Re: [Leica] Which to choose, SL or SL2?

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

Mikiro,

I have both the SL and SL/2.  I bought the SL/2 new in 1977 and picked up a
used SL to go with it.

I've had the SL/2 CLA'd but it's never needed repair.  The SL needed a new
prism and had to have the shutter repaired.  I feel that if I had bought the
SL as a new camera, neither of these problems would have occurred.   In any
case, it seems that these cameras can still be repaired in the U.S. and it
might even be easier to find good repair people who will work on Leicaflexes
but not the electronic R's.

The cost of repair/maintenance work on these cameras has been very
reasonable.

A used SL will cost much less than a used SL/2 given equal condition.  The
viewfinder of the SL is better for long lenses or macro work while the SL/2
works better with shorter lenses.  The SL can be a bit hard to focus with
wide angle lenses but you can do it.  The viewfinder of the SL is wonderful.
IMHO, it makes the Nikon F finders appear dim, grainy and distorted.  The
SL/2 is
nearly as good as the SL.

I don't really miss the aperture readout in the SL because I'm more
interested in shutter speeds.

Unless your hands are quite small, the SL seems as comfortable to hold as
the somewhat thinner SL/2.   Nevertheless, I'd rate the SL/2 easier to hold
and operate if for no other reason than the wind on lever works better on
the SL/2.

When you buy one of these cameras remember that they are quite old,
especially the SL.  If the seller treated his cameras with tender loving
care, then you probably have little to worry about in buying either an SL or
SL/2.  However, I would check the prism of the SL for signs of fungus.  A
new Leitz prism is very expensive.  I was fortunate to have had a prism
installed that had been resilvered and the cost was very reasonable.   The
shutter is something that could require repair in either camera.

Both cameras require a mercury battery which isn't available in the U.S.

Although the meter in the SL is less sensitive than the SL/2, I haven't
found it to be much of a problem.  I suppose it's because I seldom use the
SL for interior shots.

Both of these cameras require 2 or 3 cam lenses.  That means you will not be
able to use some of the very latest lenses.  However, I don't think there
was an R lens manufactured by Leitz that wasn't outstanding.

I apologize for the long response.  I'd simply say in closing that I will
never sell either of these cameras.   I feel fortunate to have them.

Regards,
Bud Cook

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Mikiro Mori <arbos@silva.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 4:33 AM
Subject: [Leica] Which to choose, SL or SL2?


> Hi, all.  I have been an R user but know very little about Leicaflex.  Now
I
> am in the mood of trying an SL or an SL2.  I have a couple of questions.
>
> 1) Are there any differences between SL and SL2 in real shooting?  I read
in
> "Leica Answers" that SL2 has a more sensitive meter, a viewscreen with a
> split-image, a readout for aperture in the viewfinder, and a mirror
> re-pivoting to allow protruding lenses.  Does SL2 feel much better than
SL?
> I would assume that SL2mot is a collector's item....
>
> 2) I heard that once SL/SL2 needs repair, one often has to pay as much as
> one paid for the camera.  Are the parts still available?  Does repair
> generally cost very much?
>
> 3) Something special to check or bear in mind when buying one?
>
> Thank you for your advice and suggestions!
>
> Mikiro
> Strasbourg, France
>
>
>
>
>