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

[TTAbrahams@aol.com]

Mikiro, I have been using SL's and SL2's for many years. The SL is the better 
built camera, according to my Leicaflex expert 'They started cutting corners 
on the SL2!" Well, both cameras are built like the proverbial brick out 
houses. At the moment I only use one, a severely battered SL Mot, there is 
some black paint left on it, nere and there, and it has some substantial 
dings too, but it works perfectly.
 However, before you buy an SL, there is one thing to check. Put the speed on 
'B" and release the shutter, the mirror is now up, and look in the bottom of 
the mirror box. You can see the metercell there. If it is the version with 
only one 'line" (or prism edge) it is a very expensive proposition to repair 
that meter if it ever dies. The improved version had several "lines" or 
prisms, and parts are still available for these. The viewfinder on the SL is 
among the brightest ever made, a HUGE prism with heavy silver on it. It is 
bright and contrasty (and if it isn't, it is shot and don't buy the camera, 
or pay very little for it) and works well with shorter and normal lenses. It 
is more difficult to focus loner lenses with this screen (up to the 100/2,8 
it works fine). If you are going to be using the long lenses, 180/3.4 and 
longer, go for the SL2. The most beaten up SL I ever saw had an estimated 1,5 
MILLION exposures through it, The owner had been thinking of having it 
serviced when it hit 1 million, but decided that it still was working fine 
and rescheduled the service to take place when it hit 2000 000 exposures 
instead!
 I primarily use my SL with a 100/2,8 APO-Macro and an old 35 PC Curtagon. It 
is a heavy camera, but it feels indestructible. Of course if you can find the 
SL Mot and also the motor you will never need to go to the gym and lift 
weights again! Considering the price difference between the SL and SL2, I 
would recommend the SL first and later, if you need it get the SL2.
Happy shooting,
Tom A