R6.2 or SL2

[jack_palmer]

I'm thinking of buying an Leica SLR and would like to get some opinions on

which would be the better choice the R6.2 or the SL2. I found a Black mint Sl2

with box strap and instruction book on line for $1,400.00, is that a good

price for this camera. I'm now shooting with an MP and 35 and 50mm Summicron

and a 90 Elmarit-M. thanks

Jack

[doug herr]

What do you want to use it for, and with which lenses?

[Robin Smith]

Well, the build quality is definitely with the SL2, but the R6.2 is nice and small (about the same size as an M in fact) and has a variable eyepiece diopter, switcheable spot/center weighted metering, a real 1/2000th sec top speed and it takes a winder/motordrive which, to me, makes it more practical in this day and age (you'd need the SL2 MOT if you want a motordriven SL2). Also it takes all of the current ROM lenses without modification. Some say the SL2 has the better screen/image brightness, but I have to say I have not really noticed it (if you fit the R6 with the central microprism-only screen).

[john_shriver]

That sounds like a collector "virgin" "shelf queen" SL2 price. Browse over at http://www.keh.com, they have lots of SL2 bodies at very reasonable prices.

[jack_palmer]

I'll use it mostly for bird photography. We live in Northern Maryland on the Little Gunpowder River. Flows just at the end of our back yard. I saw a Bald Eagle flying not twenty feet over the river the other day. When I was in my early 20's, I worked at both the Baltimore Zoo and the Crandon Park Zoo on Key Biscayne in Miami in their bird departments, but i majored in photography at The Maryland Institute of Art.

[doug herr]

One of my first and favorite bird photography setups was the SL with 400mm f/6.8 Telyt. IMHO the SL2 offers little advantage over the SL with this lens, and the R6.2, lacking intermediate shutter speeds is at a disadvantage with this lens because the lens was designed to be used hand-held and can be used qute successfully at maximum aperture. For precise exposure with the R6.2 you'll want to stop the lens down at times. I also feel that the standard SL viewscreen is easier to use with this lens than the SL2 or any of the R viewscreens.<P>

One disadvantage of the SL is that it has neither the R6.2's built-in diopter adjustment capability nor the SL2's facility for using currently-available diopter correction lenses. If this is a concern, the SL2 would be my first choice, idealy with the SL's microprism viewscreen. Many examples at <A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com" target="_blank">www.wildlightphoto.com</A>.

[john_newell2]

I'll leave the SL/R6 question to Doug, but I will opine that in general the R6.2 is very overpriced in comparison to the R6. Other than the 2000' shutter speed (which may or may not be all that accurate in any case), the differences are not compelling (to me; YMMV). The only dig you sometimes read here is the theory that the R6 is less dependable mechanically. I spent the majority of a Saturday a year or two ago reading every single thread here on the R6/R6.2 topic and although I didn't tally individual results I can tell you that at least based on complaints about user experiences here there is no reason - from a reliability/durability perspective, as reported here - to prefer one or the other. And, if you check prices, you'll find that the R6 usally sells at a significant discount to the R6.2.

[wendell_kelly]

I'm curious as to why the issue would arise of the R6.2 being more reliable than the R6. Both use a similar Japanese shutter; is the R6.2 significantly different (other than the questionably higher top speed)?

 

I use an R6 and am familiar with it. The special mirror braking mechanism on the R6.X series does tend to collect dust and require cleaning but this should be a similar consideration for both cameras.

 

Comment, please

[paul_neuthaler]

I've always felt that the best Leica SLR was the Nikon F3 HP!

[tom_murray2]

The only Leica SLR I ever had was an R8, but looking at the specs and the going prices today they look like the best value. I heard the SL2 is supposed to have a brighter finder but the R8 was easy enough to focus as I remember. Yeah it uses batteries, so does just about everything we use in daily life. Carry spares and get over it already.

[doug herr]

There's much more to choosing the right camera than reading the specs. I'm using the R8 much more now than the SL or SL2, but that's only because I have the DMR digital back for it. For using film I prefer the SL or SL2 viewfinder. These photos were made with the SL and 400mm f/6.8:

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/accipitridae/baea00.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/accipitridae/goea01.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/accipitridae/rtha00.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/rynchopidae/blsk00.jpg">

</CENTER>

At smaller apertures the difference in viewfinders is much more apparent: the SL/SL2 is exceptionally easy to use quickly and accurately. My only problem with the SL is that I can't use the DMR on it, and my only problem with the R8 is that it doesn't have an SL's viewfinder. I'm curious to see what the R10 will be like.

[tom_murray2]

"There's much more to choosing the right camera than reading the specs."

 

True for someone who lacks the experience to judge from the specs if the camera is worth going the next step to a hands-on trial. There were still R7's when I got my R8, but I knew from the specs I wasn't interested. Shutter speeds to 1/2000 limit what I can do with fast lenses in daylight, likewise a flash sync <250. My eyes are good enough to focus just fine with an R8, but for some people the SL2's finder might outweigh all else. The only way to know is to try for yourself. That's unfortunately getting harder to do as more camera stores keep closing up shop.

