Which was better built--Leicaflex SL2 or Nikon F2?

blockend said:

Japanese Contax were not great innovators. Sure they had a vacuum back on the RTS III and a few other tricks on earlier models, but nothing to compare with Nikon's development of its F-models, or Canon's use of electronics. The RTS was a platform for excellent lenses, a good Japanese camera, but it's debatable whether the range had a lasting legacy in a time of great technological change.

Click to expand...

I'd beg to differ with the notion that Kyocera/Contax was somehow not innovative. A partial list:

RTS vacuum pressure plate for increased film flatness/sharpness
RX in body Focus assist SLR for manual focus lenses.
AX Auto Focus via moving film plane in the camera body
Contax 645 autofocus medium format with vacuum backs; possibly more important with 120 film than 135
G1 and G2 autofocus rangefinders which automatically not only brought up "framelines" correct for the lens when the lens was attached, but changed the magnification as well so that whether it was a 28mm lens, or the 90, the entire viewfinder was used to show the field of view, not just some part of the center. Also, completely corrected for parallax for every lens through the viewfinder as the focusing distance changed. And the 35-70 which was the only true zoom offered for a rangefinder system-ever- as far as I know. Innovative? The G2 is still way ahead of it's time in all these areas if Leica is taken as the current benchmark. And it is an understatement to say the lenses are uniformly no less than excellent.
Contax N1 digital one of the first 24x36 full frame digital cameras, at a time when Sony was still making record players.

Whatever else their faults might have been, (marketing, apparently) it seems unfair to slag the company as not being innovative. I always considered them to be, if anything, the most innovative camera design company of the last 50 years. A company and a spirit which is sorely missed in today's marketplace, in my opinion, where everybody seems to be taking baby steps model to model. (More pixels! Brighter VF! 3mm thinner!)
FWIW

+1.000,000

chip j said:

What would you rather have--a camera used by a "pro" (likely a hack), or a camera that the wealthy chose?

Click to expand...

Most high end cameras are purchased by hobbiest who take good care of them. This goes for both Nikon and the others. Indeed the few that are sold to pro will be trashed by the time they hit the secondary market.

It's the same rational about trucks, never buy a used truck from a farmer.

Eric Rose said:

Most high end cameras are purchased by hobbiest who take good care of them. This goes for both Nikon and the others. Indeed the few that are sold to pro will be trashed by the time they hit the secondary market.
...

Click to expand...

Aye, but in answer to the original question about build quality, the F2 chosen and used by the pro testifies to its quality. That said, buying an SL2 owned and maintained by a caring hobbyist is probably a very good choice.

Theo Sulphate said:

Aye, but in answer to the original question about build quality, the F2 chosen and used by the pro testifies to its quality. That said, buying an SL2 owned and maintained by a caring hobbyist is probably a very good choice.

Click to expand...

I already gave my opinion on initial build quality. F2 is tops!

Larry Cloetta said:

at a time when Sony was still making record players.

Click to expand...

There are more of them being made today than at any other time in history!

Now that I have in my hands a Dell laptop that can hold a charge for 15 minutes of use, I come back to revisit my earlier interjection concerning the Contax RTS matter. I see that it went over like a lead balloon. In my heart i know that a Nikon F2 kills them all with quality, but I really did admire the RTS with the Zeiss lenses back in the day, even though Yashica was involved in the deal. The only Yashica I could ever muster any respect for was the 124G. All that aside, I still wonder if there's anything that can top the Nikkormat FT2 that I already have. Mine is in very nice condition, still tight and precise (not worn), and trustworthy as sunrise in the morning, with a 50mm 1.4 SC in absolutely flawless condition. I'm really having a hard time believing that there's anything out there any better than what I already have. And if there is, would that improvement involve the splitting of hairs to realize it?

I'magonna tell you a true story about the only camera I have ever ruined. A couple of decades ago I was in the studio and I leaned over to plug in a sync cable. The camera fell out of my hand from about a foot and a half onto a tile floor right onto a top corner. The camera was toast. Completely jammed. The cover was crushed right into gears apparently and the camera was a loss. From 1.5 feet in the air.

The camera you ask? Nikon F2. Never bought another Nikon after that.

I've dropped other cameras over the years and have never had a problem. I sent my Leica M3 hurling across the living room once when the strap caught on something. Not a scratch except for my underpants... I dropped my Hexar RF a couple of years ago onto a sidewalk. It landed on the lens and the only damage was to the lens hood. I thought it was a goner for sure. Nope. Titanium frame. Still zipping along.

To this day, the only camera that I've ever ruined was a Nikon F2, from kneehigh....

Over the last two decades, I have used and owned many mechanical SLRs, including various NikonF and F2, and all three of the Leicaflex (original, SL, SL2). They are all capable of taking great photographs. My favorite camera of all time, however, is the Leicaflex SL.

