Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac
Out of interest, what are your thoughts on M2 vs SL?[COLOR="Silver"]
So, because I am pretty limited in how I am able use a camera (mostly with an assistant and my camera mounted on my wheelchair), I'm maybe not the best person to answer that question, but I will share what I can...
As you're probably aware, in use, an SLR is very different than a rangefinder and the two are difficult to compare.
For me the M2 is maybe the ultimate 35mm camera. It's small, exquisitely built, has nothing superfluous, and the rangefinder viewfinder is a cleaner, less adulterated way of seeing and framing.
If I am honest though, an SLR is better for how I have to work. Mostly because I can use a right angle finder and then it's much easier for me to actually see through the viewfinder. When I use my M2 I mostly end up scale focusing and composing blind, so I often will just keep to small apertures to avoid focus errors. My M2 shooting method works okay with a 35mm lens, but becomes more difficult if I use a 50mm.
The Leicaflex SL is noticeably larger than the M2, but other than size it is maybe as close to a Leica M that an SLR can get. I have previously said similar things about my Pentax SV, but the build quality of the Pentax isn't quite at the level of the Leicaflex and M2.
I think that my Leicaflex will become my main 50mm camera, and the M2 will be my main 35mm lens camera.