Leica R - Who has experience with these?

[dave lackey]

Screwed up yesterday and went with the Atl-boys (Atlanta guys) to Wing's Camera. Put some accessories on hold, considering a IIIC Conversion to a IIIF and holy crap!....tried out the Leica R bodies from an estate. Sweet.

I have used Nikon SLR's since 1971 and only in the last 4 years have moved specifically to Leica rangefinders. But, those R bodies were really nice! Time to learn more about them technically, but who actually uses them and how do they stack up?🙂

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I have a Leicaflex and R4s and an R5. They handle really well. Electronically they have not been as solid as my Nikons, though and the winder options are more limited. The electromagnetic switches controlling the R4s shutter went bad about six years ago and I had to get them replaced.

Thing is, when I was in college the R4 was the camera I could never afford. Scarred for life, really. So when I could afford a used one, I picked it up. I have not regretted it, and I like the Leica-R glass I have (28-35-50-90-135) almost as much as the comparable focal lengths in M glass. The R-shutters have a satisfying, solid "thunk" and the automatic metering modes have been generally reliable. If I had to choose, though, I'd keep my F4 and F5 and sell the Leicas. The Nikons, in my experience have been very robust and very versatile.

Ben

 

[floyd]

Last year I purchased a mint condition original Leicaflex with Summicron-R 50/2 lens. Its built like a tank and very heavy but a beautifully made camera. I wanted something for flower portraits where I could get closer than a range finder would allow, the picture quality is superb and a part from the weight I really enjoy using it. This winter it went in for a CLA and general check over to see if anything else needed repair or if there was excessive wear, is back as good as new both inside and out. As photography is a hobby I've started to collect other lenses and accessories that were available when it was launched.
Floyd

 

[Vickko]

Leica R glass is phenomenal - in performance and in mass. If you subscribe to Erwin Puts' evaluation, you might think that it is better than Leica M glass.

I have the R6.2, R7 and R9 with a DMR. Unfortunately, the R9 is in the shop, but I've always liked the R series.

Vick

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I kinda agree with Benjamin. After having an R8 and then later an R7, i'm currently sitting with Nikon FE2 and F100 (supplementing my primary Canon system).

The Leica-R 'experiment' was okay, but i didn't find any advantages in the lenses. The 80/1.4 Summilux was not as good as my Canon 85L. The 50 Summicron was not better than the Canon 50/1.4. The 35 Summicron had very nice OOF rendering but was otherwise not better than the Canon 35/2, and neither was even close to the 35L. I did find the late version of the 28/2.8 to be very good, but still not significantly better than the Contax 28/2.8 i also had at the time. Since having the R stuff, i've gotten into the Nikons. I REALLY love the nikon 50/1.8 Series E and wouldn't trade it for anything except possibly the hugely expensive E60 Summilux-R 50/1.4 ROM. But, at this point, the $2000 price difference makes the Summilux 'silly.'

Re: bodies -
The R8 was quite nice. But, i eventually sold it because i felt it was just too large and heavy to not have AF and winding. Well, that, and also because the lenses just didn't outperform my other gear and i couldn't justify keeping a bunch of different 35mm systems.

With the R7, i liked the compact dimensions. But, i felt like the camera was 'slow.' It felt like the time between trying to trip the shutter and when it actually happened just took too long. I sent it in for repair but was told it was within spec. I wonder if it had the same "electromagnetic switches" issue Benjamin mentioned. I actually suggested something like that to the repairer, but the notion was dismissed.... It was odd because i decided to try the R7 based on handling an R3 or R4 in a store, and that camera felt very quick and responsive. So, i'm sure my R7 experience was not typical.

My suggestion is to stick with the Leica RFs and your non-AF Nikkor primes with F bodies. Of course, if you still have the itch, you can probably find a nice used R setup and try it for a year, then resell it for not much loss.

 

[f/14]

Used the R8 a lot. Very nice camera. Very good lenses. Changed to Nikon F5 after a while. Got lightning fast autofocus and much less mirror vibration. Film winding is almost vibration free as well in the "silent mode". Exposure electronics seems to be exactly the same. You might say I traded some of the lens quality for better handlig properties, but the F5 brings home more pictures. At least for me. A second hand F5 is very cheap these days.

