Oh, man, how time flies. And yet, to me it feels like such a while ago. No GAS lusting for you. Otherwise we're gonna have to put you on a strict Argus diet.
ignorance is everywhere...on p.net someone asked about a cl vs a m6 and one of the answers was that a cl was not a leica m...
then what is it? a leica q or t or k...
i know rich is not ignorant but the attitute regarding cl's or the m5 and now the zi is too much some times.
i like leicas and have no beef with them or the people who use them generally.
We know Rich was joking. Yes, it's hard to swim amid the hardcore "it's A or B" populi. No shades, no nuances. It's all bumpersticker arguments without any depth.
Joe, I don't think you can argue that the Leica CL was not built to a lower price point than the then current standard M bodies. Therefore "not quite a Leica" is defendable, I think.
Preference for mechanical cameras is a personal opinion, which is some thing we respect around here.
of the stalk off the film plane photocell designs in the CL or M5, but when they are working, they work fine, pretty much. Better than no meter if you need a meter.
clintock said:
Mine says made in japan, just like my AF-C1
M5's are the best ever.. CL are cool because they are like a little M5...
everybody else has meter envy..
Nothing wrong with being a Minolta, one of the most prized camera bodies there is - the Minolta CLE.. is a minolta.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.