Leicaflex SL2 vs Canon F1

[GabrielC]

Hello everyone !

I recently found a near mint 550$ Leicaflex SL2 50 year edition, with a 6 month guarantee, working and with good silvering. It seems perfect at first, since I always wanted a purely mechanical camera that could last for years. However, since I already own a Canon A-1 with some FD glass, I wonder if I would be better off buying a canon f1, cheaper, but still mechanical and with a split image (that I think is necessary). As such, I would be able to only have canon fd lenses, and not buy leica lenses

Is there any sense in owning two different systems? Are leica lens that superior to canon fd ones ? Is the SL2 better than the f1 ?

Should I buy it ? Thank you

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Have both, answer is yes and ... no.

SL2 has a finder that I believe does not exist on any other camera. Liken it to a jambotron more than a finder you see anywhere else. So that big screen TV you look through is an experience in and of itself. That alone is worth to own it. Lenses are limited in scope and more expensive than Canon's, unless one would want to compare only Canon L line to Zeiss lenses, but I would not ever based my decision on lens quality, especially between these two. Some will tell you about the "character" , and if you happened to be one of them, you may end up liking one over the other. But as far as photography goes, the difference is same between a bottle of great red wine and ... another bottle great red wine.

Lenses for SL2, and this is just in case you want to take a later dip into Leica R line (well worth it too), then you should ONLY buy 3-cam lenses for later complete compatibility. Last ROM lenses are only needed for R8/R9, but I won't be of any help trying to sway you in that direction.

Back to F1 vs SL2. There is a difference in handling, in sound, even reliability, pretty much all in F1's favor IMO. You would be best off handling both first before deciding. A1 is really no teller how F1 handles. And then WHICH F1? New F1 is yet another difference.

SL2 is a great camera. When you see it against F1 only then will you be able to make an educated decision. Best bet ... get both, if you can, and enjoy.

 

[Paul Howell]

The F1 is a full system camera, interchangeable viewfinders, focusing screens, motor drive, and many, many lens including early L glass in FD mount along with some pretty good later 3rd party lens like Vivitar S1. The Leica has better build quality, Leica glass although excellent will be much more expensive, not as may 3rd party lens, and unless you have the motor body no possibility of a motor drive.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

@Paul Howell Not sure why you call Sl2 "better build ..." . This camera had NEVER been tested in professional use. That alone leaves SL2 durability more in advertising pitch than in real world usage history. F1 has been run through the ground by countless, many careless, professional photographers and even a beat up one often works same as new. SL2 has history of prism de-silvering (as does earlier SL) and that is an ugly sight to experience. I got mine in like new condition, and looks was lucky it had been stored in complementary conditions throughout its life, so all looks/works same as when it left factory. But I have another SL2 and two SL's. Let's say they do not look nor work same as new.

 

[faberryman]

It is a foregone conclusion that anyone trying to decide between a Canon F1 and a Leica SL2 is going to chose the Leica SL2.

 

[Paul Howell]

When a working PJ working the wires I saw a few European PJ who shot with Leica SL and SL2, never heard of any issues with build quality or reliability. As a matter of fact in the day Nikon F and F2 was the dominate full system camera, I likely saw as many F1 and F1new as I did SLs.

 

[flavio81]

It is a foregone conclusion that anyone trying to decide between a Canon F1 and a Leica SL2 is going to chose the Leica SL2.

????

Maybe if you're a collector and they were similarly priced.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

????

Maybe if you're a collector and they were similarly priced.

+1

 

[Deleted member 88956]

When a working PJ working the wires I saw a few European PJ who shot with Leica SL and SL2, never heard of any issues with build quality or reliability. As a matter of fact in the day Nikon F and F2 was the dominate full system camera, I likely saw as many F1 and F1new as I did SLs.

My point is "better built". There is no evidence it's the case. Also, shear number of bodies produced gives a huge sample advantage to F1 we we discus durability. SL2 is a fine camera and one of its kind to boot. I don't regret getting it at all. So is F1 though, and I say this for all 3 versions of it.

As you stated, F1 has the advantage of complete system camera, so if one wants to delve into its many add-ons, it is a no brainer by comparison to SL2. SL2 is is also rather awkward in the hand. For monster palms likely less so. It is a pretty big chunk of metal to handle.

 

[flavio81]

Hello everyone !

