Leica R vs M prices

[taskoni]

The R system Leica's are sturdy and comfortable. The lenses are great build, sharp, super contrasty.
I am enjoying my R7 very much or at least as much as my M and Barnack.
I don't worry about who's fixing R cams, cause they never break 😛

BTW, Sebastiao Salgado uses (have used) one (an R6.2)

Regards,
b.

 

[taskoni]

Wasn't one of the R lenses the sharpest lens (for the 35mm format) ever tested in recent times? I woiuldn't expect the wide angles to be as good as the M wide angles, though, because of the inverted telephoto design.

I think so. It was the 35mm Summilux-R f/2 (or 1.4) if I am not mistaken...

Regards,
b.

 

[dave lackey]

The R system Leica's are sturdy and comfortable. The lenses are great build, sharp, super contrasty.
I am enjoying my R7 very much or at least as much as my M and Barnack.
I don't worry about who's fixing R cams, cause they never break 😛

BTW, Sebastiao Salgado uses (have used) one (an R6.2)

Regards,
b.

Cameras do not just tend to break all the time and still are around 25-30 years later working perfectly. Newer electronic cameras do break a lot. I spoke with a camera store owner the other day about a brand new Nikon D3x that came in. Unpacked it and it was completely inoperable. Did not work at all. There goes the "perfect" Nikon down the tubes, maybe we should never buy Nikons?

Heard of many of these things happening to new cameras in the past 10 years. I had a couple of Nikons that broke myself. And a Canon I just threw away after a year.

The Leica R series is a bargain...at least for now.🙂

 

[fbf]

The good R lenses are not cheap either. Most people who actually buy R lenses these days use them on digital anyway.

 

[jsrockit]

The R bodies have been the red-headed step child for no apparent reason than the quality and following of the RF bodies.

Well, if you are a rangefinder fan, then no R will satisfy you. If you are a SLR fan, there is a lot of competition. Remember, your R body is a rebadged Minolta and is said to be unreliable. All of those reasons are why those R bodies are the red-headed step child (not that I don't think the R series is cool).

 

[Frank Petronio]

I owned an SL, SL2, and decided to try an R4s -- bought it at Lens & Repro in NYC -- loaded a roll, walked down the block, meter failed, it was humid out... returned it within the hour. The bad reputation for electronics caught me front and center. I get tempted to try again, I like the size of the Rs a lot better. But the SL was probably the best of the lot - Diesel and bulletproof! Makes a Nikon F feel like a $99 Pentax.

Never had a bad R lens, very well made and smooth, with a definite look that is nicer than Nikon.

 

[dave lackey]

I owned an SL, SL2, and decided to try an R4s -- bought it at Lens & Repro in NYC -- loaded a roll, walked down the block, meter failed, it was humid out... returned it within the hour. The bad reputation for electronics caught me front and center. I get tempted to try again, I like the size of the Rs a lot better. But the SL was probably the best of the lot - Diesel and bulletproof! Makes a Nikon F feel like a $99 Pentax.

Never had a bad R lens, very well made and smooth, with a definite look that is nicer than Nikon.

Hell, give it a shot. My Nikons died and the rest have been fairly reliable. So, why not try an R5 or better yet, an R6/6.2/7?

BTW, I owned a contemporary Minolta (X700 black body) at the time. Did not even know Leica existed in the 80's (actually not until the last five years), and the camera was super reliable. Friggin F3's were not exactly reliable with the stupid LCD either. Electronics for all the makers in the 80's was a nightmare but feel confident that if they are working 25 years later, they are all pretty good now. And if they do break, extra bodies are cheap.🙂

 

[shadowfox]

All you can do with a R lens is use film, DMR, or adapt to another system and lose auto diaphragm. None are great choices.

Film is a great choice.
Especially today when you can get excellent Leica R lenses affordably.

 

[BillBingham2]

Oh, just another example of the complementary nature of these two rigs...the Summarit on the M focuses in the same direction from infinity as the Summicron R ......

To me this was a critical decision point. I went the other way though, I switched to Nikon RFs and kept my Nikon SLRs. I made the switch before the value/price of R glass tanked. But even with it's current costs I think I would have stayed with Nikon. A 300/4.5 ED-IF is a sweet lens to focus and I LOVE the being able to use my S3 one handed (off camera flash with the other). Lens quality between the older Nikkors and newer CVs fill my requirements and more.

I have to agree with FV2 and say the SL series is my favorite and where I would spend my money if I were going that direction. The SL and SL II were world class cameras with bright finders and good handling.

The world has moved digital and Leica has slow to move there. If you look a the Leica S2 you will see a lot of R design there.

For film I use an RF for 50 and wider, SLR for 85 and above, though I did have some cross over glass (28/2.8 in F and 105/2.5 in S mount) before I sold it off.

B2

 

[dave lackey]

The good R lenses are not cheap either. Most people who actually buy R lenses these days use them on digital anyway.

Not cheap? By Leica standards, VERY cheap. Just bought a 50mm Summicron R f2 for $300. Ater a DAG adjustment for $50, I will have $350 in it. Try that with an M body.:angel:

 

[Matthew Runkel]

Wasn't one of the R lenses the sharpest lens (for the 35mm format) ever tested in recent times? I woiuldn't expect the wide angles to be as good as the M wide angles, though, because of the inverted telephoto design.

Perhaps the 280/4 APO-Telyt-R, frequently described as diffraction limited at full aperture.

Many of the R lenses were a generation behind their M counterparts at the time the line was discontinued, explaining some divergence in price. Items like the latest long telephotos gave up nothing to M lenses in terms of pricing, and seem to be holding value very well.