Any Leicaflex SL users?

[unwantedfocus]

Hello people,

the leicaflex SL sparked my interest mainly because it is mechanical and a tank and has a light meter, I been shooting Minolta SRT mainly and I just recently ordered a Minolta XE, but it hasn't arrived yet. I do own a couple of Minolta lenses and aware that some of the Leica two cam lenses for the leicaflex are nearly a 1:1 Minolta copies. From what I gathered so far is that the 1/2000 speeds on the Leicaflex can be a problem also prism desilvering and the viewfinder can turn yellow. It also has a spotmeter which is completely different to the Minolta CLC metering. Is the Leicaflex considered a reliable camera?

I will probably not in the near future buy one, but maybe a deal will pop up and I pull the trigger however I would like to ask if there are any regular Leicaflex shooters or overall experience with the camera before jumping the gun. The information on this model is quiet scarce online and there are only bits and pieces to read up on. Any information is much appreciated.

-thanks

 

[gone]

I've shot those cameras off and on for many years. Be careful of lens compatibility, the first Leicaflex lenses will meter only on the first version cameras. They're amazingly well built, you can feel the precision when you advance the film or use any of the controls. They're also big and heavy. 1/2000 speed worked fine on my cameras.

You do need to ask about prism desilvering if you buy one. It may show up as yellowing, or as spots in the viewfinder. That can't be repaired to my knowledge due to lack of parts. In the end, I always sold the cameras and preferred to use Nikon N8008s cameras or Nikkormats w/ the Leica R lenses.

 

[AgX]

You do need to ask about prism desilvering if you buy one. ... That can't be repaired to my knowledge due to lack of parts.

What would one keep from recoating the prisms? Lack of parts holding the prism?n Or did you mean lacking spare prisms?

 

[guangong]

I have been using Leicaflex, Leicaflex SL, and Leicaflex SL2. The SLs I bought new. A few years ago I had prism replaced in SL2 because yellowish tint was annoying. All cameras have worked flawlessly.
The long 70–200mm lenses were rebadged Minolta lenses but under Leitz quality control. This is the first time I have ever heard that any other Leitz Lenses were copies of Minolta lenses for SL camera.
Speaking frankly, for my kind of photography, in use I found no advantages using the SL2 over the SL. As far as the meter, the reading is identical with the focusing spot, so sort of a semi spot meter. I have found this very useful compared to weighted finders.
The SLs fit nicely in the hand. The design is very clean. I haven’t bought an SL lens in ages, but contemporary prices seem very reasonable, especially compared to lenses for M cameras (and to R lenses original prices).
I did have my cameras serviced a few years ago. After 45-50 years use not a bad track record, just to keep them in shape. Only repair was prism mentioned above.

 

[guangong]

What would one keep from recoating the prisms? Lack of parts holding the prism?n Or did you mean lacking spare prisms?

From what I understand, prisms were not one chunk of glass. Whatever the reason, mine was replaced with a new prism.

 

[unwantedfocus]

I have been using Leicaflex, Leicaflex SL, and Leicaflex SL2. The SLs I bought new. A few years ago I had prism replaced in SL2 because yellowish tint was annoying. All cameras have worked flawlessly.
The long 70–200mm lenses were rebadged Minolta lenses but under Leitz quality control. This is the first time I have ever heard that any other Leitz Lenses were copies of Minolta lenses for SL camera.
Speaking frankly, for my kind of photography, in use I found no advantages using the SL2 over the SL. As far as the meter, the reading is identical with the focusing spot, so sort of a semi spot meter. I have found this very useful compared to weighted finders.
The SLs fit nicely in the hand. The design is very clean. I haven’t bought an SL lens in ages, but contemporary prices seem very reasonable, especially compared to lenses for M cameras (and to R lenses original prices).
I did have my cameras serviced a few years ago. After 45-50 years use not a bad track record, just to keep them in shape. Only repair was prism mentioned above.

Thanks for the information, yes some of the Leica/Leitz lenses were rebadged but with improvements to the glass for example Minolta Rokkor 24mm f2.8 si got "re-badged" and re-housed to the Leica Elmarit R 24mm f2.8, Leica continued to produce the Lens for longer then Minolta so it is possible more improvements got made later on. Also the Minolta fisheye 16mm f2.8, and Minolta 70-210 f3.5 or f4 can't remember got "copied" "exchanged" by Leitz in partnership with Minolta. To be honest I could care less about it. All info is from online so take it with a grain of salt I don't want to start a Leica Minolta war in this post.

