (not that the R or R2 is all that long, either) but for a small camera like the CL it doesn’t make much sense to use large fast lenses that stretch the RF capabilities or block the view; it was designed for compact lenses, being the ‘compact Leica’, after all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #52
zenza
Registered User
 
zenza is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Age: 30
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidde1000 View Post
There is no comparison between the two, really. The Bessa R2/R3/R4 are better cameras than CLs in almost every regard. The RF baselength and the finders are better. They are easier to load. They can focus down to 0.7m while the CL can only focus to 1m. And the CLs are all over 45 years old now. The CL is smaller and its shutter speed dial is really great to use IRL. But the CLE is an all around better camera as well. At the end of the day, it's the lenses that make the shot. I like my CL but it's not the first camera I ever pick up.
Bessa R2 only focuses down to 0.9m. The R2x cameras and beyond go to 0.7m
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #53
wjlapier
Registered User
 
wjlapier's Avatar
 
wjlapier is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitimageview View Post
I think it’s actually 0.8m for the CL. The RF base is indeed short (not that the R or R2 is all that long, either) but for a small camera like the CL it doesn’t make much sense to use large fast lenses that stretch the RF capabilities or block the view; it was designed for compact lenses, being the ‘compact Leica’, after all.
Compact Leica?

  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #54
Deardorff38
Registered User
 
Deardorff38's Avatar
 
Deardorff38 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 953
Compact Leica
IMG_9873 by , on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #55
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,239
Definitely compact!

What adapter is used with the 28 Nikkor, @wjlapier?
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #56
davidde1000
Registered User
 
davidde1000 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 27
You may be right -- I will have to re-check but I was pretty sure that it would not focus my 40/1.4 Nokton closer than 1m, although the lens itself can focus way closer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by splitimageview View Post
I think it’s actually 0.8m for the CL. The RF base is indeed short (not that the R or R2 is all that long, either) but for a small camera like the CL it doesn’t make much sense to use large fast lenses that stretch the RF capabilities or block the view; it was designed for compact lenses, being the ‘compact Leica’, after all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #57
wjlapier
Registered User
 
wjlapier's Avatar
 
wjlapier is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitimageview View Post
Definitely compact!

What adapter is used with the 28 Nikkor, @wjlapier?
Amedeo S>ltm>M.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #58
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,239
Ah yes, you had told me that before. Unfortunately he's not making the LTM adapter any longer...
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:48.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.