I wasn't comparing M bodies with the CL. I was merely pointing out that some "Leica owners" (as if we're all the same!) aren't buying a Leica "because it's more expensive".
I was trying to refute Herb's position, and here's his quote: "a person who wants a Leica doesn't want anything remotely less in cost." My point was simply that the CL proved that wrong, since they sold twice as many CL's as M5's during the period the CL was distributed as a new camera. Of course M bodies are sturdier. They cost lots more! (and they're worth it <g>) cheers, frank Rob Studdert wrote: > > OK lets get some perspective here. The M cameras are far more robust than the > CL series. I have owned and used both, I still own M bodies but I don't own the > CLE, yes the CDS metering flag failed twice. The M cameras are robust, they are > hand built to far higher tolerances than virtually any other 35mm camera on the > market, they are all mechanical (well were entirely until the M7) and there is > no apparent end to their serviceability or compatibility. > > As I mentioned some time ago I had the top plate on my 1965 M4 replaced due to > a bad ding (I ripped a hole in it), it came back with the same engraved serial > number looking new. There has to be a price to pay for the service, longevity > and precision. Ask anyone who has owned an M camera for 10+ years and they'll > likely acknowledge it as money well spent. > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
