Is the Leica CL a Leica or not?

Landberg said:
Maybe it's just sweds who talks about it?;)
Click to expand...

Never heard of such a statement.

How far can it go, all this talk about Leica this, Leica that? It's getting ridiculous, or has it always been like this? I'm disgusted, not because the Leica is supposed to be a superior camera, but because I fell for it years ago. Has my photography improved? No, quite the opposite - I forgot what's important and fun.

I actually think that lately the Leica-myth cured me from Leica-envy.

Sorry about the rant.
 
Is that as in "Schroedingers Cat"....

Is that as in "Schroedingers Cat"....

Roger Hicks said:
No it isn't. Look, it just moved!

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Then the hypothesis would be that if you put a CL in a box, as in the "Schrodinger" postulation, then the camera would be considered a "Leica" or NOT a "Leica" until someone opened the box. In the case of the Cat experiment, the cat would be considered either/neither alive or dead until someone opened the box.

There are other ways to express the Erwin Schrodinger methods and expression of theory. I have not studied them all, yet!

Then enter Carl Jung, and Sigmund Freud. I do submit that Carl Jung was primarily an Egoist, and Freud was simply a sexual pervert. Whether either of them possessed a Leica Camera would be unlikely. Erwin Schrodinger would have been in good company with both.

Freud, Jung, and Schrodinger were all three alive when the first Barnack hit the bricks, but Freud was older, by some many years. With his sexual obsessions, it's unlikely he could have appreciated a Leica as much a Jung and possibly Schrodinger

I'm just trying to stay as pertinent in this thread as ALL the other posts.
 
kuzano said:
Then the hypothesis would be that if you put a CL in a box, as in the "Schrodinger" postulation, then the camera would be considered a "Leica" or NOT a "Leica" until someone opened the box. In the case of the Cat experiment, the cat would be considered either/neither alive or dead until someone opened the box.

There are other ways to express the Erwin Schrodinger methods and expression of theory. I have not studied them all, yet!

Then enter Carl Jung, and Sigmund Freud. I do submit that Carl Jung was primarily an Egoist, and Freud was simply a sexual pervert. Whether either of them possessed a Leica Camera would be unlikely. Erwin Schrodinger would have been in good company with both.

Freud, Jung, and Schrodinger were all three alive when the first Barnack hit the bricks, but Freud was older, by some many years. With his sexual obsessions, it's unlikely he could have appreciated a Leica as much a Jung and possibly Schrodinger

I'm just trying to stay as pertinent in this thread as ALL the other posts.
Click to expand...
Highlight: And you have succeeded!

Cheers, and a prosperous New Year,

R.
 
kuzano said:
Then the hypothesis would be that if you put a CL in a box, as in the "Schrodinger" postulation, then the camera would be considered a "Leica" or NOT a "Leica" until someone opened the box. In the case of the Cat experiment, the cat would be considered either/neither alive or dead until someone opened the box.
Click to expand...

Taking this principle a step further, how else would one judge whether the contents were Leica, if not by name? You can see where I'm going with this?
 
Hi,

But didn't Wittgenstein say something about philosophy being a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of words?

I don't really see what it matters, especially since this row about CL's being Leica's or non-Leica's has been going on for years and years.

It's also strange that we don't have this row about, say, Rollei cameras. I've ones from the 30's made in Germany and others are not made their by any stretch of the imagination but I've yet to see or hear anyone claim they were not Rollei's. Ditto my German 30's Contax and my not German Tix and the there's my Japanese made Olympus and my not Japanese made Olympus and so on.

So why just pick on the CL? How about the Leica SLR's?

But does it really matter what they chose to have made by a sub-contractor? I doubt if we would have any of the modern Leicas if they'd insisted on making their own computer chips and ribbons etc. Setting up a factory to make them would have bankrupted them...

The main thing is that if it looks like a Leica and behaves like a Leica and so, as it says Leica on the top plate, I reckon it's a Leica.

