Leica R Series

[Ara Ghajanian]

I know this is the Rangefinder forum, but I trust people's opinions here and I want to ask you guys about the R series SLRs. What is everyone's opinion of these cameras? Are they built as well as the M series? How about the lenses? Reliability? I have 2 Nikon F3's that I'd like to replace with a more reliable SLR. I haven't used either camera since I bought my M6 (mostly because the shutters on both have been completely unreliable). I'd like an SLR as a backup and for taking photos I can't take with a rangefinder (e.g. macro, telephoto, etc.). I'm looking at the R3, R4, R5, R6. I've heard the R6 is the best of the bunch, but also more expensive. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Ara

 

[nobbylon]

Ara,
my opinion based on a late model R4 and R8.
yes they are built as well, they do feel like a quality product and if you choose carefully they are reliable. Nearly all the issues related to reliability seem to be early teething probs with electrics, mechanically they are spot on. The R8 is so nice to hold and use and prob the nicest feeling SLR i have ever used. dip your toe with a good late model R4. Not expensive and a great camera. Lenses ?, nothing needs to be said really, great build quality and glass.
The downside as far as i'm concerned is that even an R4 with a 35mm is actually quite a big heavy lump. Turn it into an R8 with any lens and they are even bigger and heavier. I do a lot of travelling so I went M but have lately decided to try an OM slr because of size and weight and sell off my R cams and lenses. R lenses are quite large and heavy. Hope this helps a bit.
ps as far as reliability goes, R.Messner used R4's on his Everest climbs and Eric Valli has used them + M's in some quite inhospitable places.

 

[like2fiddle]

Hi Ara,
I've had a R4 for a number of years. It has been a fine camera, but I have not used it heavily. The key is the R 50 Summicron, in my opinion a great lens. My main camera before buying the Leica R4 was a Minolta SRT 201, which I purchased new in the 70's. I use both of those cameras only occasionally. The Minolta is built like a tank and the match needle meter is my favorite type of meter - I find those red diodes distracting in the M6 and R4. If I had to buy a SLR film camera today, I'd probably lean toward an old Nikon or Olympus. Users of those two brands seem to really like their lenses. I can't complain about my Leica SLR, but you might find a better value in one of the others (though that Summicron takes nice pics)

 

[KoNickon]

Ara, first off, I'd recommend you consider a Nikon FM/FM2 -- small, all manual operation except the meter, and extremely reliable. That would be the logical choice if you already have Nikkors.

If you're really interested in a Leica SLR, you might think about the Leicaflex SL -- all manual (except the meter, which is a spot meter), and very nice to use, if a tad heavy. The newer Leica ROM lenses will not fit, as I understand it, but the 2-cam and 3-cam lenses are great, although in many cases not the latest designs. (But the analogy would be using late '60s-early '70s Leica M lenses on an M7 -- perfectly acceptable by a lot of people!) And they're less expensive than the ROM lenses.

The drawback is that the camera takes mercury batteries, but there are workarounds for that. Also, the prism is subject to desilvering, but Don Goldberg (DAG) has replacements.

 

[Uncle Bill]

I am a little surprised that your Nikon F3s are giving you grief. My brother owns a pair and basicly built a shrine to them because they don't quit.

He also owns a Leica R4 kit which I tried out and fell in love with. Bear in mind while there are ton of techies out there familier with Nikon, there are far fewer familier with the Leica R system even though underneath from the R3-R7 is Minolta.

So if it were my coin of the realm, I would look for a reliable Nikon F3 HP or an FM2n and blow the wad on Carl Zeiss ZF lens if you want to go to town (Nikkor Lenses are amazing in their own right)

 

[Leicabug]

I love my R8 and use it more often than my M6. One advantage of R over M are the cost of the lenses. Used R lenses are much cheaper than M.

 

[Jason808]

I'm with Uncle Bill on this one. The F3s are renowned for their reliability. If you want something that will be full featured without batteries or electronics to worry about, then about the only one I can think of that would be more reliable would be the FM2n. Tank-sturdy, 1/250 flash sync and you can use your Nikon glass.

It sounds though like you want a Leica for the sake of having a Leica R to go with your M...nothing wrong with that.

But an FM2n with a ZF lens would definitely produce fantastic images. I guess I'm a Nikon guy....

 

[Ara Ghajanian]

I've been a Nikon guy for years too, until both F3's shutters died during the same assignment. I suppose I'm taking it personally, but that was a huge let down. Nikons are nice, but ever since I bought an M6, I can't go back. What a difference in build quality. Leicas just feel much better in my hands and I'm hoping the R's are the same in feel and quality. I'm not buying it any time soon. After I get the two F3's repaired and sold, I'll sell the lenses and then buy a R with the 60mm macro.

I'm leaning towards an R6.

 

[Dralowid]

As well as M6 I use a SL MOT for the things you really cannot do easily with a rangefinder. I use the 60mm Macro Elmarit as standard and a couple of long Telyts.

The SL is a Leica. It is mechanical, rugged and limited in its functions but what it does do, it does very well. It is not a small or light camera but it falls to hand well and the viewfinder is a real delight.

