Leicaflex SL Mot - compared to SL?

[astral]

<p>I am wondering exactly what is the difference between the Leicafelx SL Mot and the original SL - apart from the obvious motor capability? I read that the SL Mot doesn't have a self-timer, and the meter switch is not on the wind lever - so how is it switched on and off?</p>

<p>Rather more broadly, is the SL Mot <em>without </em>a motor attached any less useable than a 'straight' SL? I have been offered a black paint (not black chrome) SL Mot for $300 in good condition (and a warranty) and it could make a useful addition to the 'heavy armor' part of the arsenal.</p>

<p>Thanks for your advice.</p>

[SCL]

<p>It is a great camera, built like a tank, although I prefer the SL2 for better metering.</p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

<blockquote>

<p>I am wondering exactly what is the difference between the Leicafelx SL Mot and the original SL - apart from the obvious motor capability? I read that the SL Mot doesn't have a self-timer, and the meter switch is not on the wind lever - so how is it switched on and off?<br>

Rather more broadly, is the SL Mot <em>without </em>a motor attached any less useable than a 'straight' SL? I have been offered a black paint (not black chrome) SL Mot for $300 in good condition (and a warranty) and it could make a useful addition to the 'heavy armor' part of the arsenal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have owned a Leicaflex SL2 Mot, two SLs, and two SL2s over the years and the only user difference from the SL2 Mot over both 'standard' versions was the lack of a self timer. AFAIK, the same is the case with the SL Mot. <br>

The SL/SL2 Mot versions were built like a tank on steroids - virtually indestructible!</p>

 

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>I have all 3 Leicaflexes -- though not the bulky "mot" versions. Of the three, the absolute 'tank' -- and the only with the 'like silk' winding is the original Leicaflex.</p><div></div>

[astral]

<p>Well, just in case there is a 'run' on SL MOTs, I have emailed the seller, whom I know well, and provisionally reserved it. I know a top Leica restorer here in the UK - I'm sure he'll check it for any 'issues'.</p>

<ul>

<li>Stephen & Bill - I agree, the SL2 is a true gem. Mine has never failed me, even if I have moaned loudly about the weight.</li>

<li>Paul - the original Leicaflex always reminds me of a pirate with an eye-patch! </li>

</ul>

<p>I was concerned that the meter was only switched on/off via the motor drive unit - I have no intention of getting a hernia by using one of <em>those</em>. Thanks gents.</p>

[douglas_herr2]

<p>Aside from the missing self-timer, the SL MOT's meter doesn't turn off. Put a lens cap on to avoid draining the battery. The SL MOT also was normally made with a plain matte viewscreen instead of the usual microprism viewscreen.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Paul, I am not a regular SLR user (except for the Visoflex adaptation) and thus have not invested in bodies and lenses of this great series, but the original model has always interested me as it is a sort of hybrid that spans the gulf between RF and SLR photography. Its aerial viewfinder, considered a shortcoming by some, has always appealed to one who grew up with the RF camera and preferred the clear view it provides for image perception, with a central rangefinding patch, and could live with a non through the lens metering system.</p>

<p>Not sure where Alan is in regard to needing groundglass focusing or not, but he probably has considered the pros and cons of the one-eyed "eye patch" Leicaflex.</p>

[astral]

<p>Thanks Doug - Mmmmmmm, I'm not keen on a plain groundglass screen, in conjunction with vari-focal spectacles it is a recipe for fuzzy pics. The SL2 viewfinder is perfect for me, and the SL one is a close second.</p>

<p>Arthur, I haven't contemplated an "eye-patch" Leicaflex: I'd have to see one in the flesh to see if there is any <em>'chemistry' </em>there. However, the seller has 'lost' the SL Mot . . . when (if) it turns up, he'll check the finder.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Arthur, now, in my 69th year & with Cervical Stenosis, I find that all my magnificent Leicaflexes are more comfortable on my shelf than hanging from my neck, alas.</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>Paul, I see from that nice photo that you have the right priorities, notwithstanding your additional passion for the (albeit dense and heavy) reflex Leicas. Perhaps one of your progeny will carry on the tradition of picture making with one of them and with parental counsel. As one with some lower back spinal chord degeneration, I sympathise, but you might possibly think about a lightweight mirrorless camera that can take one or two smaller Leica lenses. I believe that Ansel Adams went from LF to MF cameras and possibly smaller ones as he put on the years. </p>

[astral]

<p><em>"Lightweight mirrorless camera"</em> with interchangeable lenses? First first developed 1913 by Herr Barnack . . . :-) But, indeed, the new 'electronical' ones are pretty good.</p>

<p>I started using a second-hand Lumix G1 as a casual-use camera last year,. I have since added 'bits' to it, and now it is in use every day. Results are plenty good enough for my purposes, although using manual focus lenses on it was not very successful. In fact, am taking a Lumix G1 (or possibly a G3) to northern India shortly. I simply cannot take a Leicaflex SL or R7 with zoom lens and a few primes without the expense of a sherpa, however much I would like to use them. </p>

 

[jason_ganz]

<p>If my memory serves me correctly about the Leicaflex MOT variants, parts that were pertinent to motor function were also beefed up in order to compensate for the fact that motors tend to eat through spinning moving parts due to the extra torque applied to parts like the takeup reel. The reel is one of the VERY few achilles heels (ie: plastic) parts on the L-Flex (what amazes me is the rewind crank's shaft is also plastic... in a professional camera), although I'm not sure if in the MOT variants that got upgraded to a metal takeup reel. Either way, SL or SL MOT, what you're buying is a tank that holds 35mm film.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[astral]

<p>Thanks Jason, I know someone who I believe can replace the plastic spool if needed. And I have a spare metal mount lock in case the red tab breaks. However, the SL MOT has disappeared without trace. The seller can't find it - possibly his business partner has sold it, we don't know . . . Ho hum! I'm sure I can make do with my SL2 and R7 . . </p>

[jason_ganz]

<p>I want the metal takeup reel in my SL. I believe DAG does custom reels (metal ones) that are less prone to this problem. I'l lhave to ask. </p>

<p>Jason</p>

[stephen_york3]

<p>Paul -- Use a waist or belt bag. That'll take care of stenosis.</p>

[stephen_york3]

<p>Paul -- Use a waist or belt bag. That'll take care of stenosis.</p>

[teun_dijkstra]

<p>Hi, I handled SL2 en SL2 Mot yesterday and was frankly surprised how the SL2 light-meter switches of <em>inadvertently</em> touching the advance lever with your right brow being a <em>lefteyed</em> viewer, even without wearing glasses. Thus a clear advantage for the Mot in this respect.</p>

[carlos_prado2]

<p>I have spoken with several respectable LEICA repair technicians over the years regarding the differences between the SL2 and SL2 MOT.</p>

<p>Every single one of them has told me clearly that the internal components are of the same quality and robustness for both cameras. The MOT version does NOT have better or superior parts inside.</p>

<p>This is a compete myth.</p>

<p>I would really love it if someone could produce concrete evidence that contradicts this fact.</p>