 

[nobbylon]

I've got 2 R4 at the moment. Very small and smooth cameras. I had an R8 in the past and loved the viewfinder but it's big. Saying that the Nikon F4 i have is bigger and heavier with not as good a viewfinder. F4's just feel bulletproof though.
I've had various R lenses and they are nice however I've tested my 50 'crons against a 50 f2 AI and don't see any differences. The 35 and 90 Elmarits I have are amazing lenses though. 35 'cron is good but I sold them a few years ago along with a 60 macro elmarit which was probably the best lens I've sold and always wish I hadn't.
The shutters on the r4, 5, 6 and 7 are quieter than Nikon F cameras however the R series just don't feel like they have the integrity of an F2, 3 or 4 Nikon.
I've gone for the best of both worlds and i'm using my R series lenses on Nikon F3, F4 and D700 bodies.
Reliability wise the R's seem to have had over the years some reliability problems however the 3 R4's and R8 i've had have been fine.
If I were going away somewhere for once in a lifetime pics though it would be a Nikon SLR and an M6 I'd take with me.

 

[David Murphy]

I've had a little experience with the Leicaflex, Leicaflex SL, and Leicaflex R3 - all excellent cameras. The lenses are of course all superb, but very expensive for SLR lenses. So long as you are willing to sink at least $1500-2000 into lenses you can build a great kit. For me that's a bit too much with so many other excellent SLR systems around for much, much less. Rangefinders are another story - Leica rules there.

 

[David Hughes]

I've had a little experience with the Leicaflex, Leicaflex SL, and Leicaflex R3 - all excellent cameras. The lenses are of course all superb, but very expensive for SLR lenses. So long as you are willing to sink at least $1500-2000 into lenses you can build a great kit. For me that's a bit too much with so many other excellent SLR systems around for much, much less. Rangefinders are another story - Leica rules there.

I'll second that: if I was rich and so on I'd still have my R5 but it was well used and well loved and when the time came for a complete overhaul etc etc I just couldn't afford it or justify it and, perhaps, believe Leica's prices and no one else would do it. BTW, that's my experience in England, your country could be a lot different.

So it went on ebay and I just wish I still had it or else another. Like the CRF's I thought it was designed by photographers for photographers. The lenses were lovely; no other word for it...

Regards, David

 

[Dralowid]

I still have an SL MOT. It feels as if it is built to a military or industrial standard. The viewfinder is wonderfully bright and the whole thing including lenses has a great feel. BUT I hardly ever use it. The M gets the use. The times I would use it, macro and tele, are few and far between. Can I bring myself to part with it? Not yet...

Michael

 

[Dirk]

I have the R7 and SL2 (plus a number of Nikons). The R glass has such good color rendition, I got rid of my manual focus Nikkors, except for the lovely 50mm f/2 AI. The R7 is very well made. It has a quiet and smooth shutter/mirror action. If you shoot color, the R glass is unequaled among SLR lenses. If the difference is worth the money, only you can decide.

 

[nobbylon]

As an after thought the R4,5,6 and 7 with a 50mm lens are no bigger or heavier than an M with a 50 and hood. It's a very compact design.

 

[dave lackey]

The local shop has two R4 and two R4s and one R3 camera bodies (no lenses). They are small and very nice handling and in excellent + condition. Think they would be worth $200 apiece?

 

[nobbylon]

Dave,
IMO forget the R3. If you go for an R4 then look for ones with serials plus 1600000. These are supposed to be the sorted ones. I have an early one which is fine though and a later one 1660000 which is also great.
$200 seems steep to me. Depending on condition an average R4 is fetching between €100-120. Unmarked and as new I'd say around €160-180 in private sale.
regards john

you may find this helpfull
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/page6.html

 

[asiafish]

Dave,
IMO forget the R3. If you go for an R4 then look for ones with serials plus 1600000. These are supposed to be the sorted ones. I have an early one which is fine though and a later one 1660000 which is also great.
$200 seems steep to me. Depending on condition an average R4 is fetching between €100-120. Unmarked and as new I'd say around €160-180 in private sale.
regards john

you may find this helpfull
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/page6.html

No need to forget the R3, it is an outstanding camera with solid build, spot AND average metering (AE lock works in both modes though only documented in spot) and an supremely smooth and quiet release with ZERO lag. I have an R3 MOT and an R6 and really enjoy using both, but at current prices (R3 usually under $200) it is a fantastic bargain. R3s are also very reliable except for the meter needle. Pass if it had a jumpy needle, but if the needle moves smoothly it should be reliable for years to come.

 

[dave lackey]

No need to forget the R3, it is an outstanding camera with solid build, spot AND average metering (AE lock works in both modes though only documented in spot) and an supremely smooth and quiet release with ZERO lag. I have an R3 MOT and an R6 and really enjoy using both, but at current prices (R3 usually under $200) it is a fantastic bargain. R3s are also very reliable except for the meter needle. Pass if it had a jumpy needle, but if the needle moves smoothly it should be reliable for years to come.

Ah...forgot about this old thread. Two years + and the R4 is really getting a workout these days! Great camera and lenses!

Any of the R cameras will have individual charm and it's own following of folks who like them or loathe them. I am in the market for an R8 but other pressing needs still hold me back. Couldn't have gotten a better buy than the R4 I have.