Oh, and by the way, the SL is not expensive...

Michael




See Douglas Herr'e excellent website. You may need to ask him for a password to get to the camera and lens reviews.

http://www.wildlightphoto.com

 

[BillBingham2]

If you are looking for a tank, go F2A or AS. I just redid my SLR system around the F2 body and love it. While I looked at the F3, I just never really loved the battery dependency. You can keep the same glass or move up to ZI / CV stuff if you feel the need.

If you really feel the need to switch to Leica, take a look at a SL2. Great finder and built to last and last..... A unique feel in the hand (at least to me) with the rounded back. I had one years ago and did a swap for a 21/2.8 M lens. I think long term, moving to an Rx you will wind up with the same issue.

You could buy, get CLAed and adjusted three OM-1s for the price and size of a Leicaflex and CLAing. You can carry a lot of OM lenses and bodies in a small bag. OM lenses are almost RF in size and with a few exception available.

If you want to go smaller, OM-1 is the way. If you want to get a tank, F2 is the way to go.

B2 (;->

 

[2tcreative]

I have used the Nikon system n the past and it is a lug to carry around as is the R system.

The R system pre-R8 and R9 can be tricky to find a suitable body to use. Depends on what your goals are for the SLR system (reliability, mechanical vs automated, etc.) I think lenses will be very good as well.

However, if you want something along the lines of an M Leica, why not consider the Olympus OM system? The lenses are wonderful, every bit as good as the R lenses, and size is only slightly larger than the M bodies and lenses. The faster Zuiko lenses are spectacular, i.e the 28mm f2, 35mm f2, 50mm f2, 85mm f2 and 100mm f2 are legendary in the SLR field. I have the 28 and 35 and had the 85. Stellar performers.

The OM1n is a very reliable, fully mechanical body and can be found fairly cheaply. The OM4 has the best spotmeter around.

Something to consider.

 

[JNewell]

I have owned an SL2, R5 and R6; still own the R6. I also own a pile of Nikon SLRs, including among others an F2AS, F3/T and FM2/T.

The short answer is that the R series is not going to send your hands or brain the same signals that an M radiates. I firmly believe that they are excellent cameras (once you get out of the R4's teething period), but they don't feel like an M. If you want that feeling, you could look at the SL or SL2, but there are some things to think about. The SL has some lens restrictions (no 24/2.8, for example) and both the SL and SL2 use the old PX625 batteries (get a qualifed repair person to adjust the meter). The prisms and screens are getting old and can have some problems that affect viewing (but not pictures). There is a great deal to be said for them both, but think it through first.

The R6 really is the Rodney Dangerfield of the R line, IMO. It has been priced well below the very similar R6.2 on the used market and is a boderline "good buy" with a great feature set. But back to your original question, it ain't an M.

Something else to consider - I've heard people I deeply trust opine that the R8 is a really fine camera. My understanding is that it is very, very similar to the R9 but, again, it prices well below the R9 on the used market. If you're going to re-evaluate a reflex, you might throw that into the mix.

BTW, for a little relevant background, at one point I had almost completely disposed of my M gear, which I'd been accumulating for almost 20 years at that point, in favor of R gear. Long story short, I did a U-turn some years later, and sold a pile of R gear. Although some R lenses have crept back into my cabinet, the three things I could not bring myself to sell were the 100/2.8 Apo Macro Elmarit and the 180/3.4 Apo Telyt and an R6 to mount them on. It was a good decision. I have some great Nikon lenses, but none that are better than those two. I mention this just to really keep your brain spinning... 😀

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Since your question is about the R series of cameras, let me address that. Full disclosure: when I was in college, the local camera guy had an R4s that I wished I had the money to buy. When I had the money, later in life, I went right out and bought one, and have never regretted it. But it also means that I have an emotional attachment to this sort of camera that may not be rationally reflected in my comments below.

They are very nice cameras, quite solid -- built on a Minolta chassis. R4, R4s, R5 have a set of magnets that control the shutter that failed on my R4s. I had a set go bad in my R4s after I had owned it for about 6 years. Once replaced, the camera has been rock solid and should be for another 20 years. There is no warning when these go bad -- they just stop working -- so it is difficult to check a camera out for this problem. Even buying from a place like KEH, which sells them with a 30 day no-hassle guarantee, is not a help as odds are any of these cameras will work for 30 days. Having said this, I own an R4s and an R5 and 35/50/90/135 lenses and wouldn't sell them for anything. The cameras have a solidity that I love, and even though I have a Nikon F3 and a wide range of Nikon glass, there is something idiosyncratically satisfying about the "thunk" of the Leica shutter. If I were headed to a remote area with no battery stores, I would indeed take a camera that was not battery dependent. (FM2, M3, Hassie 500 series etc.). But for the rest of the world, these cameras are a joy to use. On Leica cameras, the only thing I have ever had break was electronics (meter in an M6, the above-mentioned R4s, DX coding on an M7) -- I view this as not Leica's strong suit.

