RE: [Leica] Re: Leicaholic

[BOB KRAMER <BobKramer@COOPERCARRY.com>]

The Leicaflex SL is definitely a great bargain, particularly when you luck
into one like I did, from Sherry who had just overhauled it including
replacing the meter cell, take up spool, lens lock and battery compartment.
She said it ought to be good for the next 30 years or so.  And it didn't
cost me that much more than a Leica polarizing filter!  If anything, I
should get another SL.  The SL2 meter isn't much of a factor for me, since I
do all low light shooting with my M cameras anyway.

But it occurred to me that having an AE Leica might come in handy on
occasion.  And the R4sP's seem pretty reasonably priced, in relative Leica
terms.  Just part of the never ending internal debate I have with myself on
what I should get next.

Bob Kramer

P.S.  Jem, funny you should suggest sneaking an SL home.  That's exactly
what I did with mine!  After a month of hiding it I finally told my wife.
All is now forgiven, and I no longer have to sleep with the dogs.  :-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Herr [mailto:telyt@earthlink.net]
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Leicaholic
> 
> On Sat, 10 February 2001, Jem Kime wrote:
> > 
> > You'll kick yourself for not getting a solid old wetzlar 
> SL/SL2 if the R3/4 
> > goes wrong.
> > The surprising thing, I think, is the comparitive values 
> placed on the SL 
> > and SL2. Quite why the SL is so cheap I don't know, it does 
> 95% of what the 
> > SL2 does but sells for sometimes less than half the price.
> > If you want to mount three extra lenses and meter a stop 
> (or two?) further 
> > into the darkness then buy the SL2, if not, then save a 
> bundle and sneak an 
> > SL home.
> > 
> > Jem.
> > 
> 
> The pricing of the SL vs. the SL2 is related more to scarcity 
> than to function.  I think Stephen Gandy's website lists SL 
> production at about 30,000 and SL2 considerably less.