Re: [Leica] Leicaflex SL

[drodgers@nextlink.com]

Bud

>>I used all the Nikon F's from the Ft through the F2.  Then I happened to
get
a look through the viewfinder of a new SL/2.   I never took another frame
with a Nikon F after that.<<

When I look through my SL, I guess I'm a little shocked. It seems that
viewfinders haven't really improved in 30-plus-years. In fact, IMHO,
they've regressed. Today the instrument panel is foremost, and vision takes
a back seat. (Almost like the design mentality behind modern day fighter
jets).

The simple, bright, uncluttered viewfinder on an SL or SL/2 with a fast
lens -- like an M -- truly is a sight for sore eyes. It provides the eye --
and subsequently the mind -- with maximum visual information. How important
is that to things like composition?

I prefer a bright viewfinder to nearly all other features. Preparation and
anticipation can mitigate the need for convenience features. Photography is
not about snapping a shutter. It's about being in the right place at the
right time. It's about seeing a certain expression or event before it
happens.   If you're in the wrong place, or you're in the wrong position,
it doesn't matter how fast your AF might be, or how many frames pers second
your camera will fire. If you are in the right place, at the right time,
and you've anticipated the moment, you can get a powerful photograph with a
Kodak Brownie.

I'm not on a tirade saying that older is better. And I don't mean to
over-simplify things. AF, AE, autobracketing,  motor drives, etc., all have
a place. But I think that while we've moved forward in those areas we've
taken a step backwards in prisms (SLRs) and viewfinders (p&s') There aren't
that many cameras with nice bright viewfinders nowdays. I've seen very few
SLRs on par with an SL/2.

Dave