Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/25

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

Subject: [Leica] CL vs. CLE
From: jls at runbox.com (Jeffery Smith)
Date: Mon Apr 25 17:42:40 2005

I've got to second Tim's rec. Get the Bessa R3a and a 40/1.4 lens. It
may be a bit larger, but just about everything else about it is great.

Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA
http://www.400tx.com



-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+jls=runbox.com@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+jls=runbox.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Timothy
Atherton
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 6:42 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: RE: [Leica] CL vs. CLE


> I wish I have jumped on Karen's CL offer :-) Anyway, I am looking for
a
> small M mount camera for backup and the CL/CLE look to be pretty good
> choice. I have read all I could on Stephan Gandy's site and I
> still haven't
> quite decided which one to get yet. Any practical user level
suggestions?

As nice as the CL/CLE's are/where, get one of the Bessas instead - for
about
the same price you get a brand new camera whose electronics aren't
likely to
go flaky soon (among other things).

(plenty of info on Gandy's site)

If it's good enough for Lee Friedlander, it's good enough for anyone...
:-)

tim

 
_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] CL vs. CLE)
In reply to: Message from tim at KairosPhoto.com (Timothy Atherton) ([Leica] CL vs. CLE)