I love my Leicaflex!

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very nice cameras built like tanks.

 

Only problem was they were outdated by Nikon when originally produced so they never took off .

 

I have LFI issues where they state a behind the lens meter is impossible. No forward thinking I say.

 

But a lovely camera if you will to put up with the shorcomings.

 

BTW, 35 Curtagon takes E60 filters and the same shade as 60 2.8. Mine is Leitaxed to Nikon D3 right now along with the 28 PC.

Great lenses on digital.

[ganzosrevenge]

Very nice cameras built like tanks.

 

Only problem was they were outdated by Nikon when originally produced so they never took off .

 

I have LFI issues where they state a behind the lens meter is impossible. No forward thinking I say.

 

But a lovely camera if you will to put up with the shorcomings.

 

BTW, 35 Curtagon takes E60 filters and the same shade as 60 2.8. Mine is Leitaxed to Nikon D3 right now along with the 28 PC.

Great lenses on digital.

 

What's LFI?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Doc Henry]

Jason,

See this link :

https://www.lfi-online.de/ceemes/page/show/portal_RELAUNCH/__language__=en/

and specially photo gallery :

http://gallery.lfi-online.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=lastup&cat=-3707

Henry

Edited February 23, 2011 by Doc Henry

[Penzes]

I'm also in love with this combination.

 

Leicaflex SL2 MOT by Istvan Penzes, on Flickr

 

... or without the motor....

 

Leicaflex SL2 MOT by Istvan Penzes, on Flickr

[garyp]

Yep, I still have mine that I purchased in '81.

Still use it, definitely a great piece of equipment !

Love that chrome dial SL of Doug's

[ganzosrevenge]

DAG has the Lens, Sherry the Body...

 

Been there since tues 2/22... now the wait begins.... however long it is i have to wait.

 

(See, leicaflex love, you get it set to new again!)

 

Jason

[Joop van Heijgen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leicaflex users on flickr:

 

Flickr: Leicaflex

[ganzosrevenge]

knowing my camera is not back yet is making me long for it more and more. I know though it's in good hands.

 

Jason

[telewatt]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

regards,

Jan

[SteveYork]

The real problem with these cameras is that they were just so damn expensive. In the early 1970's they cost more than $500 US. More then an M4 by a few hundred. Nikon Fs and F2s were expensive too, but not like that. But in function, the SL beats the pants off those two.

[ganzosrevenge]

[ATTACH]247154[/ATTACH]

 

regards,

Jan

 

That's beautiful. I hope to one day get a black L-Flex SL in that condition. SL2 to me seems a bit too modern, and the original I've never tried.

 

The real problem with these cameras is that they were just so damn expensive. In the early 1970's they cost more than $500 US. More then an M4 by a few hundred. Nikon Fs and F2s were expensive too, but not like that. But in function, the SL beats the pants off those two.

 

Ya. The quality of the L-Flexes won by a mile (they're an engineer's wet dream in terms of complexity and mechanics) but the extra bit of quality they provided wasn't financially viable to a journalist who needed a good tool without breaking the bank. An F or F2 at half the cost with 80% of the quality was far more viable to the self-financed journalist or a journalism house. Especially if those cameras must be serviced or replaced. Nowadays though, these L-Flexes and Nikon F's are the novelties of camera collectors and the tools of those who still desire a pure photographic experience. I'm eager for mine to come back home.

 

Jason

[SteveYork]

One of the silly things I did in life was to sell off a bunch of R stuff a couple of years ago, including an SL2 and SL Mot. Very fun and easy cameras to use. I thought having an M system would be sufficient (and it is), but I'm glad i kept one SL and a 50mm Summicron. In some ways I find it a more satisfying experience then the M, but they all take great pictures. Now I'm thinking about rebuilding that system I let go!

[ganzosrevenge]

I got the lens back from DAG on thursday, and while it may be a '66, it feels and looks (glass-wise) brand spanking new. It's sitting in my Canon T2i Lens' bag/case (lens on T2i is a 24-105 F4 L IS USM). Tonight though, if all goes as planned, I'm driving to Sherry Krauter to pick up my newly overhauled Leicaflex! :D

 

I never thought I'd say this, but the quality of the Leica cameras and lenses makes my former favorite camera (a Nikon F3HP) feel like a cheaply made toy. I can't wait to see what it can do now that it's properly overhauled. Pix of it to follow.

 

Jason

 

PS: SHOW MORE LEICAFLEXES!

[masjah]

Oh dear! Viewing Flexporn - now I'm totally corrupted and depraved - I'll just have to get one. Problem is, almost all my R lenses are ROM.

[wildlightphoto]

Oh dear! Viewing Flexporn - now I'm totally corrupted and depraved - I'll just have to get one. Problem is, almost all my R lenses are ROM.

 

With a very slight modification the SL can use many ROM lenses. Not the Leicaflex Standard or SL2, only the SL. Add a second cam to the lens and it will meter properly on the SL too.

[telewatt]

The real problem with these cameras is that they were just so damn expensive. In the early 1970's they cost more than $500 US. More then an M4 by a few hundred. Nikon Fs and F2s were expensive too, but not like that. But in function, the SL beats the pants off those two.

 

In Germany 1976 the Camera SL2 was expensive 1845,- DM (920 EUR) but the motor drive was 2265,--DM ( 1130 EUR) !!

 

regards,

Jan

[SteveYork]

With a very slight modification the SL can use many ROM lenses. Not the Leicaflex Standard or SL2, only the SL. Add a second cam to the lens and it will meter properly on the SL too.

 

What must be done to allow an SL to use ROM lenses?

[wildlightphoto]

What must be done to allow an SL to use ROM lenses?

 

My 22 February post in this thread has the info you need. Don Goldberg knows how to do it.

[JBA]

The real problem with these cameras is that they were just so damn expensive. In the early 1970's they cost more than $500 US. More then an M4 by a few hundred. Nikon Fs and F2s were expensive too, but not like that. But in function, the SL beats the pants off those two.

 

I know it's heresy, but I'm going to disagree about the functionality of the Nikon F/F2 vs the Leicaflexes. Much as I love my SL2, which for the time being is essentially reduced to the functionality of a doorstop, a few things about its design and construction annoy me.

 

Most annoying of all is the long throw of the wind lever and the fact that it is not ratcheted. Throwing the wind lever all the way to the front of the camera is not very comfortable, but since it's not ratcheted you have no choice. With other cameras, I often give a couple of quick flicks to wind. The Nikons win this round.

 

I'm a great fan of motor drives, which the Nikons were designed to take right from the drawing board. The Leicaflexes having an entirely separate model designation for a motor-drive capable camera seems like an afterthought by comparison. Apparently, Leica lost money on every SL2 MOT they produced, leading to a relatively small production run. Wouldn't it have been more cost-effective to design and tool up for one motor-drive capable model and then produce motor drives according to demand? Score another for Nikon.

 

Finally, the Nikon's interchangeable finders and focusing screens is a feature I use a lot and have grown spoiled with over the years. Yes, the Leicaflexes' brilliant viewfinder and focusing screen are justly legendary, and I derive great glee from reducing my DSLR toting friends nearly to tears by encouraging them to take a peek. But dropping an H screen (full-field microprism) in the F/F2 is just as bright and nearly as easy to focus. Again, I prefer the Nikon functionality. But that Leicaflex viewfinder is really hard to beat.

 

The Leicaflexes don't have mirror lock-up. The Nikons do. Don't really ever use it, but better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

The one place the Leicaflexes win hands down is in the placement of the shutter speed dial. With about ten minutes' practice using the pad of your index finger, you can set your exposures nearly as fast as an automatic. Try doing that with a Nikon F/F2 Photomic. One for Leicaflex.

 

Another area where the Leicaflex wins over Nikon is optics, and this is a big win as far as I'm concerned. Leica R glass is the whole reason I got a Leicaflex in the first place.

 

Anyhow, everybody's mileage obviously varies, but I wouldn't say the Leicaflex "beats the pants off" the Nikon F/F2.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SteveYork]

Your points are well taken.

 

I may have been a bit enthusiastic. And I've only casually "peeped" through Fs and F2s in camera shops. I've violated a cardinal rule about commenting on a camera system I've not used. But having said all that, in the SLR systems I've used (a Nikon, a Minolta and a pair of Zeiss) the SL "wins hand down."