Minolta CLE v Bessa R3A

[countmypixels]

Hi, just wondering what people's thoughts might be concerning these two camera bodies for a 40mm lens. I recently came by a CV40/1.4 MC at a good price to complement a CV15 I already had. I posted recently about the CLE v CL and am pretty sure a CLE would suit me better... I do like having auto exposure available (hence the Bessa R3A rather than M).

I also like using the wider lenses and might look at a CV21/4 down the track (maybe a 28mm although I have the 28/45/90 Contax G1). Although I can use the CV15 & 40 on my Sony Nex 5N there is the crop factor to consider. Looking for something film based to tied me over until FF digital hopefully becomes more available/cheaper in a year of two (??).

The Bessa R3A has a nice viewfinder I gather (1:1) but there are a number of people complaining about misaligned rangefinders and other problems.
A Bessa R4A might also suit my interests in wider FLs but it has 0.58 viewfinder and you have to physically modify (read file away some metal on the mount) to force the camera to bring up 35mm framelines rather than 50mm (seems a bit drastic but others have gone this route).

Anyway, what do people think about the CLE v Bessa. Am I right in thinking a well maintained CLE might be a safer bet than the Voigt, particularly as I'm looking to purchase 2nd hand. Thanks in advance

 

[Bill58]

The CLE is a fine camera, but repairs of the electronics are a real "iffy" deal. If they go out, you're dead in the water.

 

[countmypixels]

Thanks Bill.... good point .... like the wife's 'bad hair day' !!! cheers

 

[funkydog]

The CLE rangefinder patch is more like those on 70s Japanese fixed lens RF cameras (IIRC difficult to see little yellow diamond over a blue tinted field) while the Bessa 3A viewfinder is more familiar to Leica RF users. I prefer the Bessa because of this. YMMV.

 

[Addy101]

The CLE is a fine camera, but repairs of the electronics are a real "iffy" deal. If they go out, you're dead in the water.

There was a thread not long ago where it was mentioned that (1) most CLE still working seem to have oke electronics as nobody remembered one with gone electronics and (2) the electronics are based on the Minolta's of the day and those are everywhere. I wouldn't be too worried, but the Voigtlaender is a current camera and so repair is easier by definition.

 

[Mark Schretlen]

The CLE rangefinder patch is more like those on 70s Japanese fixed lens RF cameras (IIRC difficult to see little yellow diamond over a blue tinted field) while the Bessa 3A viewfinder is more familiar to Leica RF users. I prefer the Bessa because of this. YMMV.

Hmmm ... If they are so bad, I wonder why our head bartender (who markets CV Bessas) ranks the CLE viewfinder above Bessas:

http://www.cameraquest.com/leica.htm

Perhaps you are confusing the CLE with the CL.

 

[Mark Schretlen]

Hi, just wondering what people's thoughts might be concerning these two camera bodies for a 40mm lens. I recently came by a CV40/1.4 MC at a good price to complement a CV15 I already had. I posted recently about the CLE v CL and am pretty sure a CLE would suit me better... I do like having auto exposure available (hence the Bessa R3A rather than M).

I also like using the wider lenses and might look at a CV21/4 down the track (maybe a 28mm although I have the 28/45/90 Contax G1). Although I can use the CV15 & 40 on my Sony Nex 5N there is the crop factor to consider. Looking for something film based to tied me over until FF digital hopefully becomes more available/cheaper in a year of two (??).

The Bessa R3A has a nice viewfinder I gather (1:1) but there are a number of people complaining about misaligned rangefinders and other problems.
A Bessa R4A might also suit my interests in wider FLs but it has 0.58 viewfinder and you have to physically modify (read file away some metal on the mount) to force the camera to bring up 35mm framelines rather than 50mm (seems a bit drastic but others have gone this route).

Anyway, what do people think about the CLE v Bessa. Am I right in thinking a well maintained CLE might be a safer bet than the Voigt, particularly as I'm looking to purchase 2nd hand. Thanks in advance

You won't have to modify the mount of the CV40/1.4 for either camera (CLE or Bessa). An unmodified CV40 brings up a 40mm frameline on the CLE and on the Bessa R3 you set the frame line with a switch (beside the hotshoe). On the Bessa R4 you would similarly use the switch to set the frame line to 35mm. If you want to want to see 35mm frame lines on a Leica M, you will have to file a lug on the mount (or hold the 35 frameline lever in place to avoid the "automatic" 50/75 framelines of the CV40).

I don't think you can go wrong with any of the cameras that you are considering. All you have to do is decide which frame line sets you want.

 

[countmypixels]

Thanks guys for this useful feedback.... I do wear glasses (unfortunately). Can someone please explain just how this might affect my ability to focus or compose images across these 3 cameras (CLE v Bessa R3 v R4) ... I have some experience using a Contax G1 but it has AF and have heard it described as rather narrow VF. Given that we're talking about film cameras I don't want to have problems with focus. Cheers

 

[splitimageview]

The CLE rangefinder patch is more like those on 70s Japanese fixed lens RF cameras (IIRC difficult to see little yellow diamond over a blue tinted field) while the Bessa 3A viewfinder is more familiar to Leica RF users. I prefer the Bessa because of this. YMMV.

Huh? This isn't a CLE viewfinder description at all...the memory is incorrect 🙂

 

[funkydog]

You could be right. It has been a long time since I last used a CLE. There have been too many different cameras in the intervening years that would have diluted my recollection of the CLE user experience.

