Anyone Using a Leica Reflex?

G

Graybeard

Longtime IIIf User
Local time
6:18 PM
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
486
Do any Forum members also shoot with a Leica SLR? Which ones do you like?

I have a Leicaflex Standard which I enjoy using. These were made concurrently with the M-4 rangefinder and are beautifully built machines. The Leicaflex is roughly the same size as the M rangefinders and is similarly intuitive in use.
 
I do. The Leica R5. I've used an R4 (the R5 is basically an upgraded R4) an R8 and a Leicaflex SL2; the SL2 is rather interesting for it's blocky, but the shutter is rather "buttery" smooth, not quiet, but not annoying, rather pleasing.

I honestly am very happy with the R5; the top speed of 1/2000 sec. is welcome breathing room when shooting the Summicron 50 f/2 wide open outdoors in sunny weather, although I always carry an ND 0.6 filter with me when I take the R5 with me, just in case.

If I had money, of course I'd have also the SL2 and the R8, but I don't have a sugar mamma. If I had to choose between the R5, the SL2 and the R8, I think it would be a very very tough choice. If the R9 were a choice I'd go with it given the option of using the digital back; the R8/R9 are big, but they fit so well in my hands...but they attract too much unwanted attention, and I do not want attention drawn to me when I take pictures. The R4 through R7 are smaller bodies compared to the SL2 and R8/R9.

The R6.2 is completely manual; to me that would be like the R5 without the need for batteries (except for metering). I guess that would be the one: the R6.2

(for those of you wondering why then I have an R5 and not an R6.2: the difference between the two is about $1500)
 
Hi. I have a Leicaflex SL and enjoy it very much, especially with longer lenses. The VF image just pops in focus like no other. I agree that it is very well made, but in my hands, feels much bigger and heavier than the M. Good thing I've got big hands ;)
 
I have the R-E and one of the earlier R3 electronic (Made in Germany) but since last year when I came into the rangefinder "business" I do not really use them anymore. So now I am left with the two cameras and 5 lenses in the closet...
The R-E was my main camera, the R3 is only a backup. I like the R-E because of its simpler electronic compared to the R5. I do not really need shutter priority mode so I decided to get the R-E at the time. Prices were nearly the same. The newer models R6 and up were over my budget.
 
i bought into the reflex system at a time when i thought i should join the modern world and have a contemporary camera- that at the time was the r5 and a 35 elmarit. then i began picking up a lens here and there. later i traded up to the r7 which i still have. both are great cameras, workhorses. never have had a problem w either. my lenses include the 28 elmarit, 50 'cron, 60 macro-elmarit, 180 elmarit, 2X doubler, and the metz 32 for ttl flash. i haven't been using this system as much so if anyone is interested...
 
I posess an SL2 with 50mm Summilux. They are both in pristine condition, not a mark or schratch however small, I have the boxes and all papers to go with it.
I never use it, I shot 1 roll of film, which was perfect and have safely stored it ever since.
I guess it'll come in handy someday, money-wise that is. I bought it 4 years ago from the same guy that sold me my car. After the car deal was done we started chatting about photography and he explained he had this camera he never used, jokingly I asked if he wanted to get rid of it, he did, we agreed on a price (650DM at the time) I paid him and that was that. Sometimes I think "tomorrow I'me going to take out the SL2 and use it" but it actually never comes to that. Currently the set is valued at €1350 (selling price) and possibly a bit more due to it's condition. I don't need the cash at the moment and I'mne currently more than happy with the results of my FM3a .....
 
I had an original Leicaflex, with 50mm Summicron, that my father purchased for me when I was a young teen. It was a wonderful camera, however I never could afford any other lenses, and in the early 1970's traded it for a new Nikon f2 and a new 25mm Nikkor.

