Leicaflex SL?s vs. R?s debate

Well folks, I repaired photo equipment for many years, had my own

shop and was trained by some top technicians. I have seen them

all...Zeiss Contarex, Hasselblad, Canon, Nikon & Rollei, etc.

 

That said: 90% of the Leica R4 thru R7 units are of the Minolta XD5

& XD11 gene pool. One example comes to mind to illustrate a very

important point in this constant SL?s vs. R?s debate; When I

was "inside" these Leicaflex Standard, SL & SL2 cameras, I couldn't

believe how "linear, consistent, stable & accurate" the shutter

speeds were on virtually all of these cameras. One day to my

astonishment, I discovered that the gearing in the shutter mechanism

for the 1st & 2nd curtains couldn't be physically scratched by my

stainless steel tools! I believe that the Leica precision and the

choice of materials were the reason for things such as this. Many

including me give the vote for ?the best SLR ever made? to the

Leicaflex SL2. (The last & most featured Leicaflex)

 

Leica R4 thru R7...Especially use caution with impact, grit and

moisture or spillage. These units make extensive use of plastic and

stamped metal. No super hardened, cut billets of lifetime metal

here. In short; Breakage vs. CLA

 

You can't even compare the two era's in camera building.

 

Leica R3... The Minolta XE7 equivalent and a nice feeling piece of

equipment that is certainly better built than the later R's to come.

(Excepting the R8 & R9)

 

I personally own many brands of photo equipment, and each has their

own areas of specialty --- Rollieflex 2.8 Planar, Hasselblad outfit,

Nikon outfit, Leica 'M' outfit and Stereo Realist units. My

favorites by far are my Leica lenses and the one and only...

Leicaflex SL2

 

The R's are good boxes for holding the superb Leica R lenses. Don't

put too much money in to them. I don't believe they will stand the

test of time as a "Gold Standard". I am referring to both ?meanings?

of raised appreciation.

 

I welcome any comments or feedback.

Regards, Gus Lazzari

Interesting comments and comparisons, Gus. You confirmed once again my feelings for the SL2 and R3, which I had thought was sort of a bastard stepchild until I got one and really liked it. Never tried any others of the R series until the 8, and although I am enjoying using it, I'm not yet convinced that it is a keeper in the long run. The SL2 is a tank in a camera's clothing....a real treasure.

Gus,

 

Apparently the SL2 was so complex to assemble that Leitz lost money on every SL2 that they made. Is that apparent when you go inside the SL2? Is it that complex a camera?

 

regards

Vick

I'd put the Nikon F3 HP up against the SL2 anytime. I've had them both.

Might as well add the Canon F1 in there for the built like a tank honors. Perhaps not as

graceful as the SL2, but solid enough to use as a hammer and then shoot a roll of film. My

local repairman (a Nikon specialist by the way) says that the F1 is the most durable camera

that he has ever worked on. Perhaps he has never seen an SL2. Either way, they don't make

them like they used to. I use an R9 and have no complaints about solidity, build quality or

usability. It is great all around.

Gus,

 

Your views about the SL2 being the pinnacle of the Leica SLR's is at variance with the two pre eminent Leica repairers namely Sherry Krauter and Don Goldberg.

 

Both agree that it was the Leicaflex SL that was the stronger and better camera. In Sherry words "the SL is the M3 of SLR's".

Wassup Frank.

Dear Vic, Paul, Stuart & Jim,

 

Yes, there were obvious signs of the extra expense in these SL2 bodies. For example; The light trap material was a very durable and expensive rope material, not that cheesy, decaying foam material that the Nikon F3-s & Canon F1-s used. The body chassis is a milled ?chunk? of metal. The mirror box mechanism is slid out from this rigid structure. The F3 & F1 both have front exiting mirror assemblies for ease of service & economy in construction. The Leicaflex had the most brilliant viewfinder because of what we techs called the Leica jewel pentaprism. It was designed, formed and polished in a corrective & curved shape. (A thing of beauty) The 2000th of a second was dead accurate with its thick rubberized silk curtains.