I recently found a near mint 550$ Leicaflex SL2 50 year edition, with a 6 month guarantee, working and with good silvering. It seems perfect at first, since I always wanted a purely mechanical camera that could last for years. However, since I already own a Canon A-1 with some FD glass, I wonder if I would be better off buying a canon f1, cheaper, but still mechanical and with a split image (that I think is necessary). As such, I would be able to only have canon fd lenses, and not buy leica lenses

Is there any sense in owning two different systems? Are leica lens that superior to canon fd ones ? Is the SL2 better than the f1 ?

Should I buy it ? Thank you

If you have many FD lenses and want a camera to create images, you should opt for the F-1.

If you're a camera collector and want to appreciate a beautifully built machine, opt for the Leicaflex. Not that the F-1 isn't beautifully built -- it is.

As for lens quality, if you really are obsessed with high image quality you should simply go to medium format, even a 6x4.5 image from a pro system of any of the big names (Mamiya, Bronica, Pentax, Contax, Hasselblad) will obliterate what you can get with any 35mm camera, given same film. That's what I did btw; i am a 6x4.5 and 6x7 user as well.

FD lenses versus Leitz R lenses; I'd say that any FD lens works in any FD camera. The same cannot be said about Leica R lenses. As for lenses, i am a keen Canon FD lens user and I can't really complain.

 

[GabrielC]

I don't think I'll change a lot of the system, I'd rather have just a system I like, I don't use motors, never had different viewfinders, and all..
I just like the SL2 because I think it is gorgeous, but I also want a sturdy, reliable and repairable camera.. I don't want the New F1 because it's a hybrid between a mechanical and electronic camera, I just want a lightmeter, not more.
Getting both would be expensive but I may look into that, I just don't want to trigger a gear acquisition syndrome again...
Is the viewfinder so remarkable ?

 

[GabrielC]

If you have many FD lenses and want a camera to create images, you should opt for the F-1.

If you're a camera collector and want to appreciate a beautifully built machine, opt for the Leicaflex. Not that the F-1 isn't beautifully built -- it is.

As for lens quality, if you really are obsessed with high image quality you should simply go to medium format, even a 6x4.5 image from a pro system of any of the big names (Mamiya, Bronica, Pentax, Contax, Hasselblad) will obliterate what you can get with any 35mm camera, given same film. That's what I did btw; i am a 6x4.5 and 6x7 user as well.

FD lenses versus Leitz R lenses; I'd say that any FD lens works in any FD camera. The same cannot be said about Leica R lenses. As for lenses, i am a keen Canon FD lens user and I can't really complain.

I completely agree, I bought&CLA'd a Xenotar Rolleiflex to have much better quality, and It is the only medium format I'll own at some point. It just feels perfect to me. And I want to find the 35mm equivalent of mechanical perfection. I don't really like rangefinders, though I have a canon L2, it collects dust and isn't that enjoyable

 

[benjiboy]

I have been shooting Canon F 1,s for more than thirty years, I have never owned a Leica, but I'm shure they are both better cameras than I'm a photographer.

 

[BradS]

It kinda depends. There really is no right or wrong answer here. It all depends upon you, what you want to do, how much money you are willing to spend, etc...
Do you want to collect interesting objects? do you want to do photography? or, perhaps, a little of both? If you want to do photography, are you satisfied with Canon ?

I have a Leicaflex. It is an interesting camera but definitely not one I would ever think of using on a regular basis....but people do use them and they seem to like 'em.
I've never really been interested in nor used a Canon...nothing wrong with them, I've just always been a Pentax and Nikon user.
So, I guess do whatever you really want to do. Whatever lightens your spirits, or brings you a bit of joy.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I don't think I'll change a lot of the system, I'd rather have just a system I like, I don't use motors, never had different viewfinders, and all..
I just like the SL2 because I think it is gorgeous, but I also want a sturdy, reliable and repairable camera.. I don't want the New F1 because it's a hybrid between a mechanical and electronic camera, I just want a lightmeter, not more.
Getting both would be expensive but I may look into that, I just don't want to trigger a gear acquisition syndrome again...
Is the viewfinder so remarkable ?

It is next to impossible to address SL2 reliability in view of F1's proven ability to withstand long applied professional abuse. It is a sure thing SL2 will not be a chump change to get fixed (if it can be fixed), if it does come to that. Since sample you're looking at is minty, it had not been used all that much. This may not mean there are another 2 decades left in it of regular use. Key is to make sure it actually works properly, shutter does work on ALL speeds with no hiccups.

