Leica CL vs. Bessa R2

vrgard said:
It seems to me that we're doing a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison here. I assume the underlying basis of the question is price else why compare an easily pocketable camera with some ergonomic film-changing challenges and possible meter issues to a newer camera with greater size and noise? In other words, if price is the starting point for why you're considering these two cameras then you need to decide as a secondary matter whether the smaller size of the CL is more important to you than whatever benefits the R2 might provide. Since I have a CL yet have never used an R2 I can't really give you any advice based on personal experience. But I can tell you that the reason I bought a CL is because I wanted an M mount camera that was easy to travel with. And I've been very happy with my CL.

-Randy
Click to expand...

As I said, I have both these cameras, and I find them to be very similar: metered, mechanical, M-mount, very good finders, shorter RF baselength than Leica M, smaller, lighter, less expensive than Leica M. I use both for the same purpose: a daily carry-around camera.
 
Last edited:
ampguy said:
I think the CL is a great 2nd M-mount body for someone like Randy who has 2 M6's to break before he has to dig out the CL 😀 and who doesn't need a decent baselength for close focusing and/or fast lenses.

I've had a bad CL, and even after $240 of overhaul, the meter still didn't work.

The meter design with the lever stalk rotating almost 90 degrees with each shutter click is not a robust long lasting design.

I have dozens of cameras from Nikon, Pentax, Yashica, Olympus, Minolta, Konica, Canon, etc. from the same era of the CL, and the meters always work.

Did you ever wonder why the off of the film plane stalk meter of the CL and M5 was not continued into the CLE, MP, M6, M7, and M8 designs? Or why Bessa or others did not think to use a similar design??
Click to expand...


Ted is right that I do not use my CL as my daily camera. And I wouldn't want to rely on my CL for close focusing with a fast lens. But it's great otherwise and I have no hesitation about using when I travel.

As for the meter, Ted shared with me that his overhaul did not include replacing the bad meter cell so it's not surprising that it still didn't work after the overhaul. And I find it quite refreshing that I can still get my 30 year old CL overhauled and even the meter repaired. That's more than can be expected of most things in this world. Lastly, sunny-16 ain't that hard to do so I'm learning to shoot without a built-in meter (forcing myself to learn with my M3) so I should be fine with my CL should the meter decide to stop working altogether. In fact, in addition to travel use, that's the other reason I bought the CL rather than a barnack Leica - easily carried and still an M-mount camera - and I can always use it without a meter if the need arises.

-Randy
 
The meter cell on the m5 and cl was a cds light dependent resistor, which had to be big back then, and minolta hadn't yet invented the off the curtain/film metering method that was made popular in the CLE and OM-2. The common SLR meters put the big ol' cells of the day up in the viewfinder, but that wouldn't work too well on the rangefinder types, with no diaphram coupling to tell the meter how to compensate for stopping down.
So in light of those limitations, the meter cell on a stalk was the only way left. One extra moving part.
 
I wouldn't shy away from a CL with a dead or inaccurate meter. Simply use it with a handheld or CVmeterII lightmeter, as you would if it were a screwmount Leica. The CL's advantage over a screwmount is it's M-mount and better viewfinder.
 
Hi Tom

Hi Tom

If the stalk just needs adjusting, and the cell is still good, then it may not be expensive for that fix, but if the photocell is dead or dying, then it is ~$100 for the cell part itself, plus labor for replacement and calibration, not counting any other work, and that ~ $200+ ish price just for a meter fix can be hard to justify since even a brand new cell and perfect stalk may not give as accurate or wide an EV range as a stand alone meter.

Yes, they are fun, and nothing beats the small size of the CL.

Flyfisher Tom said:
The CL is fun ... that's good enough for me. DAG and Krauter can easily fix the meter for very little outlay. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
 
It's not the cell that worries me about the CL though, it's the d'Arsonval movement-
The cells are still manufactured, but that movement, forget it. I guess they are sort of like having an old Triumph TR3 or something. Great fun when they work.. but a camry is more reliable.
 
ampguy said:
If the stalk just needs adjusting, and the cell is still good, then it may not be expensive for that fix, but if the photocell is dead or dying, then it is ~$100 for the cell part itself, plus labor for replacement and calibration, not counting any other work, and that ~ $200+ ish price just for a meter fix can be hard to justify since even a brand new cell and perfect stalk may not give as accurate or wide an EV range as a stand alone meter.