 

The Canon F1-s integrated meter was considered fragile, what with its GLUED components and thin spring metal couplers. The mechanical shutter had a delicate brake mechanism and wasnt designed for extremely precise shutter speed adjustments for all speeds. The Nikon F3 shutter used mini electronic coils with delicate magnetic surfaces and a gold plated blade (Thin wire) to adjust the timing of the high speeds. A little bit of debris or lube fumes & erratic speeds were the result. Slow speeds were adjusted by turning mini variable resistors on the thin flexible, tearable circuit. The LCD displays failed. (Life span short, about 5 to 8 yrs) The memory lock push button held in by friction popped out eventually. (Many were lost) On both cameras, watch out for the thin titanium foil shutter! (very unforgiving)

 

Yet they both pulled it off.

 

We can keep going on about the way the Japanese designers and builders put these marvels of technology together to a very high standard & reliability, which captured the favor of the world. But dont forget; Casio watches basically did the same thing in comparison to a Swiss built Rolex. Make no mistake --- The Leicaflex SL2 is the Rolex.

 

Jim, the SL is virtually the same in choice of materials and build quality. The SL2s slightly more complex mirror box geometry and additional features make for the most refined of this incredible model run. Logic dictates that a simpler mechanism with fewer parts will be the leader in least trouble per 1000 customers. But negligible with SL vs. SL2 and M3 vs. M4; I own 3 M3s

(No M4s)& except for some cosmetic, comfort, convenience & viewfinder refinement the M4-s are internally the same shutter and transport mechanisms. All great cameras! For all intents and purposes I beg to differ with Don & Sherry, the SL2 is the pinnacle for SLRs.

 

P.S. Alpa cameras were also tanks, beautifully built, but not a refined design for the Pro-s.

 

Take care, Gus Lazzari

A johnny-come-lately really comes in pontificating as if he really knows it all.

 

It is obvious that he does not. What are his credentials? FRANKly, who

is he really?

I remember when one of the R cameras came out, the R4 I think it was the rep showing the camera demonstrated its strength by putting the camera on the ground and stepping on it putting his entire weight on it. It was an impressive demonstration. It also proves that other materials other other than brass can be made into sturdy things. As far as the acuracy of the shutter, sorry but any of the electronic R's will always be consistantly more acurate than the older SL's. Sorry but I think there is an element of metal and mechanical bias here, a common occurance in the Leica world.

Hey, don't go knocking Casio... I've had mine for more than 10 years, and I only needed to change its batteries once.

 

The only thing that's prevented me from getting the Leicaflexes over the R8 I have is that you have to get the modern ROM lenses modified to be used on them.

<i>The 2000th of a second was dead accurate with its thick rubberized silk curtains...F3 shutter used mini electronic coils with delicate magnetic surfaces and a gold plated blade (Thin wire) to adjust the timing of the high speeds. A little bit of debris or lube fumes & erratic speeds were the result. Slow speeds were adjusted by turning mini variable resistors on the thin flexible, tearable circuit. The LCD displays failed. (Life span short, about 5 to 8 yrs) The memory lock push button held in by friction popped out eventually. (Many were lost) On both cameras, watch out for the thin titanium foil shutter! (very unforgiving)</i></p>

 

LOL, is it April 1 already? Ok, who are you and what do you really do for a living?

Having used and repaired several models of Leicaflex and R bodies I'll agree that the Leicaflex-series cameras are better constructed and easier to service; whether that translates to a better user experience or not depends on individual needs and preferences.

<P>

I like the simple no-nonsense operation of the Leicaflexes and since by training I'm a mechanical engineer I like the buzzing whirring and other such sounds they make, and when I turn a dial or flip a lever I know exactly what's happening inside the camera, but it's the viewfinder that keeps me using them when all other logic dictates moving on to the 21st century.

<P>

The SL/SL2 viewfinder: big, bright, contrasty, uncluttered, and stuff just pops into focus over the entire viewscreen surface. I'm not limited to focus points or regions; I can see at a glance what parts of my subject are in the plane of focus; none of the focus/re-compose/expose work-around that's now taken for granted. In the time it takes to re-compose an animal will twitch, turn it's head or scratch an itch just enough to get outside the best plane of focus.<P>

<CENTER>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com" target="_blank">

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/thrushes/mobl00.jpg" BORDER="2">

</A>

<BR>

<B>Mountain Bluebird</B> - Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming<BR>

<I>Leicaflex SL, 250mm f/4 Telyt-R</I>

</CENTER>

<P>

These cameras are not for production photography; for that a fast frame rate and automated features are important. These cameras are for composed photography, where every element of the picture must be in place before tripping the shutter. Reliable automation and a quick lightweight winder would be handy at times but if I have to sacrifice the viewfinder to get convenience features I'll stick with the SL's viewfinder.