As for New F1, I dare to say that "hybrid" mind set, while kind of true, is a myth of sorts, if one thinks of it as less reliable. You still need a battery to run in-built meter, no matter which one you get. And there IS a difference in handling between New F1 and earlier models. Just keep that in mind. And to boot, New F1, IMO, brasses up very nicely and I'd say prettier than earlier ones.

 

[miha]

Apart from prism desilvering (seen as brown spots when you look through the viewfinder) pay attention to 1/2000s as it is not reliable on many SL2 cameras (not so on SL cameras), and gives blank images. You'll also have to find a solution for discontinued mercury batteries. As for lenses, you can't go wrong with the Elmarti 28 (I) Elamrti R 35 (type II or III, avoid I), Summicron 35 (any type), Summicron 50 (any type), Summicron 90mm. All excellent. Elmarit 135 and 180 don't cost a lot either but they are optically not better than Canon's offering. Outside of this FL and speed range, you are going to pay big €€€€ which is not worth it IMO.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Apart from prism desilvering (seen as brown spots when you look through the viewfinder) pay attention to 1/2000s as it is not reliable on many SL2 cameras (not so on SL cameras), and gives blank images. You'll also have to find a solution for discontinued mercury batteries. As for lenses, you can't go wrong with the Elmarti 28 (I) Elamrti R 35 (type II or III, avoid I), Summicron 35 (any type), Summicron 50 (any type), Summicron 90mm. All excellent. Outside of this FL and speed range, you are going to pay big €€€€ which is not worth it IMO.

@miha battery is not an issue at all. adapters that take voltage down to 1.35 are less than $20 and then just off the shelf silver oxide batteries (same needed for earlier F1 anyways).

 

[miha]

@miha battery is not an issue at all. adapters that take voltage down to 1.35 are less than $20 and then just off the shelf silver oxide batteries (same needed for earlier F1 anyways).

I know, I'm using one of those.

 

[GabrielC]

It is next to impossible to address SL2 reliability in view of F1's proven ability to withstand long applied professional abuse. It is a sure thing SL2 will not be a chump change to get fixed (if it can be fixed), if it does come to that. Since sample you're looking at is minty, it had not been used all that much. This may not mean there are another 2 decades left in it of regular use. Key is to make sure it actually works properly, shutter does work on ALL speeds with no hiccups.

As for New F1, I dare to say that "hybrid" mind set, while kind of true, is a myth of sorts, if one thinks of it as less reliable. You still need a battery to run in-built meter, no matter which one you get. And there IS a difference in handling between New F1 and earlier models. Just keep that in mind. And to boot, New F1, IMO, brasses up very nicely and I'd say prettier than earlier ones.

The repairability is the thing I am most worried about, since I don't buy many cameras and just want one to work for a long time, I thought DAG could still service these cameras, but I don't really know if getting a new silver mirror is possible if de-silvering occurs. Weirdly, every inch of my logic is telling me to get a F1, but something in my mind wants me to get the SL2

It kinda depends. There really is no right or wrong answer here. It all depends upon you, what you want to do, how much money you are willing to spend, etc...
Do you want to collect interesting objects? do you want to do photography? or, perhaps, a little of both? If you want to do photography, are you satisfied with Canon ?

I have a Leicaflex. It is an interesting camera but definitely not one I would ever think of using on a regular basis....but people do use them and they seem to like 'em.
I've never really been interested in nor used a Canon...nothing wrong with them, I've just always been a Pentax and Nikon user.
So, I guess do whatever you really want to do. Whatever lightens your spirits, or brings you a bit of joy.

I use each and every one of my cameras, and sell the ones I don't use. I don't like to possess something just for the sake of it. I am well satisfied with my Canon A1 when it comes to photography, I'm just scared of the electronics in the long run, pretty hard to repair, not possible to create new parts/circuit boards. I'm just 21yo and thus I need something I can carry along for years to come, since I'm not sure there will be a new film camera in the market soon, or tbh, ever

 

[woodlandSerenade]

Is there any sense in owning two different systems? Are leica lens that superior to canon fd ones ? Is the SL2 better than the f1 ?

Just to do my part in quelling GAS…
Coming from someone with no less than five 35mm camera systems, there is no practical reason to own more than one system unless you are collecting. If you are already invested in the FD system, you might as well keep your lenses and get an F-1n (but not a New F-1, as it isn’t fully mechanical).

