Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Doug Herr et al. wrote regarding the Leicaflex SL: >> Yes it's built like a tank and 100 years is a conservative estimate, and > neither mine nor my daughter's is for sale.<<<<<<< > > Hi Doug, > I think if ever there was a "classic R Leica " it has to be the > Leicaflex SL! > > As you say it's built like a tank. And it is, as it's made from > regurgitated Tiger tanks! ;-) I had three of them then switched to SL > MOT model for the motor capability. I sold two and kept one for > sentimental reasons, every once in awhile I shoot a roll with it just to > keep it limbered up. Regarding the SL: I've been pondering how to jump into Leica R for a while now. The used market is the most cost-effective method, however, the main thing discouraging me is the electronic shutters on the R series. And R3 and R4's are getting to the 20 year old mark now. While I agree that Leica's are wonderfully overbuilt cameras, an electronic shutter is still an electronic shutter, and eventually, they WILL die, parts become unavailable, etc. Ok, sure ANY shutter will eventually fail, but most likely someone, SOMEWHERE will be able to fix our mechanical shutters. Even if they have to make the parts by hand. ...but the SL and SL2 suddenly appeals to my inherent love of mechanical cameras. How "like a tank" is it ? My Nikon F and (even more so) my F2 (both with standard non-metering prisms) are the most "tank like" cameras I've ever hauled around. Wonderfully durable hand-built cameras, titanium shutters and mirror assemblies, black enamel finish - love them or not, to disregard the F and F2's legendary durability would be simply ignorant. Is the SL even more so ? I'd be curious to hear people's opinions who have extensively used both. Regards William