Does the Leicaflex series feel like Leica’s riff on the Nikon F series?

[SocialKonstruct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Been shooting a lot with my Nikkormat FTN for my classes and I feel that the old school Leicaflex feels very much Leica’s rendition of what they remixed from Nikon at the time. Any thoughts?

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

No ...

they are evolution of Leica M plus Visoflex .

The biggest/widest of then market lens mount opening is one of the clever features for futur developments of the concept.

Original Leicaflex has external meter like LeicaMeter MR and plain groundglass and much more things developped (1/2000 cloth shutter for example, shutter release position, etc.)

only for this SLR without " external brand influences ".

 

Quickly "SL" spot TTL metering, add-on motor-drive (Tandem is one of the best thought for fast series never seen this system with other maker).

 

[SocialKonstruct]

29 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

No ...

they are evolution of Leica M plus Visoflex .

The biggest/widest of then market lens mount opening is one of the clever features for futur developments of the concept.

Original Leicaflex has external meter like LeicaMeter MR and plain groundglass and much more things developped (1/2000 cloth shutter for example, shutter release position, etc.)

only for this SLR without " external brand influences ".

 

Quickly "SL" spot TTL metering, add-on motor-drive (Tandem is one of the best thought for fast series never seen this system with other maker).

 

 

Thanks for the explanation. Apparently Leica must have done a lot of research. Too bad it didn’t translate well into sales at the time.

[ramarren]

21 hours ago, SocialKonstruct said:

 

Thanks for the explanation. Apparently Leica must have done a lot of research. Too bad it didn’t translate well into sales at the time.

Brilliant engineering is often bypassed merely on the basis of price.  

I had a Nikon F Photomic FTn with 50mm and 200mm lenses in 1969 and saw a Leicaflex SL in 1970. I immediately wanted the Leicaflex SL ... but there was absolutely no way I could afford the camera and two lenses like I had scraped together the money for the F and two lenses. The cost of that simple kit was more than 2-3x greater. The same scenario repeated itself in 1998 when I was thinking of updating my then nearly 20 year old Nikon kit for something new ... a four lens kit from Nikon or Canon was $5000, from Contax $7000, from Leica $17,000. No way, just no way. 

I finally bought a Leicaflex SL and three lenses in 2011. Prices had collapsed after Leica discontinued the R system and finally I could afford it. It is what I always wanted when I was shooting film, and it remains a superb piece in every way. And makes my classic Nikon F plain prism feel kinda clunky. I collected a half dozen more R lenses, all the close up and macro equipment I need, and I've used the lenses on a Sony A7, my Leica SL, and now my Leica CL. Superb stuff.

I still very occasionally pull out the Leicaflex SL or R6.2 bodies and shoot a roll of film, they are both great to use. But honestly when I shoot film these days I mostly want 6x6 or Polaroid SX-70...  

[TomB_tx]

Cost was certainly a major issue, and Nikon had a very extensive lens line even at the time it was launched, as well as a more extensive accessory line. Also, by the time Leitz finally came out with the Leicaflex the Nikon had been adopted as the standard for the large pro organizations, so Nikon users could exchange, borrow and rent lenses & such easily.

Leitz was firmly in favor of the M system that still had a huge following and an extensive system of lenses & accessories. They initially viewed the reflex as a specialty long lens and macro system, and never attempted to make a line as complete as Nikon and others.

Canon had a complete and very good RF line that competed well with Leica by the mid 1950s, but gave enough effort to developing an SLR to introduce their Canonflex just about the same time Nikon introduced the F. Canon didn't introduce as complete a lens & system line as Nikon, and while the Canonflex feels possibly better made than the Nikon F, the baseplate trigger wind was odd, and the lenses used separate linkages to cock the diaphragm (when winding) and trigger it. So it acted like fully automatic , but was based on a semi-auto design with a complex and unreliable linkage.

Within 10 years Canon switched to the FL lens design for their Pellix/FT cameras. I bought in to that system in about 1967, but found the auto-diaphragms still tended to get too slow to stop down for fast speeds. As I recall Canon was still selling / supporting their RF system until about that time, as I looked at one before I bought an M4 - but the issues with the FT lenses stopped me.

I had used the college's Nikon F, and also felt it was clunky, and loved the Leica M4 I bought in 1968, so in '69 traded all my Canon's towards a Leicaflex SL with 50 & 135 lenses. As I recall the SL with 50 Summicron listed for  $663 then, way more than the Nikon. (And I hear Leitz still lost money at that price.) I still have and use those lenses with an SL and other bodies, including a Sony A7 for digital.

[spydrxx]

Although I've sold off my Leicaflex SL2 as well as my Nikon FTN...both were great cameras tp use...but IMHO not similar except for being SLRs. The Leicaflex was more intuitive to my way of thinking.