john_wintheiser Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 I am about to buy my first Leica SLR. I will buy used from Keh. It will be an older model and I have narrowed it down to a Leicaflex SL, an R4 or R4s. Any thoughts as to which is the better option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 SL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working camera Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 I second that SL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 I'm honestly curious... What would drive someone towards a leica SLR over a canon or nikon? www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolfe_tessem Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 SL. If you want one of the later, smaller bodies, go for an R6, 6.2 or R7 depending on whether you want manual or automatic operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 I've owned both SL and R4S bodies. The SL is much better built! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 Pentax LX, Nikon F3HP, or Canon F1AE. Forget Leica SLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claude_batmanghelidj Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 Go for an SL! As a back-up, you could take your pick of many EOS bodies to use with an adapter, you would get matrix metering, and almost all of the Canon EOS high tech functions. But definitely the SL, it is simply the finest 35mm SLR ever made. It is worth owning, even if it is not your main breadwinner. Make sure to have it overhauled, and then you will have a sweet camera. Don't mess with the R series, they are a pain in the ass, whacky electronics, cheap construction, and clunky shutter. The SL has the smoothest SLR shutter on any SLR I have seen, and the controls are smooth as butter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les_lammers Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 SL, well built and R lenses are very reasonable. I got a mint one on e*ay for $542 w/ a 50mm and $462 in recent CLA and upgrades by Ms. Krauter. Go for the cleanest example you can find. My 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les_lammers Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 Here is some great info. http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.antiquecameras.net Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 <p> I like the SL, but it is HEAVY. The R3 is the dog of the lot, but dont overlook it...its light and cheap and if working properly will allow shooting with great ( and currently cheap ) R glass....see my Leica <a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/b.htm">R Lens Price Guide...</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
________1 Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 "What would drive someone towards a leica SLR over a canon or nikon? For the buttery smoothness, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug herr Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 Leicaflex SL. Better viewfinder, easier to maintain/repair and the sensory feedback you ought to get with a Leica. <P> <I>"What would drive someone towards a leica SLR over a canon or nikon?"</I><P> take your pick:<BR> Buttery smooth controls<BR> sensory feedback<BR> the SL's viewfinder<BR> well supported by the manufacturer for decades<BR> 19mm Elmarit-R<BR> 50mm Summilux-R (current model)<BR> 60mm Macro-Elmarit-R<BR> 90mm Elmarit-R<BR> 90mm Summicron-R<BR> 90mm APO Summicron-R ASPH<BR> 100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R<BR> 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R<BR> 80-200mm f/4 Vario-Elmar-R<BR> 70-180mm APO Vario-Elmarit-R<BR> and I'm sure there are more reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben z Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 Unless you install a newer type screen the older Nikons, Canons and my own Pentaxes are much dimmer and harder to focus than an SL. 2-cam lenses are dirt cheap and can be converted to 3-cam for (I recall, from Sherry K)about $50-75 should you ever get an R8. I wouldn't call the SL the best 35mm SLR of all time, I'd still give that honor to the Nikon F, but it's got my vote for the best Leica SLR of all time except for the R8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_neuthaler Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 SL & new or old 50 Summicron and, IMHO, 135 Elmarit. Great combo -- lets you play with extension rings and Elpros on both lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_antonino Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 when i first got into photography ,about 5 years ago i wanted something of quality and after looking at nikon , canon and leica i went with nikon i guess i was swayed because the avaliability of lenses and bodies but most of all the ruggedness the camera ,it was a f3hp forgot what lens ,anyway i bought it used from a reputable dealer for about 850$.2 weeks later what ever went wrong with it they immediately gave me a full refund on the spot which kind of surprised me that put a bad taste in my mouth ,so i gave it another shot ,again i this time went even further back and bought 2 mint f2,s and about 5 different lenses including a nice 55 f1.2 i used this setup for about 1 year when the cleaner of the 2 cameras winder froze it only cost 140$ to fix but my mint looking camera now had a completely different top half to it that although it worked was worn looking i went with nikon because i was told leica was expensive and not reliable . well one day i just could not take it anymore and had to find out for myself so i got all my gear, went to the twice a year camera