Jump to content

Leica analogue reflex desirability


Guest Posto 6

Recommended Posts

Guest Posto 6

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As it now seems certain that Leica will not be building any more analogue SLR cameras, a consensus ranking in terms of useability, durability (an increasingly important issue from now on) and serviceability would be useful. If those with practical experience of the Leicaflex and R series could send their opinions, this would help build up quite an accurate picture of the desireability and practicality of the various models. Perhaps this could be done using a star rating, as well as concise comments on the cameras' attributes. To start the process, I would suggest the following:

-SL2 MOT- ***** Wonderful all-manual camera, exceptional finder, ultra-robust, practical, high reliability if serviced regularly

-SL **** As above, weaker lightmeter, limitation on using certain lenses

-R6.2 **** Nice camera, can have significant shutter lag, zinc top plate, recent vintage, small size

-R9 **** will take digital back, refined, reliable, ergonomic but bulky

-R7 *** Easily best of automatic R range (among R4,R4s,RE and R5)

-R4 ** electronics get old, inferior finder, good as starter due to price

Edited by Posto 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

-SL ***** The closest you get to M camera feeling in terms of being an extension of your eyes. Wonderful sound (sexiest shutter sound ever in any camera)

-R9 ***** Simply works, ergonomics perfect, viewfinder bright and precise. With the motor it's a very precise camera to use and feels like it could go on like that for eternity.

-R4 *** Great camera to use, silent winder/motor, but very 70ties feel of electronics

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find The Leicaflex SL the best SLR camera of Leica; I can say that after the use of this camera of more than 30 years. It is the most realiable camera besides my Leica's M4 (P). I had never any technical trouble with the SL.

The SL have still the most beautiful big sceen of 'pentaprism'.

The SL is now to own for around €150; When you give this camera a CLA then you will get an excellent camera for the rest of your life...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SL is the camera but R8 and R9 is also, in their own way. And more useful as they can be used digital. It's incredible nice cameras.

 

But it's true that the M4 and SL is reliable. Snow, rain, dust, nothing affects them. But I have had some focus problems with the SLs, probably because the mirror needs adjustment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

R3 - does everything I want, lovely shutter response and quiet too, centre weighted/spot metering, solidly built. Downsides, its heavy, 1/1000 top speed.

 

The problem with any electronic R is that when the electrics fail its usually uneconomical to repair them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Posto 6

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The SL is the camera

 

I really find that I prefer the extra features of the SL2Mot, in spite of the significant price premium. The electronics are very robust and reliable (like the SL), and I have found the extra strength from the internals of the Mot version makes for an extremely robust and dependable mechanism (I have 3 Mots, but have never owned a plain SL2). If buying one of these, I would definitely seek out an SL2Mot as it is likely to be far longer-lasting, and in fact does not command much of a price difference to the normal SL2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SL is the camera but R8 and R9 is also, in their own way. And more useful as they can be used digital. It's incredible nice cameras.

 

But it's true that the M4 and SL is reliable. Snow, rain, dust, nothing affects them. But I have had some focus problems with the SLs, probably because the mirror needs adjustment.

 

I Full agree whit You.

For me the R8 is the R camera:cool:However my 30 years old R3 never let me down to..;)

 

Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest darkstar2004
The SL is the camera but R8 and R9 is also, in their own way. And more useful as they can be used digital. It's incredible nice cameras.

 

At a camera shop I know, there is a pristine (9+) R9 anthracite languishing, priced at $1795US - about half what a new one would set me back.

 

It's awfully tempting - but I have no R lenses and I think "that $1795 would go a long way toward another M lens."

 

I'm thinking it may be better to concentrate on the M line, as I already have a good start there; what do the rest of you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Posto 6
Same for me.

 

 

Hi Doug,

 

In view of your unrivalled experience with Leica SLRs, I would be very interested in your analysis as to what you feel makes the SL a better camera- perhaps it would be worthwhile getting one as well to compare! In particular, is it the handling, or the construction which you feel tips the balance?

 

Apologies if you have already gone into a lot of detail on this elsewhere- if it is easier, feel free to provide the links.

 

All the best,

 

Gerry

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's true that the M4 and SL is reliable. Snow, rain, dust, nothing affects them. But I have had some focus problems with the SLs, probably because the mirror needs adjustment.

 

I love the SL, but I would suggest some tape over the small cover on the front of the prism... It's an easy entry point for dust and dirt. I found that out the hard way... Other then that it's one of the best cameras Leica has made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Doug,

 

In view of your unrivalled experience with Leica SLRs, I would be very interested in your analysis as to what you feel makes the SL a better camera- perhaps it would be worthwhile getting one as well to compare! In particular, is it the handling, or the construction which you feel tips the balance?

 

Apologies if you have already gone into a lot of detail on this elsewhere- if it is easier, feel free to provide the links.

 

All the best,

 

Gerry

 

Leica Leicaflex SL - photo.net

 

Viewfinder, construction and handling. Since the above review was written I've also figured out how to use many ROM lenses on the SL without removing the ROM contacts or otherwise limiting the usability of the lenses on either R or SL bodies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose the Leicaflex SL2 mainly because of the greater mirror clearance and the ability to use lenses that cannot be used on the SL. I believe the 24 Elmarit (Minolta design) is one of these, and I use it a lot.

 

I also have a motorized R8 that I really love. If only it had as good a viewfinder as the Leicaflex, it would be the perfect camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My preference is strictly for the R8/R9. I never had any interest with respect to the Leicaflexes as their CDS metering system is too slow and honestly sluggish as well as being subject to memory issues in the case of bright light sources.

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest liesevolvo

SL as a bargain (wonderful camera!), SL2 as the even better camera (the last pure Wetzlar-design, as the M5). SL seems better for me with bellows, SL2 in general use. Lightmeter is improved a lot. Both can become a mess, when they are defect. Buy one that has been serviced during the last years.

 

Lenn, Cologne/Germany

 

Excuse my English

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...