 

[Rob-F]

I've had R4, R5, and R6, along with 8 or 9 lenses. I couldn't get used to the R bodies. They didn't feel right and secure in the hand, The shutter button was never under my finger. The mirror action was slow, kind a of lazy ker--chunk, rather than the quick "snick!" of my Nikon Fe2s. I didn't care for the LED shutter speed display in the r5 and R4. The M6-like exposure display of the R6 was much better. The meter needles of the FE2 and FM3a are better yet, for me. The Leitz lenses were very good and well made, but not necessarily better than my Nikkors. And the compact Nikon bodies feel like they were custom made for my hands. I knew I wasn't going to get rid my Nikons, so I sold off the R stuff and have never looked back. I did convert my 90mm Elmarit, 135mm Elmarit, and 180mm APO to Nikon mount, though, to use on my D700 and FE2s.

 

[jalLee2001]

I had a R7 with a 50 lux pre asp. I loved the results, jusyncould not justify having Nikons, M an R. Always regretted selling it.

 

[dave lackey]

Since I started this thread a couple of years ago, I have acquired the "old blue jeans" comfort zone of two Nikon FE2s. Grew up with these and still love them for some reason. Mostly familiarity I suppose. I rarely use them. They are noisy, feel cheap and, basically are with inferior optics. But I still love them.

I have since been amazed at the quality and relative quietness of the R4. That is why I have used it everyday for the last two years. The 50 Cron and the 80 Lux are beyond reproach. The feel is perfect for me and complements my M3 with the same size and ergonomics as the M3. The camera is solid as a brick! Add the same brick-like R lenses and that is one hell of a camera.

So, you like it or you don't. I could care less. I love the R cameras and after 30+ years, I can't think of a camera I enjoy more except the M bodies.:angel:

Zoom forward to the new M....I just can't see using large heavy lenses on an M body. There is a reason that SLRs were invented and there is a reason the M has all the charm it has. But putting long, heavy lenses on an M body with all the sophistication of a digital camera...well, give me an M9 anyday, at least it is simple!

I so wish Leica had kept the R10 concept alive but it is what it is.

 

[dave lackey]

I've got 2 R4 at the moment. Very small and smooth cameras. I had an R8 in the past and loved the viewfinder but it's big. Saying that the Nikon F4 i have is bigger and heavier with not as good a viewfinder. F4's just feel bulletproof though.
I've had various R lenses and they are nice however I've tested my 50 'crons against a 50 f2 AI and don't see any differences. The 35 and 90 Elmarits I have are amazing lenses though. 35 'cron is good but I sold them a few years ago along with a 60 macro elmarit which was probably the best lens I've sold and always wish I hadn't.
The shutters on the r4, 5, 6 and 7 are quieter than Nikon F cameras however the R series just don't feel like they have the integrity of an F2, 3 or 4 Nikon.
I've gone for the best of both worlds and i'm using my R series lenses on Nikon F3, F4 and D700 bodies.
Reliability wise the R's seem to have had over the years some reliability problems however the 3 R4's and R8 i've had have been fine.
If I were going away somewhere for once in a lifetime pics though it would be a Nikon SLR and an M6 I'd take with me.

While we are answering a two year old thread, I acquired an F2...thanks Gil! It is an awful camera to use but quite interesting. I am enjoying the experience and challenge of working with this fine piece of history. Solid, crazy lenses and stupid meter with an awful aesthetic. Having grown up in the early F years, I understand it but I also understand why I hated these cameras when I was young. Ugly as sin with the big black meter prism. Not fun to use. JMO, but it is the truth.

When Nikon came out with the compact cameras, it was a revelation. I loved them and could not care less for the Canons. I had a Minolta and liked it too. Leicas were not even on the radar in rural Georgia or "sophisticated" Atlanta at the time.

Since that time, my experiences with Leica cameras have made me realize that while I enjoy Nikon cameras, I don't love them. As a sports photographer and portrait shooter, the Nikon D bodies excelled in performance but looked boring and were so complicated and the system so large, I never carried them except to a gig.

Then along came the S3 2000. Jewel like quality and small, light. Terrible for me to get the focus down so I wound up with the M3. Perfect match for me! Then the R4 to do what the M3 cannot do...macro, telephoto, etc. Same ergos and feel of quality. Again, a perfect match for me. Then, the X1...same thing although no digital will ever be as tough or exude the quality, or last as long.

So, I use a 1961 M3 (62 years+ old now) and a 1981 R4 (32 years+ old now) and a 3 year old X1.

I play with the F2, it is so interesting. I play and enjoy the FE2s. But when it comes to serious work, the Leicas are the only ones I use. I could not be happier.:angel: YMMV but it is nice to have a choice of cameras...