Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/28

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] cl vs ql17? CL.
From: "onetreehillclw" <onetreehillclw@compaq.net>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 00:29:14 -0500
References: <20010529041036.112.qmail@web4101.mail.yahoo.com>

about the Konica Hexars............
the Silver is just as quiet as the black version.
i swear it is!
and you can set the lens for manual focus, just takes some
actice.   ------f8 at 8ft will get you alot in focus

chris williams

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "ara ayer" <araayer@yahoo.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] cl vs ql17? CL.


> Thanks for all the replies.
>
> I own both an M6TTL and the Canon GIII QL17.
>
> I've had the Canon for 3 weeks and though I'm
> impressed
> with the images it produces for the price (I paid
> a little over a hundred for a clean, near mint
> user)...I'm wondering if there is something that is a
> compromise between the M6 and the QL17?
>
> I thought about purchasing a black, silent mode Konica
> Hexar...but this used auto focus P&S costs as much or
> more than a brand new Silver Hexar.  The "auto focus
> only" capability also left me cold.
>
> Having been spoiled by my Leica, I find the Canon QL's
> finder to be lacking in contrast - especially when I
> try to focus in dim conditions - but then for the
> price - it's better than what's out there in the point
> and shoot market.  Like all cameras - it has
> limitations.
>
> The purpose of my previous post was to poll CL users
> on its attributes.
>
> My Leica rep has tried to steer me away from the CL &
> CLEs - saying the bodies are:
>
> 1) in the shop every 2 years or so for maintenance,
> 2) not reliable due to fragile meter cells,
> 3) hampered by a finder that is the least accurate in
> the Leica stable,
> 4) not truly designed for Leica M glass.
>
> And no - he wasn't trying to sell me a more expensive
> body.
>
> Living in New York City - I am privy to a visual
> banquet everyday - both above and below ground.  I
> would like to take my M6 daily to work - but common
> sense dictates I leave it home.  After reading about
> the CL on the cameraquest site some weeks ago I
> thought it may be what I'm looking for - a small body
> that sports Leica glass...but now I'm not so sure.
>
> Steve Gandy of CameraQuest was so HIGH on the camera,
> while my Leica dealer so negative about it - I had to
> see what real users felt.
>
> Good light to you all,
>
> Ara
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- "SonC (Sonny Carter)" <SonC@sonc.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/

In reply to: Message from ara ayer <araayer@yahoo.com> (Re: [Leica] cl vs ql17? CL.)