Leica Leicaflex SL

It would be good to either show us some sample images or links to them. Thanks for sharing your thots.

Good article. I'd like to see more reviews of classic film cameras.

Good, balanced overview, Doug. One surprise for many people, and I didn't see this mentioned, is the heft these things have. Good for steady shooting, but a real shoulder-denter with a telephoto. Every time I look through the viewfinder of another camera, I am so glad I've got an SL (and have had for 30 years)! My feeling is that an SL/90mm Summicron combo is one of photodom's great pleasures.

Instead of frequently comparing this camera to the auto-everything wundercameras of today, I think it would be more interesting to compare it to contemporary manual cameras. For example, how does the lovely finder compare to, say, a Nikon F2?

Good suggestion, Gregory. I can't speak to the F2, but I gladly sold my Nikon F (with non-metering prism finder) when I bought my SL. Brighter viewfinder as I recall, but, as Doug said, focussing on the SL's fine microprism screen is a unique experience. The image simply snaps into focus in the way that only microprims do. I liked the ergonomics of the F, but liked the ergo of the SL even better. The film advance mechanism was amazingly more pleasant to use than the Nikon's wobbly (by comparison) advance lever. I also had to be a bit more careful to make sure the film was wound onto the Nikon takeup spool, not so much of an issue with the SL. I would have to say that the Nikon Fs are as rugged as the Leicaflexes, just based on the equal amount of dropsee abuse I put them both through. But the SL's amount of extra casing around the camera would give me more confidence. It is overbuilt almost to a fault.

As Jim Simmons has done, I can compare the SL's viewfinder with the Nikon F (FTn in my case, with E screen). When I first bought the SL the difference in the viewfinders was startling and the FTn soon began collecting dust. Stuff just pops into focus on the SL's viewscreen, anywhere on the screen, even when using one of the f/6.8 Telyts with an extender. I sold my original F after a few months with no regrets. I now have my brother's old FTn and the difference is still startling.

if my memory serves me correct, flash synch is at 1/90th and the meter is center weighted and not directly restricted to the center round focusing grid. there is a mirror behind the mirror that directs a portion of the light downwards to the cadmium-sulphide cell. there are various modifications to the machine over its production life. if your camera has the original door you can lift gently the pressure plate and there should be a number in yellow behind it on the door. this indicates version number and all the mods related to it.

Jaques, according to the instruction manual (scanned copy available here) the flash sync is 1/100 sec and my experience over the last 25 years is that the metering area is clearly defined by the coarse microprism focussing region. Are you thinking of the Leica R3?

When i went to repair training for this camera in Rockleigh i was told to set to adjust that speed to 1/90th....perhaps we are spitting hairs. i do not have a manual but i have seen other manuals that give a center weighted diagram. moreover it is not possible for the meter to be restricted that center spot. the CdS cell is about 5mm in diameter and there is no lens on that cell only a window. in fact depending on the version, if it is very early CdS cell, it is a large area type. there has been differing types of baffles on these cells depending on the vintage of the SL. the mirror that swings down behind the main mirror redirecting light through the semisilvered center of the main mirror is very large compared to the CdS cell. in the days when these were upgraded from the early large area CdS, the kit included a new baffle which did not have a lens as part of the cell and never did. in order for the meter to exactly restrict itself to the center spot one would need to put a lens and foucus it as such. also if you are to use a Zn-0 battery in the place of the old Hg battery one needs to drill a vent hole somewhere in the battery housing....<1mm will do. old Canon SLRs solved the problem of restricting the light meter sensitivity to an specific area by using semisilvered spot as part of the screen-planoconvex optical set. also just from interest Hamamatsu makes large area Gallium-Phosphide cells that have similar response curve to a standard observer. unlike the silicon counterpart it does not require the BG-18, (Schott number) mired shift filter. a very tiny version of the GaP:N cell can be found in Penatx MX/ME cameras and they do not need filters. the large area cell will directly drive the SL meter without a battery at all replacing the CdS cell, (you need to create the proper bridge wiring).

Jaques, very useful info, thanks!

