Leica CL VS. Voigtlander Bessa R

[rxmd]

I would go for a CLE. No batterie problems. No metering cell in the way of recessed lenses. TTL flash ability. Shutter times in the finder. 28/40/90 finder with a wider rangefinder base.

No metering in manual.

Philipp

 

[Travelbug]

No metering in manual.

Philipp

Most Leica's don't have metering and I hear not many complains about that 😀. As long as you don't suffer on lack of memory it should be not a problem to read the metering in automatic mode and transfer it to the manual mode or simply use an extra light meter. Oh ... forgot ... the CL has no AE mode.

 

[rxmd]

Most Leica's don't have metering and I hear not many complains about that 😀.

Oh, for me metered manual was the decisive reason to go for a Bessa R instead of a CLE (or an M2). I'm comparing with the Bessa, not the CL. AE would be nice, I admit, but I use metered manual more often than I miss AE.

As long as you don't suffer on lack of memory it should be not a problem to read the metering in automatic mode and transfer it to the manual mode or simply use an extra light meter.

I had a Canonet before that. It doesn't have metered manual either. It's true that you can take manual shots that way but it is major suckage in my opinion. If I want to take the camera away from my eye and fiddle around with it I don't need a rangefinder.

Philipp

 

[JTK]

Bessa's a throw-away, eventually. The CL, no matter it's ultimate condition, will be desirable to somebody, will justify repair (eg Sherry Krauter).

IMO you'd be smarter to get a Leica IIF or IIIF, or a IIIC (even less expensive) and a Gossen Digisix meter. It's a better camera and meter than Bessa or CL, even though it's 60yrs old (they'll live longer than M6).

 

[spiderfrank]

I am an happy owner of a Bessa R: it's cheap, affordable, well built, with a beautiful and clear finder. It also felt two times in the concrete with no problems (the plastic top and bottom covers can damp the shocks more than an all metal body): I think it's the right choice to enter in the rangefinder world, you can buy them new with warranty and they don't use obsolete mercury batteries.

Also, i cannot understand why to buy a screw mount Leica (oh, yes, it's a Leica), when there are much more beautiful (yes!) and cheap Kievs out there:

Compared to a screwmount Leica a Kiev is a much more modern machine: it has a huge rangefinder base (a joy to use), metal shutter, prismatic rangefinder mechanism, one single ring to select all the speeds,
combined rangefinder and viewfinder, faster speeds, and you can buy from Fedka or an other good seller a "clad" camera with a real "return warranty" for less money than a "no-warranty" old Leica.

And about the lens: my Jupiter-8 and my Heliar 103 are both better then my Summitar: don't forget that the Jupiter where Zeiss copies...

 

[pesphoto]

While I dont agreee that its a throw away as another stated.....
...mine fell on my kitchen floor and is in the shop for a verticle and horizontal alignment fix. But I do love using the Bessa R overall.

I am an happy owner of a Bessa R: it's cheap, affordable, well built, with a beautiful and clear finder. It also felt two times in the concrete with no problems (the plastic top and bottom covers can damp the shocks more than an all metal body): I think it's the right choice to enter in the rangefinder world, you can buy them new with warranty and they don't use obsolete mercury batteries.

Also, i cannot understand why to buy a screw mount Leica (oh, yes, it's a Leica), when there are much more beautiful (yes!) and cheap Kievs out there:

Compared to a screwmount Leica a Kiev is a much more modern machine: it has a huge rangefinder base (a joy to use), metal shutter, prismatic rangefinder mechanism, one single ring to select all the speeds,
combined rangefinder and viewfinder, faster speeds, and you can buy from Fedka or an other good seller a "clad" camera with a real "return warranty" for less money than a "no-warranty" old Leica.

And about the lens: my Jupiter-8 and my Heliar 103 are both better then my Summitar: don't forget that the Jupiter where Zeiss copies...

 

[spiderfrank]

Bad luck to you... Or good luck to me?
The only results of my two "crashes" are some "brassing" on the bottom corners of the body... Somewhere in the net you can find a tutorial to set yourself the rangefinder alignement: I didn't have to do that, but the screws should be under the flash shoe.

 

[pesphoto]

Thanks, Ive seen the alignment tutorials, but figured it could use a CLA also and didnt want to risk horsing up the alignment more than it was. It was pretty far off. Now Im just trying to save up the money to get it back from the shop. 🙁

Bad luck to you... Or good luck to me?
The only results of my two "crashes" are some "brassing" on the bottom corners of the body... Somewhere in the net you can find a tutorial to set yourself the rangefinder alignement: I didn't have to do that, but the screws should be under the flash shoe.