show in mass.and dumped the nikon for leica ,my first choice was the SL and i got a few lenses right away the viewfinder is much nicer to look through than anything out there even my R7,S 4 years later i,m still hooked on the stuff and i never regret the day i sold my nikon yes the SL is definetly worth owning not to say i never had a problem its just that there is a market for them as an older camera and they seem to hold there value so if you do have to CLA them they will be good as long as film is around i now have 5 of them and 2 R7,s with 15 lenses that are compatable through the years yes start with the SL paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_simmons Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 I got my first SL in 1974, and I sold a Nikon F to get it. Easiest camera decision I ever made. The Nikon was solid and handled well, but the Leicaflex was just awesome. The only viewfinder that's brighter and clearer is the Leica R8/R9. Everything about the way the camera handles and operates is silky-smooth and, if I might go so far as to say, pleasurable. OK, it's a tad heavy, but when shooting telephoto shots, it's steady as a rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feli Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Compact: R6 (mechanical) R6.2 (mechanical) R7 (automatic) These three are about he same size. Nice and compact cameras. Fullsize: R8 or R9 (automatic) SL (mechanical) I have both an SL and a R6.2. Although they are both manual cameras, they have two very different personalities. The SL feels and probably is close to indestructible. That's not an exaggeration. When you pick one of these up for the first time, you'll know what I mean. If I had to pick an R camera just based on sheer reliability, the SL would win hands down. It's a fairly beefy camera, that fits very comfortably in your hands. The SL has an amazingly bright viewfinder and in general feels like a vintage M with an SLR finder. Keep in mind that the standard SL focusing screen is clear. I had DAG swap mine for a split focus one from the SL2, but they are very hard to find. I'm not sure which one is better for long lenses. The mirror is beautifully dampened and reasonably quiet. The SL's biggest drawback is the very basic meter and the fact that it can't use certain R lenses, because they would collide with the mirror. The SL2 fixed this, but there have been problems with the shutter operating reliably at the 2000th speed. If you want a motor you need a SL MOT. But be warned, the motor is as big as the camera and they are fairly rare (expensive). The R6/6.2 is very compact and lighter than the SL. Except for the mirror box, it's the size of an M. The 6.2 has a very high build quality, but lacks that brick like feeling you get from the SL, but then again how many cameras are built like that? The finder is extremely bright and the meter is very accurate. You get two modes, spot and average. The R6/6.2 can use all R lenses and for about $100 bucks you can get a motor winder, which is really nice. Reliability is supposedly very good. There were two problematic batches during the run. One had a problem with the advance lever, the other with the mirror. Both of these problems were so severe and obvious from the factory, that I am pretty sure that by now those cameras have been weeded out and rebuilt under the passport warranty. I've had my R6.2 for about 2 years now. It hasn't exactly been pampered (or deliberately abused) and I've put maybe 100 rolls though it with the winder. No problems so far. Salgado uses the R6.2, but I'm pretty sure Leica will air drop him a replacement any time, day or night. Take a look at Doug Herr's excellent R site, for more information. He's also one hell of a wildlife photographer. http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/ If you get an SL send it to DAG, Golden Touch (Sherry Krauter), Kindermann (canada) or Leica NJ/Solms for a CLA. Trust me, it's worth the money. http://www.lhsa.org/repair.html F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Sold my R3 and R4s. A wedding photog used the 3`s for years and they still work for him. The 4 still works for new owner. That said, the SL is best build. Leicaflex is nice, but can`t take some lenses with 60mm filters because the aperature ring interferes with the battery cover. Built like a tank tho. SL11 too much money. R6 R6.2 R7 have a damper for the mirror and I got MUCH sharper pics than with the 4 or 5. A tripod didn`t always help the 4 it was so bad. It went back to Leica and they said it was ok. SL are dampened too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_reuter Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 I have both a Leicaflex SL and a Leica 4Rs. I definitely prefer the Leicaflex SL. It is a wonderful reflex camera. The 4Rs has too many problems to gamble with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nasmformyzombie Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 I've used Contax, Canon and Leica SLR's. The Leicaflex SL is large and heavy---the tradeoff for the best viewfinder of any SLR I've ever used, including the Contax RTS-III. As others have stated, read Doug Herr's info on R bodies. The R4s mod P is a nice body, but once you peer into the viewfinder of the SL, trying to focus using an R4 will seem like going from a 35mm to a sub-miniature camera by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_brookes5 Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 R4 preferably an S . SL is good but lenses are more readily available for R4. they are both very well built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now