Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Kyle says:> > no. get yourself a canon ql17. theyre only about $40. faster and more sophisticated than the QL(CL), and fully manual operation possible without batteries. the CLE, on the other hand, is a nice camera. the ql's (CL's )a dog. just my .02. > > kc SonC says: The Minolta CLE (I also owned one of these) is superior to both cameras in most ways, except the meter only works in auto mode it needs batteries to do anything, and costs about twice the price of a Leica CL. I own a Canon QL17 and a Leica CL. Both need mercury batteries, for meter only but can be adjusted to use non-mercs. Both cameras work on manual without batteries. Canon has fixed 40mm f1.7 lens; Leica can use wide angle, M and LTM with adapter up to 90mm, except lenses like the Jupiter 35mm and the earliest Elmarit 28mm that protrude into the camera. Canon uses a dedicated flash that does some cool hocus-pocus on automatic. Leica CL uses any old flash. but available light is it's forte' The two cameras are about the same size and weight. The Canon is usually less expensive, though I actually paid more for the Canon than I did for my Leica CL, (I told you I got a good deal on the Leica CL) Since I own both cameras, if I were to sell one, I'm sure it would be the Canon. The CL is clearly no match for my M6, but it has endearing qualities of it's own . . . and it uses my sweet little summicron 35mm. Regards, SonC http://www.sonc.com