Back to topic, when you meter do you always move your camera to meter for the shadows? Because I kind of got used to this nearly point and shoot experience with the CLC metering. So you move your camera a lot when shooting? like to a shadow spot, take the reading and then reposition your camera back to the frame to take your image? It seems like a very underrated SLR for someone looking for just mechanical camera with a meter the bodies go very cheap because the lens prices are kind of high and people still service the camera compared to other models. thanks again

 

[Steve York]

I shot 3-4 SL's extensively over a 7-8 year period. Put probably close to 700 rolls through them. Awesome viewfinders ! Big, bold and beautiful; the subject just snaps into focus in a dramatic way, unlike other micro prism screens. Nice eye relief for eyeglass wearers. And very well damped. You can probably shoot at one shutter speed slower then a comparable (eg, mechanical) Nikon. Match/needle meter so easy to use. Lenses have gotten pricey though with cine users, and I experienced some reliability issues with the cameras. The exotic lenses are way heavy too (as well as price prohibitive). Repairs/servicing are expensive (see Sherry Krauter). I still have a pair, and some macro lenses, but I haven't used them in a long time. Mostly shoot an M2 now, sometimes an F.

 

[Paul Howell]

From I recall from the 70s is that Minolta used Leica designs for the 70 to 200 F4 and 35 to 70 3.5 to 4, which was modified by Minolta for the AF versions. This was at the same time Leica was using Minolta electronics for some of the R bodies, and Minolta made a copy of the CL and lens.

 

[xkaes]

You've got it backwards. It was Leica that "copied" Minolta. They took Minolta gear and re-badged it as Leica -- usually with some modification.

Look at the Leica 24mm f2.8.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've already read it was the other way around, the CL was not a Minolta design, but for lens, not quite so sure, not that it matters I need see what I can dig up, maybe an old Pop Photo review from the 70s.

 

[unwantedfocus]

You've got it backwards. It was Leica that "copied" Minolta. They took Minolta gear and re-badged it as Leica -- usually with some modification.

Look at the Leica 24mm f2.8.

yes true I even made a typo on the 24mm as 28mm I fixed it.

I shot 3-4 SL's extensively over a 7-8 year period. Put probably close to 700 rolls through them. Awesome viewfinders ! Big, bold and beautiful; the subject just snaps into focus in a dramatic way, unlike other micro prism screens. Nice eye relief for eyeglass wearers. And very well damped. You can probably shoot at one shutter speed slower then a comparable (eg, mechanical) Nikon. Match/needle meter so easy to use. Lenses have gotten pricey though with cine users, and I experienced some reliability issues with the cameras. The exotic lenses are way heavy too (as well as price prohibitive). Repairs/servicing are expensive (see Sherry Krauter). I still have a pair, and some macro lenses, but I haven't used them in a long time. Mostly shoot an M2 now, sometimes an F.

Thanks for the reply, can you tell me more about the reliability issues like what exactly happened?

 

[AgX]

Lenses have gotten pricey though with cine users.

One can use Adaptall lenses instead.

 

[guangong]

Should be noted that Minolta is/was one of the oldest lens manufacturers in Japan, and known for quality.

 

[xkaes]

Minolta was an important innovator in the world of photographic lenses -- and cameras. They produced the first coated lenses in Japan, as well as the first multi-coated lenses in Japan -- but they did not start actually making lenses until 1937, a long time after Asahi, Koribayuki (Konica) and others did -- we're talking 1800's. Kind a like Nikon being was late in the field with it's SLR cameras.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the 60 while in college we visited the studio of a very known commercial industrial photographer, so well known I don't recall his name, at any rate he used Minolta because of the lens. He thought the color and contrast was better than Nikon. Konica Minolta sold the camera plant to Sony but kept the lens plant and still make most of Sony lenses including E lenses.

 

[xkaes]

In the 60 while in college we visited the studio of a very known commercial industrial photographer, so well known I don't recall his name, at any rate he used Minolta because of the lens. He thought the color and contrast was better than Nikon. Konica Minolta sold the camera plant to Sony but kept the lens plant and still make most of Sony lenses including E lenses.

Sony bought ALL of Minolta's photographic production. That's why an electronic cable release from a 1980's Minolta camera will still work on a Sony digital camera from the 2020's

Same gear -- different label.

And the 1980's Minolta AF lenses and accessories work too. It's the same lens mount. Sony bought it from Minolta.

