Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/05/24

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

To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: CLE
From: Eric Welch <ewelch@gp.magick.net>
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 09:22:13 -0700

At 09:22 AM 5/24/96 -0400, you wrote:

>I would call this a second-generation CL.
>
>What did you mean by third generation?

It might well be. My impression is that a distinction is made between the
two versions of the CL, because the second was my by Minolta for Minolta's
purposes, with permission of Leica, of course, and some people have told me
they're not quite as good. You note implies that's not true. If so, I would
have to concur the CLE is a second generation and not third. Yet, I find
nothing interesting about the camera except maybe ttl flash. The manual
exposure problem is probably as much as anything a lack of insight into the
way a "Leica clone" should operate as to guarantee the doom of the camera.

Can you tell I don't think much of them? <g> I know many who love them. I'm
just not one of them.

==========================
Eric Welch
Grants Pass Daily Courier


Replies: Reply from James J Dempsey <jjd@k12-nis-2.bbn.com> (Re: CLE)
Reply from JIMMY_LEOW@HP-Singapore-om4.om.hp.com (Autoreply Message)
Reply from Tom Hodge <thodge@charweb.org> (Re: CL/CLE ancestry and stuff)