Re: [Leica] SLR choice

["Bud Cook" <budcook@ibm.net>]

Simon,
I bought my SL/2 brand new in 1977.   This camera has never had one single
problem although it's been to DAG once for a CLA (probably a waste of
money).

I was recently at National Camera to one of those Leica deals where they
check your cameras when someone mentioned what a great camera I had.   I
said I thought I could probably get $1,200 for it.  A salesman told me I
could get a lot more than that.   It's academic to me because I'll never
sell it.

BTW, I also have an SL and I really love it.  It's got a terrific viewfinder
and you can hammer nails with it.

Bud
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Stevens <simon@wizard.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 1999 6:57 PM
Subject: [Leica] SLR choice


> I hope that you will bear with me on this one, it may be a little long
> but I'm hoping that I can pick some collective brains for some advice.
> Of course this is a highly biased group, but also a rather informed one
> and it's the informed, experienced point of view I am looking for.
>
> I'm a long time Leica M4-P owner which I use with a 35,50, 90 combo. In
> my business about 90% of my 35mm work (which in turn is probably only
> about 25% of my work - the rest is on a Hasselblad) is very undemanding
> stuff. Mostly it's events shot in color or black and white with flash
> and the negatives are rarely enlarged beyond 8x10. Still, I love using
> the Leica.  I love its quietness, compactness and unobtrusiveness. I
> love the results and, though they may not always know why, my clients do
> too and tell me so. I also love the fact that at almost every event I
> shoot somebody comes up and admires it which I'm sure helps when it
> comes to delivering my invoice. :)
>
> Nevertheless, I am thinking about getting an SLR as an adjunct to the M
> sometime in the next few months and so I am doing some research. I'm
> thinking that a short range zoom could add some flexibility to some of
> my shoots and an additional camera is good insurance. It would also be
> useful for those occasions when I need a loaner to give to an assistant
> or subcontractor. I would be uncomfortable handing my M to somebody not
> very familiar with rangefinders. Quite apart from the cost, they are too
> tricky for first time use especially when my good name is at stake.
>
> I would like as much as possible to match the optical quality of the M,
> despite the zoom lens, and also as much as possible of the M's
> ruggedness and feel. I don't want to compromise on the lens so  the only
> ones I will consider are Leica or Zeiss. That means the camera will be
> either a Leica or a Contax and to save money (there is a budget!) it
> will be used, so no R-8.
>
> Decision #1 - the lens.
>
> Has anybody used the Zeiss 35-70 f3.4 Vario Sonnar? I have always been
> wary of zooms but honest opinions would be welcome, especially given
> that I have become used to the quality of Leica primes. .The same
> applies to the Leica 35-70 f3.5 Vario Elmar (Japanese). Of course if
> somebody has had the opportunity to use them both to compare, that would
> be great! I'd also be interested in knowing what people think is the
> right US price for optically clean examples. Cosmetics are much less
> important to me.
>
> Decision #2 - the body. Obviously, this is related to question number 1.
> Here are some I have looked at. I also list the ones I have already
> rejected to save you potential time.
>
> Contax RTS II. I have always liked this camera even though it is a hefty
> beast. Good bodies are quite inexpensive, which is nice. My biggest
> reservation is the fact that it is battery dependent and has an
> irritating christmas tree display. Any long term users out there? It
> always felt tough to me, how is the reliability from experience?
>
> Leica R-4 Good price and nice handling. I have heard rumblings on the
> LUG about reliability (comments?) and I found the viewfinder to be dim.
> As with the Contax, I don't like the fact that it is electronic. But
> since it's fairly cheap I might live with that and the blinking lights
> in the viewfinder.
>
> Leica R-3 Even better price. I have always had a soft spot for it, even
> though it is a glorified Minolta XD-(7?). Comments welcome.
>
> Leica R-4s, R-E, R-5, R-7. Too many meter modes. Not worth the extra
> money to me. To me Leica said it best with their M-6 ad "Less is More."
>
> Leica R-6 & R6.2 I like the specifications, but not the subjective feel.
> The price is also higher than I'd like, being newer than most of the
> other bodies mentioned here.
>
> Leicaflex SL-2. I LOVED this one! I liked the build quality, the bright
> viewfinder and the fact that I could see all of it with my glasses on,
> and wind on with my left eye pressed to the eyepiece. It's big but it
> felt inspring. My reservations are about maintenance. Does anybody have
> any comments about this? What are common problems? Are parts available?
> If they are, are the prices getting inflated? A second, more minor,
> reservation is the split image focussing screen. Am I likely to get
> darkening with an f3.5 lens?  Finally, what do people consider the
> correct price range for this body?
>
> Leicafles SL and Leicaflex. Great prices, but the handling didn't "work"
> for me. Pity.
>
> Finally, I have read about, but not actuially handled the Contax S2. It
> sounds rather nice, albeit pricey. I'd be interested in hearing from any
> owners out there.
>
> Thanks for wading throught the above and thanks in advance for your help
> with this subjective choice.
>
> Simon Stevens
> Camera Craftsman
> (703) 548-7548
> http://www.camera-craftsman.com
>
>