stephen_york3

35mm Elmarit JCH 400 in Rodinal (1:100, semi-stand for 60 min) R/V Arctic Discoverer, soon an artificial reef R/V Arctic Discoverer #10 by Steve, on Flickr

35mm Elmarit JCH 400 in Rodinal, semi-stand R/V Arctic Discoverer #9 by Steve, on Flickr

35mm Elmarit Fomapan 100 in Rodinal (1:100, semi-stand) Room for Rent by Steve, on Flickr

50mm Summicron R Fomapan 100 in Rodinal (1:100, semi-stand for 60 min) No Swim Today by Steve, on Flickr

Leicaflex SL 35mm Elmarit JCH 400 in Rodinal (1:100 @ room temp for 60 min) (semi stand) listing ship R/V Arctic Discoverer #7 by Steve, on Flickr

listing ship 35mm Elmarit R + JCH 400 in Rodinal R/V Arctic Discoverer #7 by Steve, on Flickr

I've recently concluded a 12 month experiment, largely shooting old Nikkors from the 50's, 60's and 70's, and modern Voigtlander, in F and S mount, and I really wanted them to "win," because of Nikon's reputation of reliability, but in the end I prefer Leica optics for B&W film. The old Nikkors were ok but I had to add 10-20% to development times and still had to play with them in PS. The modern Voigtlander F mount lenses (40/2 and 58/1.4), although well made and sharp, were terrible with B&W film. I just got awful results. Low contrast and as if each had an orange filter. Tried Rodinal, HC-110 and D76, and after 100' of film gave up. Yuck! Those two lenses must've been optimized for digital and/or color. I got better results with the S mount Voigtlanders (50/2.5 and 50/1.5) from 15 years ago, but I' not much of a rangefinder guy anymore, especially not Nikon rangefinders. Anyway, I found my circa my circa late 70's, early 80's Leica R mount lenses just more full proof. More contrast, maybe a bit sharper then the old Nikkors at wider apertures, but I didn't have to do anything special in development or PS. They just came out good.

I love the Leicaflex SL camera, indeed my favorite -- glorious viewfinders, the best damping of any SLR I've ever used -- but I've had a series of repairs with moderate use (about 150-200 rolls a year). All my cameras were CLA'ed b4 use -- very expensive!! The plastic eyepiece of one camera just fell out after about 400 rolls. Simple plastics failure I suppose. Another camera had the lollipop of the meter fail after 80 rolls. Then one camera developed shutter bounce after 50 rolls. Complete shutter failure with another after 25-30 rolls. Not saying they are inherently unreliable; they're just 50 year old cameras. Same is probably true with any old camera with identical usage. I've had several other Leicaflex SL where I put 25-40 rolls into them w/o problems, and just ended up selling them. So maybe they're still humming along just fine. Anyway, most film cameras now days are 20- 30 -40 years old, so age related problems are to be expected. Tried Nikons for a year, based on their reputation of reliability, and just didn't like the optics as well. Plus a lot more camera shake. As in at least a stop or two. :( If you want to shoot Leica optics with film, got to put up with the cameras.

My first stint with Nikon rangefinders 10 years ago was a disaster centered on faded rangefinder patches -- SP, S3, S2. Recently I've acquired a couple later produced Nikon S2 with much better contrasty patches. That makes all the difference between thumbs up and thumbs down.

Between these two, put me in the M5 camp. I like the M5's needle metering better then diodes, and the 50mm frame line has better accuracy.

She really is a fan of the Leicaflex SL too. I had a couple M5s back in the day, and it is was my favorite 0.72 Leica M (having also owned and used M4, M6, M6ttl, MP, M7). Very practical in the field. Tremendous ease of use. Larrge 50mm frame lines. Since then, however, I've come to favor the larger viewfinder of the M3.

I've used and owned a lot of Leica SLRs over the years, including all 3 of the Leicaflex, and also an R6, 6.2 and R7. My vote for "best" goes to the Leicaflex SL. Sherry Krauter (or Gus) can get these cameras in working order and many of the spare parts are still available. The SL has this incredible 0.90 viewfinder where things just pop into focus in a dramatic way. It's a unique combination of fine and bigger micro prisms. Taking the picture is as fun as getting the image. And all the Leicaflex series has this effective braking system that allows taking shotes a stop or two slower then other manufactures. I agree with the poster above that the original Leicaflex is the smoothest. Never was a big fan of the SL2, although I've owned the camera twice. Fiddled with an R9 in a store when they were being sold and that hunchback was surprisingly ergonomic with a nice viewfinder. The R6/6.2 have this crazy shutter travel but they are smaller.

Best bang for the buck are the later 35/2.8, any 50/2, and any 90/2.8. Be aware you will need lenses with a 3rd cam.