Good article Douglas. After 21 years of lusting for a SL, I finally got one, a black enamel, last summer. Used, but not abused. I love it!

The semi-spot meter, serviceable 1/2000 shutter speed, brilliant yet high-contrast focussing screen were quite incredibly innovative in their day and indeed it took many years for them to be matched or bested. Had it been Leica's maiden foray into the realm of the single-lens-reflex, building on their immense name-recognition at the time, I daresay it could've made a pivotal difference in their future. However, Leica buggered the original Leicaflex to such a degree that by the time the SL saw the light of day most photographers had already invested heavily in other marques and in those days there wasn't the tendency to casually jump ship as there has been in modern times. It's quite sad really, that this marvelous camera is today a mere footnote in camera history, experienced and admired by only a handful of people. Equally sad is the common conception that the second (and third, SL2)in a line of perhaps a dozen bodies was the high-point in Leica's reflex series.

And whilst on the subject of comparison, one mustn't forget that for the professional, the Nikon F-series was set out as much more of a "system": replaceable prisms, a plethora of focussing screens for specific applications, even a 250-exposure back! Not to mention an incredible diversity of lenses, including very fast primes which Leica lacked for many years (in fact they never had 2/24mm, 2/28mm, 2/135mm or 2/300mm, or the exotic Noct Nikkor). Remember, in those days "High Speed Ektachrome" was ASA 160! (And it was dreadful!) What I remember of the SL in its day, was that it was highly coveted for being a beautiful and fine machine, in the typical over-engineered, over-built Teutonic ethic, but nonetheless, as is the case with most of Leica's products to this day, admired from afar due to it being (at that time) hideously expensive.

With what I read concerning the SL....I now own a Nikon F3......Just to compare the SL with the F3????? I want to go for a 'test' shooting thinking that I just may change ooooover.......Good advise Leica Lovers.........Barry Calero

I do recall the luminosity of the viewfinder of a Leicaflex SL in the possession of a hunter from Alaska who was then in search of bighorn sheep or its equivalent in Mongolia. The SL had just been serviced by Leitz USA.

Always wondered whether the central microprism had a blackout with small aperture long focus lenses? Certainly seems to happen with the microprism collar and central split image mechanism of SLRs from other brands.

Leicaflex Original

I have used Leicaflex original and sl both are great, the reason I enjoy using the original so much is the viewfinder. Granted just the central if for focusing but with such a bright clear screen I thought that I was using an M3 Leica. It was an easy transition and I still love using them. They are truly built like a tank and the shutter feel is excellent. These cameras are well worth fixing when needed. Which is seldom. I have also found that many of the parts are exchangable another plus. One lense I adaptded to fit my originals was a canadien 50 f2 It tool some milling on the oudter plange rim to fit,what a wonderful combination. ?Any questions email me ,,,dgillette4@excite.com........../Good luck Don

For some reason, I like my Leicaflex"Standard" most. The focusing spot doesn't bother me at all; Doug will know best, but this first model of the Leicaflex feels smoother & seems built stronger than either the SL or SL2, both of which I also own. In addition, my wild 21mm 1:3.4 Super Angulon R can only be used on this Leicaflex model (as well as on a Leica M with adapter 22228).

The viewfinder on these cameras is as advertised -- big, bold and beautiful. The microprism focusing screen is excellent for telephoto and macro work. The image just pops into focus. It is less successful in low light situations, but functional. Resilvered prisms are a little darker, and lose some of that ease of focusing. And the aesthetics of the camera itself is very reminiscent of an M3, M2, M4 or current model MP. As far as the meter, which people say is the one weak spot in the camera, it's sufficient to meter at those speeds where you can hand hold. All in all, a very nice camera.

Thank you for the mirror lock-up trick! Fantastic :-) It works on the SL2.

We write the year 2010, the L-flex is outdated, if not obsolete. Nonetheless film users are frequent and there's still some supply from the used market. However, the lurking question is: Will Leica ever come up with a new mechanical Flex again?

> Zapata Espinoza asked:

> Will Leica ever come up with a new mechanical Flex again?

No.