There is another advantage of Leicaflexes over Rs (with the exception of R3 and R8/9), which is shutter lag. Even the first Leicaflex has a shorter time lag than any R4,5 6 or 7.

Douglas, how true my friend, great picture. If you like buzzing whirring, then try a Zeiss Contaxrex, which takes it to the extreme. Very complicated design & mechanism that couldnt be pulled off.

 

Antonio, good point, the nature of the multi mode auto systems in the passed on genes of the Minolta XD11 causes that delay.

 

Max, I didnt knock Casio, I used it as an example of a successful parallel. I said after all, that they pulled it off.

 

Joel, you can probably stand on top of an Argus C3 brick and get the same result. If memory serves me the people at Consumer Reports one year picked a Miranda camera as a best buy with similar style testing. LOL Dont forget those were salesman. I speak of what most didnt or dont currently see.

 

Jerry L & Ben Z Guys, please explain to us all what is so obvious to you two---

 

Where in my description of the details was I in error?

 

You think that this has been the ramblings of someone who is trying to fool people?

If so, then I should get an Academy award---

 

Since you ask- I'll expound on my previously + had my own shop+ statement.

 

In 1975 at 15 years old I began working for Gus & Maria Bohanic, owners of Alvins Photo Supply in Pasadena CA. This wonderful couple absolutely adored Leicas. Their own collection and the inventory for sale were just spectacular. If anybody remembers, Gus Bohanic was a camera repair tech that had seen many cameras cross his bench. He took me under wing and they all called me Jr. I progressed from there fully entrenched with my love of repair and fine equipment. Eventually moved on to a repair only environment with General Camera Repair, also in Pasadena. There I was further trained by a very knowledgeable gentleman named Bob Fairfield.

 

1980 in the city of Glendale I opened my own shop named +The Camera Doctor+. 10 years later I had three locations, Glendale, Pasadena & Big Bear. Unfortunately, divorce caused the dismantling of these shops. I moved on to among other things the world of Mortgage financing. Now Im the President of a company in San Clemente. (You need a loan? INrenewal.com) I own 18 apartments in Indiana, a sailboat in Dana Point Marina, a home on the highest hill in Dana Point, surrounded by my photography and fine equipment, etc. etc. blah blah yawn. There you have it; you guys asked who I was & what I did for a living. Ill spend the time to answer any more questions in detail; you see I have the time here in paradise. No Ben Z it isnt April 1st - LOL

Beautiful bluebird, Doug. It's a pleasant change to see a bird photo taken with natural light, rather than with a flash that's reflected in the eye.

What no apologies from a dental TECHNICIAN and a sour old cynic?

OK. So? I still love my R7, won't sell it, and will continue to use it. It is doing quite well by my R lenses.

Good on ya Gus :-)

Gus-- A very informative post. I remember fondling those SL2s at Altman Camera Co., in Chicago. It was the "50 Yahre" models then. It was just a bit of a stretch to buy something that fine (1973, I think). They were buttery smooth.

 

Doug-- Great shot, as usual!

Frank, did you happen to know a salesman at Altman by the name of Mark Van Scoter (or something like that, been a looooong time)? He was a great help to me back in those days (late 60s actually), most of the older salesmen in camera shops couldn't be bothered with a scrawny kid.

 

Gus, I didn't mean to be mean. You might really be a camera repairman who went out of business just like you said, obviously I have no way of knowing, it's just that what you wrote and I quoted pretty much contradicts everything any factory-trained repairmen I've met face-to-face has said.

Gosh Ben Z, can you tell all of us what are the "hear say" contradictions you're speaking of?

 

I'll make an attempt to dig up, scan then download some stuff that proves my existence...

 

Any of my ole' tech buddies out there reading this stuff?

Please stop the temptation, I already have too much camera.

Hm, to my mere knowledge the SL2 was seriously plaqued by problems with the 1/250 speed.

BEN Z-- Sorry, can't remember names of any of the people working at Altman's. It is, or was, to this date, the finest camera shop I ever saw, but those were different times.