[pjleeson]

If only the camera would allow me to get shots like Doug ;-) I second the suggestion of a

hands-on eval. The SL2 is a heavier, more substantial beast than the R4-7 series. The R8

reminded me of the SL, with excellent finder brightness and cost similar to the 6.2. The real

bargain is the SL. One thing to keep in mind is the size and weight of Leica R lenses, I'd also

consider the F3HP as Paul suggests...to me, it actually handles more like an M than the real

Leicas

[tom_murray2]

Well regardless of how the F3HP handles (it was & still is a nice camera), it doesn't have as good a viewfinder as the R8, so therefore it must be much dimmer than the SL2. And it doesn't take Leica lenses (not to knock Nikkors). See, my opinion comes from a perspective of someone on salary whose expected to deliver the goods to the boss on time and (back when there was film) with minimum expense to him. If I was shooting for stock nobody would know how many killer shots got away from me or how much film I burned to get the keepers I did get, and as long as I had a day job that paid the bills I could use whatever gear floated my boat. Trust me I'd much rather be carrying around a little Leica and 3 lenses in a purse bag than a 1DS-II, 5D, 3 honkin f/2.8 L-zooms, 2 tilt-shifts, not to mention all the lighting junk.

[Karim Ghantous]

Tom, some interesting comments there but you have condensed your thoughts too much for me to untangle them! For example I don't know what you meant in your last statement with respect to the F3, SL2, Leicas and the Canons. I mean, I take it that you used a Leica reflex for those commission jobs?

[tom_murray2]

Uh, sorry I was confusing. I've never shot for stock, where people only get to see your best shots and nobody but you really knows how much film you had to burn to get them. I've always worked for a large company where I had to account for the film I used, and had a definate time frame to get the shots they needed the way they needed them. I have an M3 that I used to use in places where the noise and presence of a motordrive SLR was contrary to getting the shots. I wanted to get an M8 but it's noisier than the M3, plus it's got to many quirks and defects. I did buy an R8 about 10 years ago, and I loved the way it handled and the viewfinder was great, but a little thing went wrong with it and Leica held it up for several months to do what was probably a 10 minute repair job, and told me they didn't have any loaners. As a pro I can't handle that, so I sold the R8. If I was an amature or someone without a boss and a deadline I would probably still use it probably with the DMR.

[alan_wilder1]

Jack, as a fellow Maryland resident, bird shooter, former Leica R shooter, current Leica M and Nikon shooter, I'd probably spent the money on a 300/4 AFS Nikkor and TC-14E II with a decent used Nikon AF body as they can be had fairly cheap these days. Canon's also great and there are adapters for Leica R to Canon bodies available. The Leica reflex line is mechanically superb as are the lenses but if you need a lens for birding, you'll need a minimum of 300-400mm for decent magnification. The AF feature can't be underestimated and helps to ensure correct focus which ultimately means far more in nailing the shot with birds in flight (or about to fly away) than precision MF Leica optics. Good luck.

[tom_murray2]

I don't know any bird shooters personally but I do know a lot of professional sports photographers and even though some of them swore they never would, they all use AF now and have been for a long time. Anyone can display only the sharp shots made with all manual gear and claim AF is a crutch for the incompetent (most pros shouted that from the rooftops 15 years ago)but photogs whose jobs depend on bringing back shots at least as good as the guys shooting for the competing rags can't afford to let there egoes get in the way or they'll be unemployed.

[doug herr]

Tom it sounds like you've got a burr in your shorts today. For the record, both of the eagle photos above are from a series of three or four for each species, no out-of-focus shots. The Red-tailed Hawk and Black Skimmer photos were single shots.

[jack_palmer]

Tom . most of us aren't pro's so can take all the time we want but no pressure except for what we put on ourselfs. I may buy both SL2 and a 6.2 and see which one is a better fit. They both seem like great cameras,

[bob_lazzarini]

Jack<p>

FWIW, I've owned both and I like the match needle viewfinder of the SL2 far better than the digital readout of the R6.2.<br>

Both are excellent cameras.<br>

The SL2 is built like a tank and was used, by me, professionally and consistently indoors and out for 4 years without any problems what-so-ever.<br>

Unfortunately, for me, I sold it long ago.<br>

What was I thinking?<p>

Good luck on your choice ... which ever one it might be. :-)<p>

Cheers!

[bob_hollenbeck]

I don't know what you plan to do with your equipment but you will probably want extra bodies around. You can pick up R4 for almost nothing. If you get an R4 plan on having it serviced! But that will probably be case with an SL or SL-2. See if you like the R body.

I must admit my friends SL finder is notably brighter. I can see why that would be someones preference.

I love the R4. Its allot like the Minolta's I used before I was able afford Leitz Glass. I would say the finder is just like the Minolta XG-7.

If the R is for you, go out and spend your money on a R6. You can keep the R4 as an extra body...no regrets.

You can pick up an SL really right as well. I don't think an R4 and an SL would make a bad set. The lenses are what its all about anyway. The cameras just a box in the end, if it works when you need it to!

Good Luck

 

Has anyone used Beattie Intenscreen or other screen with the "R"s. Where would that put you in comparison to the SL?

[doug herr]

I tried a Beattie Intenscreen (matte with grid) in my R4s and hated it. It made the center of

the viewfinder brighter, the corners of the screen darker, and more difficult to focus. I prefer

the Brightscreen (www.brightscreen.com).