Regards, David
 
Landberg said:
Here is the man who just had to tell me that my camera was not a leica camera!
1318363768.jpg
Click to expand...

And so you shot him?
Well, he started...
:D
 
David Hughes said:
Hi,

But didn't Wittgenstein say something about philosophy being a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of words?

I don't really see what it matters, especially since this row about CL's being Leica's or non-Leica's has been going on for years and years.

It's also strange that we don't have this row about, say, Rollei cameras. I've ones from the 30's made in Germany and others are not made their by any stretch of the imagination but I've yet to see or hear anyone claim they were not Rollei's. Ditto my German 30's Contax and my not German Tix and the there's my Japanese made Olympus and my not Japanese made Olympus and so on.

So why just pick on the CL? How about the Leica SLR's?

But does it really matter what they chose to have made by a sub-contractor? I doubt if we would have any of the modern Leicas if they'd insisted on making their own computer chips and ribbons etc. Setting up a factory to make them would have bankrupted them...

The main thing is that if it looks like a Leica and behaves like a Leica and so, as it says Leica on the top plate, I reckon it's a Leica.

Regards, David
Click to expand...

I heartily agree.

All that this serves to do is damage the value of peoples investments. Anyone looking to buy a CL will do a google search and this thread will pop up. Yes, take a look.

To me it is a Leica (or Leitz) because it says so on the 'tin'.

If a Leica is only true if made in Wetzlar, then anything after the M5 (yeah baby) is not a Leica, including the M4-2, M4-P, MP, M6, M7, M8, M9 etc etc . . .
 
I'll be glad when the panto season is over, no I won't, oh yes I will, Oh no you won't ... What Do You Think Children?
 
I guess when most people talk about the CL, they will say that Leica, whereas in their hearts: "That Minolta..."...

Just saying...
 
I suppose I'd better not mention that a repairer of my acquaintance once told me that the CL and the CLE are better made and more reliable than anything later than the M4... :eek:

Oops! I already have! :angel:
 
Apple's products are designed by Apple but made in China. Do we called it the Apple Iphone or the Wang Chung Iphone or whatever the manufacturer is called? (No racial prejudice intended or implied, just an example)).
 
Why would you even care?
If you own something that is high quality and does everything you want it to do, why would you care what other people think about it?
Unless you are more concerned about labels and status than results, it shouldn't make the slightest difference.


Landberg said:
I have used various Leica M, the Epson R-D1, and other analog and digital rangefinder cameras. Leica has never disappointed me and the Leica CL is no exception. Leica CL is the lightest and smallest M-mount rangefinder camera that you can buy for money. Need I say more? The biggest problem with owning a Leica CL is that there are so many people who spend their time trying to say that the Leica CL is not a Leica.

All the unnecessary time bitter people devote to discuss whether it's a leica or not is meaningless. It was designed and sold by Lecia, it says leica(leitz wetzlar) on top of it then it's a Leica, end of discussion! Instead of denying the Leica CL as a Leica, you should go out and take pictures! Because it is very common for people with expensive Leica M talk talk but dont walk the walk. There are many with Lecia M that could just as well have a disposable camera for their pictures are crap! Of course, all have the right to acquire any camera and take how bad or good pictures as they want, but stop complaining about other people's choice of camera.

I believe that many who buy a nice and expensive Leica feel the need to be unique. And when there's an inexpensive Leica that is not made ​​by hand in Germany, the Leica CL spits on their expensive hand-made Leica cameras. "I bought an expensive camera and it should not be compared to a cheap camera from Japan".

I do not mean to get enemies here on rangefinderforum.com. I'm just a little tired of the eternal nagging about if the Leica CL is a Leica or not. These are my thoughts and my thoughts only!

Have a nice time shooting!;) (and yes i should get out and shoot and not be here talking about cameras)
Click to expand...
 
Don't care. My point is why there are people that just had to point out the difference? My Leica M is not my first camera simply because I have cameras i like more like my CL. The brand on the house don't matter to me and the glass don't matter either if I don't go out and shoot! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom