I love my Leicaflex!

[SteveYork]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know. You may be right. I guess what I should've said is that I always have been surprised with the quality (look and feel) of the old Zeiss circa 50's products -- Contarex, Contaflex, Contax, Contessa, Ikoflex. Top notch. The designs though, are very quirky.

[thebarnman]

 

With little hesitation, I can say Contarex SLR is better made then anything Leica produced, and so too the Contax IIA and IIIA rangefinder. It's just that Leica's designs were better.

 

How would that compare to the R8 and R9?

[sc_rufctr]

How would that compare to the R8 and R9?

 

I can't imagine anything better built than the R8/9s. Although I haven't used a Contarex or Contax SLR. They're very rare in Aus.

[SteveYork]

I should've been a bit less enthusiastic.

 

I've owned and used in the past a Zeiss Contarex Bullseye, a bunch of Leicaflex, a slew of Leica rangefinders, a beat up Zeiss Contax IIA rangefinder, an Zeiss Ikfoflex TLR, a Zeiss Contaflex, ect. Generally, I feel the old Zeiss stuff was better made -- I'm told they even chromed inner parts -- but the Leica are generally better designs. I shoot mostly Leicaflex SL now, because, as a practical matter, they are better users. In overall context, however, the Leicas are nice and super well made too. Old Zeiss versus Leica is comparing cameras at a high level.

 

I only fiddled with an R9 at a store, years ago, and I was impressed with the quality.

[thomas_schertel]

three relatives:

 

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!

 

yours sincerely

Thomas

 

Remeber the Barnack-Challence, please

[leicaphilia]

An Homage to the SL:

 

The Leicaflex SL: The Camera That Almost Bankrupted Leitz (No, It Wasn’t the M5!) | Leicaphilia

[SteveYork]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An Homage to the SL:

 

The Leicaflex SL: The Camera That Almost Bankrupted Leitz (No, It Wasn’t the M5!) | Leicaphilia

 

My understanding is the SL actually sold pretty well, averaging about 10,000 per year. Not in the same numbers as an F, but the SL was more expensive, and 10,000 units a year is good for a small company like Leica. I don't think the camera really targeted the professional market. Sure, Leitz would be happy if professionals used it, but my sense is that amateurs with big pockets purchased into the system. Sort of like the M9 today. And the 'country legend' spinning around the internet is the SL2 sold at a lost, not the SL (at least that's what I've always read). Otherwise a good write up.

 

It's a great camera. I too started with rangefinders and only belatedly got into Leicaflex. I now wonder why I spent so much time using rangefinders. Don't even own any rangefinders anymore.

 

I've used many mechanical SLRs over the recent years, from many different companies, and the SL is by far the best. Not even close.

Edited September 20, 2013 by SteveYork

[Penzes]

High Quality System [Leicaflex]

by

Istvan Penzes

, on Flickr

 

Hasselblad Flexbody

Carl Zeiss Macro Planar 4/120

Ilford Delta 100

Kodak T-max developer

Minolta Spotmeter F

Imacon Flextight 343

[Penzes]

Leicaflex SL2MOT

by

Istvan Penzes

, on Flickr

[Guest DoloresBickerstaff]

That is an awesome camera. The pics are equally nice. Loved them.

[nobbylon]

Can the Cds cell be updated to the later SL2 type so that my SL's are as good in low light?

[Joop van Heijgen]

In low light situations you can't see the meter (needle) because it is too dark...So it have no sense to do that.

On the SL2 you have to press on a button for lighting a lamp in the viewfinder to see the meter when there is low light.

[nobbylon]

In low light situations you can't see the meter (needle) because it is too dark...So it have no sense to do that.

On the SL2 you have to press on a button for lighting a lamp in the viewfinder to see the meter when there is low light.

 

 

Fair point Joop however my Nikon F2's with DP1 and DP11 meter down to 1/4 sec at F2 with 400 asa film and I can still use the paddle and needle in those. My SL's seem to flake out at 1/15th - 1/30th, 2-3 stops less. I'd like to match my F2's meters.

[Joop van Heijgen]

Fair point Joop however my Nikon F2's with DP1 and DP11 meter down to 1/4 sec at F2 with 400 asa film and I can still use the paddle and needle in those. My SL's seem to flake out at 1/15th - 1/30th, 2-3 stops less. I'd like to match my F2's meters.

 

"My SL's seem to flake out at 1/15th - 1/30th, 2-3 stops less"

 

That's correct so you can compensate that by using one or two faster shuttertimes as used with the Metrawatt meters of the M Leica...In practice it will give the same results is my experience.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Joop van Heijgen

[nobbylon]

"My SL's seem to flake out at 1/15th - 1/30th, 2-3 stops less"

 

That's correct so you can compensate that by using one or two faster shuttertimes as used with the Metrawatt meters of the M Leica...In practice it will give the same results is my experience.

 

Sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say. I want to be able to meter down to 1/4 sec f2 with 400 asa. How is using faster shutter times going to help?

[wildlightphoto]

Can the Cds cell be updated to the later SL2 type so that my SL's are as good in low light?

 

I believe it can be done, but it's not something I'd try at home. In North America I'd discuss the options with Don Goldberg, not sure who you'd contact in Europe. Seeing the meter needle & loop can be a problem without the SL2's meter illumination lamp.

[Joop van Heijgen]

Sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say. I want to be able to meter down to 1/4 sec f2 with 400 asa. How is using faster shutter times going to help?

 

A more sensitive meter leads to shorter exposure times in low light circumstances...

For instance with a SL a metering gives a result of 1/8 sec with 2,0/50 Summicron.

With a SL2 the metering will problably gives a result between 1/15 and 1/30 sec.

 

In fact the SL2 have more the character of 'spot' metering like all the other R cameras.

When you know how it works you can compensate the metering of the SL.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Joop van Heijgen

[nobbylon]

A more sensitive meter leads to shorter exposure times in low light circumstances...

For instance with a SL a metering gives a result of 1/8 sec with 2,0/50 Summicron.

With a SL2 the metering will problably gives a result between 1/15 and 1/30 sec.

 

In fact the SL2 have more the character of 'spot' metering like all the other R cameras.

When you know how it works you can compensate the metering of the SL.

 

 

Joop,

I've had an SL2 in the past and it's meter matched my SL's all the way down to where the SL needle was unseen at the top of the frame and a few stops beyond.

The SL meter was as far as I could tell just as selective spot as the SL2's.

Why would the meter of an SL2 show 2 speeds higher? Maybe if it was later technology cells ala R cameras but not CDS.

OK I've just done some testing and these were my results, all cams set at 400 ASA and with a 50 f2 lens pointed at the same scene.

Nikon F2 DP11 meter CDS cell lowest it will meter to is 1/4 sec f2

Leicaflex SL meter needle not visible but moved toward light source becomes visible at 1/30 sec f2

Leicaflex SL no.2 exactly the same.

both with the CDS standard cells.

 

Nikon F3 1/15 sec f2 SPD cells

Nikon F5 1/30 sec f2 in matrix 1/15 f2 in spot mode

 

So for the same scene the later technology cameras with newer generation cells meter more accurately and the old cds cells just over expose?

 

I believe the SL2 had CDS cells which were more sensitive hence they would match my F2 readings.

I now get what you are saying re 1 or 2 stops higher but how would I know where my reference was for this?

My idea was to achieve the sensitivity of the SL2 or F2 to hand hold at speeds of 1/8th and 1/15th and be able to meter for it.

 

Thanks for making me think about it!!!

regards j

Edited January 3, 2014 by nobbylon

[Joop van Heijgen]

Joop,

I've had an SL2 in the past and it's meter matched my SL's all the way down to where the SL needle was unseen at the top of the frame and a few stops beyond.

The SL meter was as far as I could tell just as selective spot as the SL2's.

Why would the meter of an SL2 show 2 speeds higher? This would just give 2 stops under exposure for any given light!

Can someone explain what I'm missing here?

 

"Why would the meter of an SL2 show 2 speeds higher? This would just give 2 stops under exposure for any given light!"

 

Because the SL2 meter is more sensitive under low light circumstances than the SL..

That's the reason why you need any compensation with the SL.

In this way it will gives the same exposure results.

 

Under normal (day) light circumstances there must be of course no difference in metering between the two cameras.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wildlightphoto]

"Why would the meter of an SL2 show 2 speeds higher? This would just give 2 stops under exposure for any given light!"

 

Because the SL2 meter is more sensitive under low light circumstances than the SL..

That's the reason why you need any compensation with the SL.

In this way it will gives the same exposure results.

 

Under normal (day) light circumstances there must be of course no difference in metering between the two cameras.

 

As a long-time user of the SL and SL2 this makes no sense to me. The SL2's meter will allow accurate readings in light where the SL's meter is unusable. Applying compensation to the SL's meter reading won't help if there isn't a reading at all.