 

[Palaeoboy]

Huh? This isn't a CLE viewfinder description at all...the memory is incorrect 🙂

You memory is correct , in no way is the CLE rangefinder patch like that of the 70's fixed lens rangefinders. It is exactly like Leicas in use and operation. The Bessa in fact has its rangefinder patch fixed in one position while the framelines move to correct for distance. The CLE's patch moves with the framelines and always remains centred within the framelines like a Leica does. So if anything a CLE is closer to a Leica than a Bessa with regards to its rangefinder patch.

 

[presspass]

If you wear glasses, the 40 frame can be hard to see on an R3. With the R4, you can set the frame to 35 and use that - it should be close enough for most work.

 

[teleparallel]

I'd go for the bessa. I have the R4A, and use glasses. I use the 21mm all the time. I can't really see it all at once, but it's not hard to use. No misaligning at all so far, in 8 months, and I've got it pretty used.

You should get the last version. They seen better finished. I've tested a silver R2A, I think one of the first version, and didn't like. To be sure, look ate tha shutter from the lens side. If it's all white, not just a stripe, It's an old one.

 

[Bingley]

I've never used a CLE, but I did have a Bess R3A. I wear glasses and found the 40 framelines hard to see. I also had some rf misalignment problems. On the plus side, the meter is very good and the aperture priority operation also very good. In the end, I sold the camera. If I were going to go the Bessa route again with a 40 as my principal lens, I'd get an R2A and use the 35 framelines to compose.

 

[Bill58]

There was a thread not long ago where it was mentioned that (1) most CLE still working seem to have oke electronics as nobody remembered one with gone electronics and (2) the electronics are based on the Minolta's of the day and those are everywhere. I wouldn't be too worried, but the Voigtlaender is a current camera and so repair is easier by definition.

Quote from http://cameraquest.com/cle.htm: "CLE Repairs are no longer available from Minolta USA, although some Minolta offices worldwide may still have parts. The CLE shutter, meter readout, and shutter release are based upon Minolta's XG series. Keep in mind not a lot of CLE's were made. Your local independent repairman may say they can't work on them simply because they never have before. Ask them if they can repair XG's. IF they can, they can probably repair the CLE too! Keeping a few XG parts bodies is a wise decision. The biggest problem long term is the lack of replacement CLE circuit boards.

Like any other electronic camera, the CLE is sensitive to dust and dirt inside the cover. Dirt can give you erratic meter readouts or other problems, a common and easily curable CLE repair."

I've never owned a Bessa body, but from reading many threads on RFF over the years, I'm not inclined to buy one either. It appears to me that high quality/ reliability is not their strong suite.

 

[splitimageview]

A CLE that has been reasonably well cared for is quite reliable. There is a common issue with the meter readout being erratic which is solved by simply rotating the shutter dial several times. The best thing for CLE reliability is to use them regularly. 🙂

 

[Doug]

A CLE that has been reasonably well cared for is quite reliable. There is a common issue with the meter readout being erratic which is solved by simply rotating the shutter dial several times. The best thing for CLE reliability is to use them regularly. 🙂

And any competent tech can remove the shutter speed dial and clean the contacts under it, something I've had done a couple times. I got a new CLE in '82 and a second body in '07, as this had become a favorite camera. There's obviously room in the viewfinder for 28mm framelines, so you can see nicely around the outside of the 40 frames. The full viewfinder approximates a 25mm frame but without parallax compensation.

My camera repair guy told me the CLE does not use integrated circuits; rather, the boards have discrete components. So in case of part failure, if he could identify which electronic component had failed he could theoretically just solder in a new off the shelf part.

I also have a Bessa R4A, a unique rig that comes into its own with the wider lenses. This has the advantage of more recent construction and servicing, but... my CLEs have never gone out of alignment. I like both! 😱

 

[Monochrom]

Hi, very good points on the CLE and the R3a...

I´ve used extensibly both and i like better the bessa...that´s because the metering has more control....the button for locking AE is great...The monolta lacks that and you have to compensate all the way...

The other odd thing i never liked from the CLE´s i owned is the lightmeter pattern it uses to get contaminated from little bright spots which makes the camera to underexpose...
on the sencod camera that had that problem i removed the top and re adjusted the low light carbon track. Only then i could use it with more ease.

The bessa has not that better built feeeling of the CLE...but is far more round up camera....perhaps the 40mm frame could me more precise...
When i purchased the bessa it came wuth a sheer vertical misalignment...it was due to poor manufacture since a screww was set inside and just couldn´t be screwed any more in order to achieve perfect alignment....i had to take it away and cut a little tip of it...only then i could set the rangefinder to specs....

I´m not so happy with lightmeter pattern i just don´t like that horiszontal strip...on my late rd1s i just painted the curtains and then the whole thing got better...i guess i won´t do anything to this bessa since i´m about to sell it along with the rollei sonnar 40mm lens.

Bye!

 

[splitimageview]

My camera repair guy told me the CLE does not use integrated circuits; rather, the boards have discrete components. So in case of part failure, if he could identify which electronic component had failed he could theoretically just solder in a new off the shelf part.

Yep...CLEs should be servicable for a very long while, with the right tech, and a spare CLE for parts. 🙂 These are early 80s circuits, so shouldn't be a problem to repair. But the fact is, they rarely need work if the cameras are cared for in a reasonable manner.

 

[Huss]

The CLE rangefinder patch is more like those on 70s Japanese fixed lens RF cameras (IIRC difficult to see little yellow diamond over a blue tinted field) while the Bessa 3A viewfinder is more familiar to Leica RF users. I prefer the Bessa because of this. YMMV.

The absolute opposite. The CLE has a very bright VF with a very bright and contrasty RF patch. I just got one and it is as easy to focus as any of my Leicas.