Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]inyoung@jps.net wrote: > > Hi, > > I am glad that there are quite a few Leicaflex fans and about Mr. > Harmann's comments. > It has been also my understanding that the SL was better made than the > SL2 and that Leitz was trying to be more competitive in the market with the > Japanese cameras by cutting the manufacturing cost down. If you hold both > SL and SL2 in each hand, you can feel the difference. The SL feels > definitely more solid. It is my opinion that the Leicaflex MK1 or MK2 > might be even better built than the SL. One simple evidence is the lens > release catch. Red plastic has been used on the SL while solid metal has > been used on the Standard. I have seen quite a few plastic catch broken on > the SL. That red plastic lens release was indeed a problem on the SL, as were the early meter cells. Both were the subjects of "silent recall" -- if you sent your SL in for service to Leica, the parts were replaced with more durable ones without charge. For example, the replacement for the lens release was the same metal lens release as on the Standard. My own SL had them replaced before I bought it. Sherry Kraeuter wrote an article about this which appeared in the Viewfinder Vol. 28, No. 2, second quarter 1995. - -Patrick