Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/27

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: CL vs. CLE
From: firkin at balhpl01.ncable.net.au (firkin)
Date: Wed Apr 27 21:43:03 2005
References: <1752854.1114604898592.JavaMail.root@vms074.mailsrvcs.net>

Well, it got old, No problem for 15 years !!!! I suppose it sounds strange, 
but it was a wonderful camera which I would still be using if Minolta 
serviced and backed it, but they stopped making spare electronic parts, and 
even the best camera will fail "eventually" ;-) 

buzz.hausner@verizon.net writes: 

> 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
 


Alastair Firkin
www.afirkin.com
www.familyofman2.com 

In reply to: Message from buzz.hausner at verizon.net (buzz.hausner@verizon.net) ([Leica] CL vs. CLE)