As to whether the SL2 and its lenses are better than their Canon counterparts, who cares? There are very few people that could determine from a direct comparison whether a photo was taken with a Canon or Leica lens (and even fewer if you’re using an L lens). Even if the Leica lens is 10% sharper, or has fewer aberrations than the Canon lens, does it really matter? Have you ever felt that your current lenses have let you down?

I can say that I’ve been nothing but impressed by the results from my FD cameras and lenses. Any upset I’ve experienced has come from myself in the form of camera shake (should’ve brought a tripod!) or missing focus (should’ve taken my time!)

For that matter, what would an F-1 do that your A-1 cannot? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing against spending money altogether, but if your A-1 hasn’t let you down so far, why not invest in glass instead?

 

[gone]

Yes, Leica lenses are the best, and yes, an F1 is a fine camera but it ain't no Leicaflex. Those cameras are built like you would not believe, just the best materials and engineering you could ever find. Best viewfinder in photography too, best light meter, but no eye relief, which is why I sold mine. Couldn't see anywhere near the whole viewfinder w/ my glasses on. I still have the R 90 2.8 Elmarit lens from it on my Nikon N8008s. The Summicrons are even better, but the cost goes way up.

Would you see any difference between Leica R glass and Canon? Yes, but it depends on the lens. Canon made nothing like the R50 and R 90 Summicrons, even the Elmarits will have more 3D and better IQ and bokeh than the Canons, but the FD 85 1.8 and FD 135 2.8 "beer can" are excellent lenses and almost in the Leica category. They won't feel like they're made from solid glass and metal like the Leica lenses though, and their focus won't be as butter smooth, lens coatings will be better on the Leica, etc.

 

[Paul Howell]

My point is "better built". There is no evidence it's the case. Also, shear number of bodies produced gives a huge sample advantage to F1 we we discus durability. SL2 is a fine camera and one of its kind to boot. I don't regret getting it at all. So is F1 though, and I say this for all 3 versions of it.

As you stated, F1 has the advantage of complete system camera, so if one wants to delve into its many add-ons, it is a no brainer by comparison to SL2. SL2 is is also rather awkward in the hand. For monster palms likely less so. It is a pretty big chunk of metal to handle.

Your right, better build is just my judgment based on the few that I've handled compared to the few F1's that pass thorough my hands. For a user camera I agree with an F1, buy 2, one for parts. If you really want a Leica SLR, R8 or 9. For vanity stand out in a crowd, for me a Swiss Alpa, 10 or 11, 4 lens 28m, 35mm, 50mm 100mm and 200mm, all stamped with the Alpa stamp. I've seen a few in the field, had one for week, a friends of mine sent an 11e for a week, his wife inherited from an uncle. Anything you can say about a Leica SL you can say in spades for the Alpa, smooth as glass, best glass of the day, in my mind the Kern Swill 50 macro is the finest manual focus 50mm ever made.

 

[miha]

For that matter, what would an F-1 do that your A-1 cannot? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing against spending money altogether, but if your A-1 hasn’t let you down so far, why not invest in glass instead?

Very true, I prefer my A-1 to all my reflex Leicas. Light and capable.

 

[GabrielC]

Just to do my part in quelling GAS…
Coming from someone with no less than five 35mm camera systems, there is no practical reason to own more than one system unless you are collecting. If you are already invested in the FD system, you might as well keep your lenses and get an F-1n (but not a New F-1, as it isn’t fully mechanical).

As to whether the SL2 and its lenses are better than their Canon counterparts, who cares? There are very few people that could determine from a direct comparison whether a photo was taken with a Canon or Leica lens (and even fewer if you’re using an L lens). Even if the Leica lens is 10% sharper, or has fewer aberrations than the Canon lens, does it really matter? Have you ever felt that your current lenses have let you down?

I can say that I’ve been nothing but impressed by the results from my FD cameras and lenses. Any upset I’ve experienced has come from myself in the form of camera shake (should’ve brought a tripod!) or missing focus (should’ve taken my time!)

For that matter, what would an F-1 do that your A-1 cannot? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing against spending money altogether, but if your A-1 hasn’t let you down so far, why not invest in glass instead?

It is only to switch/have a mechanical backup. I'd rather not have a lot of electronics in something I buy. My engineering courses have proven that electronics are not something I want to have faith in.

 

[Paul Howell]

Below is link to Modern Photography 1974 review of 60cameras, included is the Canon F1 and Leica SL2.

https://www.mikeeckman.com/2020/04/kepplers-vault-60-top-47-cameras-1974/