Leicaflex Standard - a users view

[rgh]

OK, I think I understand now. But having had all three of the Leicaflex cameras, I can tell you the difference in size is not that great. Yes, the Standard is the smallest by a bit. The SL has a slightly higher profile by a couple mm, the SL2 goes to a different flat body style which was suppose to be more ergonomic, and feels still 'more'. I prefer the Standard/SL body 'grip'.

 

Interestingly what most people don't see when they look at the Standard is that the body really isn't much bigger than the M-series - really - and weight is only 100gms more. Yes, it has the pentaprism, but its rather low profile, and the actual camera body height/length/width is very close to the same as the M, the bigger shutter speed dial, ASA dial and rapid rewind crank combo making a visual impression but much easier to use. Stick an MR meter on an M and the camera is actually bigger! This was the justification Leica used with the increase size of the M5 - "it wasn't any bigger than a 'classic' M-series WITH the MR meter."

 

The original Leicaflex I agree is finished the best of all of them - the inside with its lacquer and 'cracked' black paint, over-size pressure plate is really a thing of beauty that is only seen when changing film, which hopefully is often!

 

But, with its full-focus screen, excellent meter, and depth of field preview the SL takes the 'best of Leica reflex' prize. The standard is just 'different', and in its own right a really nice camera. Yes, fortunately the collectors and Leica folks like their Ms too much, great cameras at bargain prices...

 

Cheers!

[albert_zinn]

Robert:

I enjoyed reading your well-thought out evaluation of the original Leicaflex or "diesel Leica". I have a "version two" Standard, that I just acquired a couple years ago. I have a 28mm Elmarit, 50mm Summicron and 90mm Elmarit. I don't find the external meter any trouble, as it gives me good exposures for what I do, and I meter by hand for close work anyway. As you point out, the center focusing spot is much like a rangefinder camera. If fact, it pretty obvious that the camera was designed by the same people who designed the "M" cameras. People who criticize it for being obsolete as soon as it was introduced, while technically correct, are ignoring the obvious fact that this was all Leitz could do at the time. Put another way, how big do you think Leitz's R&E staff was, compared to Nippon Kogaku's?

 

It good points, besides the superb glass, are its brilliant finder, terrific shutter with a TRUE 2000/sec speed (a first!)and it's superb handling and solid feel. I have owned three "M" Leicas, and for my purposes, this camera will make any image the are capable of for a lot less money. I like it!

[Dave Murray]

I use a pair of Leicaflex bodies, 1964/1966. Meters are not used as I prefer handheld, reflective and incidental. The Weston Master V I’ve used since 1981 with a Nikkormat is still giving accurate readings. 90% of my shots are taken with the 35mm F2 Summicron (E55) lens and I also use the 90mm F2.8 Elmarit for portraits. 
The centre focus spot took a little getting used to but practice makes perfect. These are superb bits of kit and attract interest every time I have one around my neck. The stuff is heavy, but is it heavier than the Nikon F or ‘mat? I don’t think so. My Canadian made 50mm F2 and 28mm F2.8 are not at all heavy. The 135mm F2.8 Elmarit is seriously heavy and the 250mm F4 Telyt could easily kill somebody. I’ve not found a 350mm F4.8 but I expect that will be heavier than the 250 but better to swing against an assailant. I love this stuff just as I love my Omega Speedmaster and my Mont-Blanc pens and pencils and leather goods. And the best car on the road chaps? Mercedes Benz. 

[christopher_a._junker1]

I still use a Leicaflex Standard ver.1 for the times I shoot a 21mm f3.4 non-retrofocus Super Angulon lens. The mirror lockup and easy to mount lens together with the 21mm bright line finder is a great combo. I just use a hand held meter