I would stay away for the Leicaflex SL2 because there is a known shutter defect resulting in blanks at the higher shutter speeds. Depending on the repair tech, it either can be fixed or fixed only temporarily. As far as durability, there is a story of one of these falling out of a jet fighter, and dropping to the grounds thousands of feet below. Although broken it was deemed reparable by Leica.

I do like the Leicaflex better then Nikons. They fit my large hands better, and are actually slightly lighter then a metered Nikon (by 50 grams of so). But the material reasons I push a Leicaflex over a Nion are (1) the viewfinder; (2) the braking mechanism, (3) Leitz optics and (4) spare part availability.

The viewfinder on a Leicaflex SL/SL2 is just amazing. Very clear, and 3D. With the SL things just pop into focus in a dramatic way, especially with telephoto and macro lenses. Taking the picture is as fun as getting it.

The braking system on the Leicaflex is very effective. You can shoot a stop or two slower with a Leicaflex then with a Nikon. When introduced they were tested as not only the most quiet, but also the SLR that had the least vibration. Of course, all mechanical SLRs have been supplanted by electronic shutters.

Spare part availability is still good for the Leicaflex camera. Leica USA has sold all their spare parts for Leicaflex and M5 to techs such as Sherry Krauter.

I do like Leica optics better then Nikkors, especially at the wider apertures. Of course with the Nikons you do have the ZF lenses available.

Addendum ---> Another reason I like the Leicaflex SL over the Nikon F2 is viewfinder magnification. With a manual focus camera, the larger the viewfinder mag. the better. for ease of focus. The Leica is .90 and the Nikon is .80. No a big difference, but it helps.

They are all great cameras. We're spoiled to have these choices.

Steve York said:

... I do like the Leicaflex better then Nikons. They fit my large hands better ...

Click to expand...

Yes. Whereas the Nikons are rectangular with short, sharp, angled corners, the SL is smoothly curved at the corners and very slightly convex; this is most noticeable when viewed from above.

They are much more comfortable to hold than an F2.

This conversation caused me to check out the SL online. It looks like a beast. And what is the point of that big round back? I realize we're talking about Leica here, which is supposedly made by angels and elves in heaven. But it still has a rubberized cloth shutter. And it is 45-50 years after the fact. I'm sorry, but rubber + 50 years don't mix. I don't think I'd want one. Cast 1 vote for Nikon F2.

chip j said:

I'm curious.

Click to expand...

I really can't answer your question but if you had asked about the Leica SL (not the SL2), we had people here including a newspaper chief photographer who said that was, perhaps, the most rugged 35mm camera he had ever owned. I had to say 35mm because later he used a Hasselblad that he was quite fond of also. While he was a chief photographer, he was out photographing every day and during his life almost won a Pulitzer Prize twice and no one ever dared call him "animal" as a dumb TV show did the newspaper photographer in their shows.......Regards!

chip j said:

I'm curious.

Click to expand...

I really can't answer your question but if you had asked about the Leica SL (not the SL2), we had people here including a newspaper chief photographer who said that was, perhaps, the most rugged 35mm camera he had ever owned. I had to say 35mm because later he used a Hasselblad that he was quite fond of also. While he was a chief photographer, he was out photographing every day and during his life almost won a Pulitzer Prize twice and no one ever dared call him "animal" as a dumb TV show did the newspaper photographer in their shows.......Regards!

Theo Sulphate said:

Yes. Whereas the Nikons are rectangular with short, sharp, angled corners, the SL is smoothly curved at the corners and very slightly convex; this is most noticeable when viewed from above.

They are much more comfortable to hold than an F2.

Click to expand...

It's the gripping hight of the camera, from top to bottom, that my big hands favor. That is also a factor in comfort.

Eagle Blue said:

This conversation caused me to check out the SL online. It looks like a beast. And what is the point of that big round back? I realize we're talking about Leica here, which is supposedly made by angels and elves in heaven. But it still has a rubberized cloth shutter. And it is 45-50 years after the fact. I'm sorry, but rubber + 50 years don't mix. I don't think I'd want one. Cast 1 vote for Nikon F2.

Click to expand...

Rubberized cloth shutter? It's just a cloth shutter, similar to the Leica M series. Over the years I've probably had about 15 of the various Leicaflex pass through the house, most of the SL variety, and other then one shutter bounce, I've never had any problem with the shutters after they have been initially serviced. No shutters needed replacing or fixing during these initial service other then adjusting the timing.

As with all old cameras, Nikon included, an initial CLA is probably required.

Eagle Blue said:

This conversation caused me to check out the SL online. It looks like a beast. And what is the point of that big round back? ....

Click to expand...

As someone who has five F2's and two SL's, I assure you it's not a beast. The back is very slightly convex, with rounded corners, it's very nice to hold.

You really have to see one and use one to compare properly. Personally, I've always found the F2 to be clunky to use - perhaps due to the aperture linkage and shutter speed dial connection to the metering heads. A plain prism F2 would be better in that regard. Also, the SL's viewfinder is big, bright, and has a wonderful shutter speed display and meter indicator.

Don't dismiss them before trying one first.