Yes, they are fun, and nothing beats the small size of the CL.
Click to expand...

Ahem, well there is the CLE... 😉


.
 
I don't believe the original poster wants to wait 30 years to see if the Bessa will be as durable as the Leica. I think he wanted a camera to use in the near future, while he is still alive and while film is still available (little joke there -- don't get your neck straps in a bunch).
 
FrankS said:
I wouldn't shy away from a CL with a dead or inaccurate meter. Simply use it with a handheld or CVmeterII lightmeter, as you would if it were a screwmount Leica. The CL's advantage over a screwmount is it's M-mount and better viewfinder.
Click to expand...

..exactly why my vote is for the CL. The CL has more of what I want from a RF...even without a working meter. However, The R2 is a nice camera...no doubt about it.

🙂
 
RayPA said:
..exactly why my vote is for the CL. The CL has more of what I want from a RF...even without a working meter. However, The R2 is a nice camera...no doubt about it.

🙂
Click to expand...

Ray and Frank absolutely hit it on the head 🙂

All this hand-wringing about buying one without a working meter ... if that is what worries you, BUY ONE WITH A WORKING METER !!!! That's all I'm saying 😉 Like all items, your mileage on anything (whether it is a car, camera, house) depends on you making a good choice on the actual item to begin with. If you want a BMW, you buy one with a great transmission. You don't buy a BMW with a bad transmission and then torture yourself wondering what all the endless permutations of repair costs are, that's just silly 😉

I have a CL with a perfect working meter adjusted by Krauter to accept 1.5v batteries. DAG does the same with ease. But as Ray and Frank says, it is pretty much a perfect compact camera even if you don't use the internal meter. Not unlike perfect 'meterless' cameras like, oh, let's see, the M3 or M2 or M4 😀
 
Why the R2? Why not CL vs R2M?

Why the R2? Why not CL vs R2M?

While the Bessa R2/CL question has some give and take both ways, I think the Bessa R2M just blows aways the CL and leaves it to drown in hypo. And I like the CL. I own the 50th Anniv version. http://cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm

It's a shame no R2M/R3M magazine reviews have appeared yet to help photogs know how good these new limited edition Voigts are -- although at least two English edition magazine reviews are in the works. http://cameraquest.com/voigt_250.htm

While I like the CL's small size and its spot meter, the three big problems are lack of repair parts (translaton: meter can't be fixed), the shortest RF of any M camera, and only 3 framelines (40/50/90).

The new Voigt R2M offers a better brighter RF/VF, more framelines at 35/50/75/90, more accurate focusing with a longer effective RF length at 25.9mm vs 18.9, a better more reliable silicon meter that you can easily get batteries for, the best meter readout of any metered manual Leica M camera with EV readouts in 1/2 stops plus/minus 2.5 stops, and a shutter which more or less the same to my ears as the CL. All of this in a beautifully finished black paint camera instead of black chrome. If you have not seen a R2M/R3M, take a look before they are all gone. If the R2M/R3M had Leica nametags, they would pass as the entry level Leicas that Leica should have made 30 years ago!

Stephen
 
I mostly use 50mm lenses and I often use the Sunny 16 Rule for exposure control. In such situations, the CL is near perfect.
 
Now lets see a 30 year old that may meter, could have an actuate shutter, will probably keep the light out and might not need any attention in the next 10 years or a new camera that is 99% likely to do all the above, tricky that one
 
With the examples of the 2 cameras that I have (CL and R2) the CL has a much quieter shutter. The R2 has other advantages. (film loading, meter activation, framelines)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Sigma lenses on a Leica CL
2
Replies
20
Views
4K
rhl-oregon
rhl-oregon
J
  • Article Article
The Kowa SET R2: A leaf shutter SLR for $150 or 7 lens cine set only $111, 000 KOWABUNGA !
Replies
1
Views
366
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
S
Leica CL Adjusting/Calibrating Rangefinder Focusing
Replies
9
Views
2K
Muggins
Muggins
J
  • Article Article
M-Mount Cameras NOT Made by Leica Part 2: Three more outstanding examples
Replies
3
Views
950
Retro-Grouch
Retro-Grouch
H
V-Bessa R2 Light meter issues
Replies
4
Views
3K
H.A
H
Back
Top Bottom