This is, however, a fabulous time for film enthusiasts who like these high quality cameras. And Leica R glass may be had for a song compared to its price when new. Good luck in your choice. Let us know how it all turns out.

Ben Marks

 

[nobbylon]

After all this talk I'm going to keep my R system! taken a few days but i've eventually seen sense! I'm still looking for a nice black OM1n or 2n for my travels though!

 

[Vincenzo Maielli]

The Leicaflex SL and SL2 was two extraordinary SLR, builded as a tank, sturdy, precise and reliable, then and now. In the R series i like very mutch the electronical R5 and R7 or the mechanical R6.2. The R series lenses are fantastic performers, especially the second version of the Elmarit 19 mm f/ 2.8, the Elmarit R 35 and 90 mm f/ 2.8 and the Apo Telyt 180 mm f/ 3.5. The prices of all sort of good things? Leica standard...

 

[JNewell]

While we're on the topic of electronics and reliability, the only camera that I've ever had in which the electronics went dead was...this is the truth and I've owned dozens of cameras...a Leica M6.

 

[nrb]

I own one R4 and one R5 and I dim these are reliable and sturdy cameras, and not heavier than equivalent Nikon or Canon gear. My main reason to use them is their ability to mount Leica glass. Even in the negatives you can tell these pictures were taken with it and I'm the proud owner of a 28 Elmarit, a 50 Summicron, a 90 Elmarit, a 180 Elmar and 35-70 Vario-elmar. Quite cheap these days if you shop around.
The R4 and R5 are modern cameras with a choice of shooting modes to suit different tastes, and use readily available normal SR 44 button cells. Also if ever they need service you'll be able to get it almost anywhere in the world.

 

[Harry Lime]

In terms of reliablity the SL, R6.2, R6, R7 and R8 are probably your best bet. Personally I have the SL, R6.2 and R8 (and Nikon F3-P).

With the SL you will probably experience 'operator failure', before the camera gives in. I have one and it literally feels like it was milled from a solid block of brass. It's the most solid camera I've ever handled. Supposedly Leica lost money on every body they sold.

In operation it feels like a Leica M, with a reflex viewfinder, which is amazingly brilliant. Supposedly the shutter is very accurate in terms of speeds. It sounds like a cross between a Leica M and SLR.

There are a few R lenses that the SL can't take, because of issues with mirror cleanrance, but it's a very small number (check the internet). The SL2 will take all R lenses, but the 1/2000th speed can be unreliable. Other than that it's a great camera.

The SL meter takes the old Mercury type batteries so you would need to have it recalibrated (match needle display).


The R6.2 is pretty close to perfect. It's no bigger than an M body and very, very well built. The viewfinder is extremely bright. Metering system is very accurate and offers spot and average modes. Supposedly the shutter is very accurate in terms of speeds. Reliability seems to be very high. Mine has never given me a problem. Salgado shoots with these and they seem to be working out for him. Apparently the reason why this camera went away, was because Minolta could no longer cast the body shells for Leica. Other than that the guts are Leica and a Seiko shutter built to Leica spec & design. Believe it or not, Seiko makes extremely reliable shutters.



The R7 is about the size of the R6.2, but packed with automation. I've heard a lot of good things about this camera and they demand a pretty high price as far as R bodies go.


People seem to have a love hate relationship with the R8/R9. Some people call it the 'Hunchback of Solms'; others an ergonomic masterpiece. I'm in the second camp. IMO the controls are placed perfectly and better than in any other SLR I know of. My biggest complaint is that it uses an odd CR type battery, that isn't as widely available as AA. If you get the Winder, also get the rechageable battery pack. Otherwise you may end up in the poorhouse, as you burn through expensive CR batteries. Due to it's unorthodox design it draws attention, when you carry it around town. The R8 was a new design, from scratch by Solms and had no Minolta content. It's all Leica.

But other than that the R8/R9 a brilliant camera and apparently very reliable. I tend to meter 95% of the time with a handheld meter, so the R8 is a little overkill for me and I may sell mine down the road.

The R4 and R5 are older models with the highest Minolta content. They certainly are reliable for cosumer use, but from what I have heard they can't really stand up to a professional pounding.

The R3 looks interesting and comes from an era when most things were built to standards that today would be considered very high. Leica saw the R3 as a pro-camera and were quite proud of it, but I don't have enough experience with this body to form a clear opinion. It is based on a Minolta design, but keep in mind that is was a few decades ago, when Minolta actually was a competitor to Canon and Nikon...


I'm surprised that your F3's are giving you trouble. As you know they have a reputation for being close to indestructable. Have you considered having them rebuilt by Nikon? I'm sending my F3-P's in shortly. They are such nice cameras and I've sort of fallen for the old scalloped Nikkor 2/50-H.C, etc


HL

 

[phatnev]

Ive got a nice F2A you could buy 🙂

 

[cmogi10]

I think the R8 is one of the nicest feeling well balanced SLR's I've ever handled, superb optics, I've heard many say even better then the M lenses. I don't have the money or interest to buy into another camera system but if I did it would be the Leica R system.