[Leica] CL vs. CLE

[pmcc_2000 at yahoo.com (Peter M. C. Choy)]

As a long-time CLE user I can appreciate
what Alastair means.  To use one is to
cherish its considerable virtues in terms of
simplicity, functionality and form-factor.
Thus it is understandably heart-breaking
when some aspect fails.

I just wish someone would produce a worthy 
M mount successor to the CLE.  The Hexar RF, 
Leica M7 and Bessa R3a may be admirable designs 
in their own right, but they don't embody the
Goldilocks philosophy of the CLE. Where is
Maitani when we need him? (with acknowledgements
to Olympus)

Peter.
SF, CA


--- buzz.hausner@verizon.net wrote:
> It is interesting to say that, "The CLE is one of
> the best cameras EVER made...," and then follow on
> by citing its reliability failure and lens
> separation.
> 
> Buzz
> 
> 
> >From: Alastair Firkin <firkin@ncable.net.au>
> >Date: Wed Apr 27 07:35:02 CDT 2005
> >To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
> >Subject: Re: [Leica] CL vs. CLE
> 
> >The CLE is one of the best cameras EVER made, BUT
> Minolta deserted it 
> >and it has issues of reliablility: I had the
> complete set. Camera, 
> >lenses, leather case. Best camera I ever had TILL
> it began to fail: 
> >exposure meter problems and Minolta disowned it.
> The 28 mm lens also 
> >had a habit of "separation": but the images were
> still great. I hated 
> >Minolta for not backing the camera. I will not buy
> Minolta.
> >
> >Cheers
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for
> more information
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com