<p>I've owned the type 1 35mm Summicron, the type 2 35mm Elmarit, and the type 3 35mm Elmarit. I kept the last 35mm Elmarit for practical reasons -- light and the same filter threads as my other lenses (55mm). For black and white film, it is perfectly fine; sharp with nice contrast. Color photography is sharp and clinical but a little bland. Maybe that's me though. I shoot mostly B&W. The type 2 Elmarit is the same or similar optical formula but but with the old school barrel look.</p> <p>The 35mm Summicron (type 1) is a heavy, sculptural lens. Probably the coolest looking R lens I've ever owned. Its' color rendition was pleasing. Too tired to elaborate further, but it definitely had character. Found the B&W good.</p> <p>Never have I used the type 2 35mm Summicron.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Having owned and used Nikons (an F2, several F, an F3 and a F3HP), Minolta (X700), Zeiss (Bullseye and Contaflex IV), Topcon ®, Canon (FTB), Leicas, (R7, Leicaflex, SL, SL2), and some others, and played with even more, I can attest that the Leicaflex are the nicest SLRs. They all can take great pictures, even the Nikons, but my favorite is the Leicaflex SL by a wide margin. A big, bold and beautiful viewfinders, and a braking system that allows sharp images at very slow shutter speeds. Whats not to like about this camera.</p>

<p>Revisiting a thread I started many years ago. Since that time I've used both versions of the 50mm Summicron, and a later 60mm Elmarit extensively (100's of rolls). They are all good lenses.</p> <p><br /> On a Leicaflex SL the 60mm is magical; things just pop into focus in a dramatic way. However, during my latest downsizing both the type 1 50mm Summicron (great bokeh btw) and the Elmarit made it onto that auction site. The 60mm lens mated onto a Leicaflex SL was just so heavy; and I liked the optics of the 50mm Summicron best, at least in B&W.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Owned Leicas, everything from an M4 through an M7, used them exclusively for more then a decade, but now I shoot 50's Kiev IIs and a prewar Contax II. The Contax mount cameras are at least 85% of a Leica M3 onward at 5% of the price. Both are capable of great pictures; of course, old lenses are different then modern optics. </p>

<p>I've owned both a Nikon S2 and Kiev II/Contax II. All the cameras were recently served. I did not like the Nikon. The rangefinder patch was beyond useless, though the Nikkor lens was nice. </p>

<p>I have now owned and used the following rangefinders over the last 20 years -- Leica M6, M6ttl, MP (0.58 & 0.72), M7, M4 and M5; Nikon S2; Kiev II, 2A and 3A, and Zeiss Ikon Contax II. I've also 'fiddled' with the later Zeiss IIa and IIIa, and Voigtlander Prominent, but have not put film through these latter cameras. </p> <p>After shooting all these cameras, my favorite are the Contax II and Kiev II. They fit my big hands, and I've always liked the high contrast viewfinders. I don't find looking through them squinty or difficult to use; in fact very ergonomic. What a tour de force they must've been back in the late 1930's. And the fact that they are the least expensive of all is just an added bonus. The old Jupiter and Zeiss lenses hold up pretty well to modern standards, and I prefer the older lenses for B&W.<br> The least favorite camera was the Nikon. Yuk!</p>

<p>I've been impressed with the build quality of the 50's Kievs I currently use (1952, 1957, 1958), and for comparison I've owned Leicas in the past (M4, multiple M5s, multiple M6s, multiple MPs, M7), a Nikon (S2), and various Zeiss (Contessa, IIA). To me they seem just as well made, maybe even better then some. The Jupiter lenses I've used are phenomenal (8, 9, and 12). Big bang for the buck with these cameras. I don't have any experience with the later Kiev cameras or the Contax II/III.</p>

<p>Having owned an S2 and a bunch of Leicas from M4 to M7, using them exclusively for nearly a decade, and now using a trio of Kievs from the 1950's, I would go with the latter. More bang for the buck, by a factor of 20 or 30 or more. A 50's Kiev in its' original box with 50mm lens and case, ect., cost less then $200, and that includes shipping from the Ukraine. The build quality of my samples (1952, 1957 and 1958) is outstanding. The Jupiter lenses (8, 9 and 12) are phenomenal. What I really like is the high contrast viewfinders though. I find the Kievs easier to focus compared to the old Leicas and the Nikon. Surprisingly I love the lack of frame lines. It really results in some creative shots, if only by accident.<br /> The Nikon S2 viewfinder is the pits. Don't understand how anybody can claim they're good. The Nikon rangefinder patch is awful. <br /> But what do I know. I prefer the Leicaflex SL to either the Nikon F and F2 and all the great internet experts say I'm wrong, so I'm probably wrong here too.</p>

<p>A bit off topic, but back 4-5 years ago, before Essex got blown away by the hurricane, they installed a brand new prism on one of my Leicaflex SL. I'm guessing the original Leicaflex and the SL may have the same prism. Although I recently learned Leica USA sold out their spare parts to repair techs, such as Sherry Krauter (maybe Gus too), a lot of those spare parts still do exist, out there in the world. </p>

<p>As I recall, a 48mm filter will fit a series vii</p>

<p>I had one of these for awhile, and its' color rendition in low light was just phenomenal. Heavy lens though.</p>

<p>The Leicaflex series were fairly quiet for a mechanical SLR. Much quieter then Nikons and Canons. </p>