 

[Paul Howell]

I just checked Konica Minolta web site, they still makes lens, but your right they no longer lens for Sony. Konica Minolta still hold patents for some Sony A mount G lens, but Sony has turned to Zeiss for new designs, and seems that some lens are now make in Thailand. My information was dated by 7 or so years.

 

[beemermark]

Leica collaborated with Minolta. No one has ever known what exactly that means. Sort of like Linhof large format lenses made by other makers but given the seal of approval by Linhof. I've owned both Minolta and Leica lenses that are twins, but I like the Leica lenses more. Not so much better but different. I sold my SL bodies a long time ago because some lenses won't work on them. Leitz opened up the throats on the SL2 so that lenses like the superb 24/2.8 will fit. The SL2 has a few other improved features and is newer. I've never had an issue with yellowed prisms Since I shoot almost exclusively B&W with a yellow filter I just had to remove the filter and run out and check, all is good. Adaptall mounts sort of work. It's a hit or miss thing. I've has some that work with some bodies (inc. R) but most only work in stop down mode. I have two and still use one to I can use my Tamron 17mm lens.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy one.

 

[xkaes]

Minolta and Leica always had a love-hate relationship, with Minolta loving Leica cameras and designing several cameras after the Leica models -- and Leica hating the market share that Minolta was taking away from them with their "cheap" cameras. And as production costs continued to rise in Germany, Leica looked for ways to cut costs while expanding their market share. Over the years, Minolta produced several of Leica's cameras and lenses. Sure Leica made modifications to the cameras after they arrived in Germany or Canada, and they put the lenses through "rigorous" German quality control, but it's really the same gear. Leica owners that say their Leitz R3 with a Vario-Elmar 80-200mm f4.5 is better (or produces better pictures) than the Minolta XE-7 with a Rokkor-X 80-200mm f4.5 are living in a fantasy world. In reality, all of the cameras were made on the same assembly line in Minolta's factory in Japan and the lenses came out of the same vat of melted Minolta sand and had the same coating. At the time (mid '70's), the Leitz R3 with a Vario-Elmar 80-200 f4.5 cost FOUR TIMES as much as the Minolta XE-7 with a Rokkor-X 80-200mm f4.5. That's quite a high price for German "quality control". There are rumors that circulate claiming that Leica rejected over 70% of Minolta's lenses. Such a notion is ridiculous. No company would ever do business with another company where they had to reject such a high percentage of items. Another wild claim is that Leica made such radical changes to the items that they could be marked "Made in Germany". Absolute rubbish. If you look at any Vario-Elmar 80-200 f4.5 -- or any other Minolta-made, Leitz lens -- it clearly states, "Made in Japan". Yet another high tale is that Leica was unsatisfied with Minolta's quality, so they ended the relationship. This is just more garbage. Leica continued to buy Minolta cameras and lenses for many years. Most of the APO elements in Leica lenses were made by Minolta, and Leitz continued to buy Minolta cameras until 1997. Eventually, Leica went one way in the photographic industry and Minolta another. Leica stuck to a more traditional path and Minolta ventured into unkown territory. So, of course, Minolta items were no longer of interest to Leitz. But to suggest that Minolta's equipment is less than the same gear with a Leica label is silly.

 

[Steve York]

yes true I even made a typo on the 24mm as 28mm I fixed it.



Thanks for the reply, can you tell me more about the reliability issues like what exactly happened?

I would have to go look at my repair records for completely accuracy, but stuff like the lollipop of the meter failing once, on another camera the viewfinder just completely fell out (some plastic part failed), on a third camera there was a complete catastrophic shutter failure. Not sure what went wrong there, too expensive to repair. It became a paper weight and I gave it to someone as a parts body. All the cameras were CLA'ed initially. Great cameras in use, reasonably reliable, wasn't worried about using them, but when looking back over a 6-7 year period (about 700 rolls or so), all those initial service and repairs added up to a lot of money. Got to the point where I didn't want to put any more money into them, and anyway went on to meterless cameras. Just my experiences. I now mostly shoot M2's and less often plain prism F's.

 

[AgX]

Leica collaborated with Minolta. No one has ever known what exactly that means.

It meanwhile has been quite well described, even by Kühn-Leitz himself.

 

[beemermark]

It meanwhile has been quite well described, even by Kühn-Leitz himself.

Link please? I never heard of him.

 

[AgX]

He was one of the Leitz directors and responsible for that cooperation.

 

[miha]

google found this: https://www.photoscala.de/2016/11/1...ische-kooperation-zwischen-leitz-und-minolta/