 

[Vincenzo Maielli]

I own both Leica CL and Bessa R2. In theory, the Bessa R2 have all the features to work better than the Leica CL, but the practice is very different.
The rangefinder effective base lenght of the Bessa R2 is 25,16 mm, while in the Leica CL is 18,90 mm. The finder of the Bessa R2 is more big and brilliant than the finder of the Leica CL. On the contrary, the rangefinder patch of the Leica CL is more much better contrasted that the same element in the Bessa R2, that is very dramatically poor, in comparison; afterwards, the Leica CL is absolutely better in the focusing operation, in all light conditions, particularly in the available light. Furthermore, the rangefinder patch of the Bessa R2 suffer for a slightly misalignement in the vertical compositions. The same element, in the Leica CL, is always perfect.
The only real advantage of the Bessa R2 is the meter, based on the silicon cell, that is better for rapidity of use than the CDS cell of the Leica CL. But this disadvantage is fully surmountable whit the proper experience.
At last, the Leica CL is more compact and light than Bessa R2.
In conclusion, i have no doubt; the Leica CL is sensibly better than Bessa R2, because the most important thing in a RF camera, the rangefinder patch, is very better in the Leica CL, in comparison with the Bessa R/R2.
Ciao.
Vincenzo

 

[JohnTF]

I do not have a Bessa, but do have the Leica CL and a lot of other "classic" RF's. The CL can easily be serviced if you get one at a good price. $128 will get a CLA at Essex. The camera has a sharp VF/RF, smooth advance, and is not loud. As a "take-itanywhere" camera, it is as small as any compact 35mm RF. As a backup, I drop it with its 40mm F2 into a lens compartment of a Field Bag.

I have one in great shape, but the meter is dead, or playing dead, do you know if people are finding reasonable service for the meter?

Regards, John

 

[back alley]

iirc, sherry from golden touch can service the meter.

 

[JohnTF]

iirc, sherry from golden touch can service the meter.

Thanks, I was checking out her site, I have heard the repair rates are high on the meter, so I have not even sent it in. Previous owner did not have a battery to check it, camera is in cosmetically great shape.

Probably time to find out, if expensive, I should sell the body.

What happened with Toni? I just saw the OP on this was a while back, ;-)

Regards, John

 

[back alley]

the cl works well without a meter also, just like many of the m cameras.

 

[nrb]

I'd say these are different cameras since they use different optics. I own both and I like both so I couldn't vote on this poll.

 

[Al Kaplan]

The only "mechanical" thing that might break on the CL is the grey plastic thingy on the take-up spool. The fingers you stick the film under tend to get brittle after a few decades. You can still load the camera no problem when one breaks off but you can expect the others will soon break also at that point. It's the same part that Minolta used in their SLR cameras for years, so getting it replaced should be no problem.

 

[CameraQuest]

#1 there is no Bessa R1. There is a Bessa R.

R vs CL, I would choose the CL.
R2 vs CL, a tie.

R2M vs CL, the R2M is the easy choice in my opinion.

Stephen

 

[maddoc]

I have just last week received a CL, recently serviced by Sherry Krauter, and I am more than positive surprised. Albeit, the aluminum of the rangefinder prism is deteriorated to a certain degree, focusing is still very good and the meter works very accurate. I really like the meter needle on the right side with the shutter speeds on the top. The camera is very intuitive to use and albeit small not to flimsy.

 

[jody36]

didnt like the CL and sold it. Love the bessa R. not to mention all the srew mount lenses available.

 

[John Robertson]

I have both, and use the Bessa more often, the CL is too small, and the meter system
is unreliable and now a bit dated.
The rubber lens shades, perish very easily, must be the type of rubber, as I have rubber shades for my Foca and Arette which are older but still perfectly OK.
The silvering in the RF goes with age, look the wrong way through the R/F window
you will see black spots showing where the silvering is going.

 

[FrankS]

didnt like the CL and sold it. Love the bessa R. not to mention all the srew mount lenses available.

A basic factor in favour of the CL is its M mount.

An M mount camera like the CL can be fitted with M mount lenses and screw mount lenses via adaptor.

A screw mount camera like the Bessa R can only be fitted with screw mount lenses. No M mount lenses can be used.