Still have the Nikon gear, wish I had the Leicaflex, although on second thought, I would prefer the Leicaflex SL. I also once owned one of the "R" series, perhaps the R3? I had it for a short period, it had a motor drive. I also sold it, in one of my rare periods of needing to raise money.
Again, I seemed to own it in a time period when I couldn't afford the lenses I wanted. (mid 1980's)
 
I used to use R3's and R4's. along with Contax RTS II and 159, 139, and many Nikons from F through F4. For me the Leica cameras were third in the group of the three; I preferred the Contax lenses over the Leica, and the Nikon bodies over the Contax and Leica. Eventually I decided to limit my SLR's to one manufacturer and chose Alpa; the quality of Alpa cameras and lenses far surpasses any other SLR. It is difficult to imagine how good they are until you use one. In my case, being my father's camera of preference, it was difficult to accept the lesser quality of other brands having used these cameras while I was young -- it caused me to wonder why all cameras and lenses were not built this way?
 
I'm at that "inbetween" stage with Leica SLRs. At present I only have my R6.2 body, having sold the R8 and 180/2.8 Apo-Elmarit lens.

When the money is available I'm intending to add (certainly) a 60mm macro, and possibly a 180/3.4 Apo-Telyt and either 21mm or 19mm. This is purely to supplement my rangefinder gear, rather than a separate outfit in its own right.

If anyone cares, the 180mm/2.8 went because its big and heavy. The 3.4 is much more size/weight friendly for my desires :0)
 
TimF said:
I'm at that "inbetween" stage with Leica SLRs. At present I only have my R6.2 body, having sold the R8 and 180/2.8 Apo-Elmarit lens.

When the money is available I'm intending to add (certainly) a 60mm macro, and possibly a 180/3.4 Apo-Telyt and either 21mm or 19mm. This is purely to supplement my rangefinder gear, rather than a separate outfit in its own right.

If anyone cares, the 180mm/2.8 went because its big and heavy. The 3.4 is much more size/weight friendly for my desires :0)
Click to expand...

My impression of the 180/2.8 as well. I thought that it was unnecessarily heavy; it threw the balance of the camera off much worse than a 200/2 Nikkor which, although being a large lens, still sseemed to have decent ergonomics.
 
Honu-Hugger said:
I used to use R3's and R4's. along with Contax RTS II and 159, 139, and many Nikons from F through F4. For me the Leica cameras were third in the group of the three; I preferred the Contax lenses over the Leica, and the Nikon bodies over the Contax and Leica. Eventually I decided to limit my SLR's to one manufacturer and chose Alpa; the quality of Alpa cameras and lenses far surpasses any other SLR. It is difficult to imagine how good they are until you use one. In my case, being my father's camera of preference, it was difficult to accept the lesser quality of other brands having used these cameras while I was young -- it caused me to wonder why all cameras and lenses were not built this way?
Click to expand...


I've used both Alpa's and the R4. I agree that the feel of the R4 is no match for the Alpa but, to me, the Leicaflex Standard and the SL are a match for the Alpa.

The Leicaflex Standard and the SL (I have no experience with the SL2) are in a different league entirely from the Leica reflexes which followed them.

The Nikon F, with which I have a fair amount of experience and despite its formidable reputation for durability, just doesn't have the "fine watch" feel of the Leicaflexes.
 
Graybeard said:
I've used both Alpa's and the R4. I agree that the feel of the R4 is no match for the Alpa but, to me, the Leicaflex Standard and the SL are a match for the Alpa.

The Leicaflex Standard and the SL (I have no experience with the SL2) are in a different league entirely from the Leica reflexes which followed them.

The Nikon F, with which I have a fair amount of experience and despite its formidable reputation for durability, just doesn't have the "fine watch" feel of the Leicaflexes.
Click to expand...

I forgot that I also had a Leicaflex for a short period of time while in high school; I agree that the build quality of the early cameras was quite robust. As for the Nikons: I was late into owning an "F" having started with Nikon with the F2, then progressing through F3 and F4 and eventually buying a few "F" cameras for no really good reason other than nostalgia. Its durability aside the "F" was my least favorite of the Nikons -- I really like the F2 for a fully manual camera and even if I had tried not to like the F4 it did everything it was asked in superb fashion. The aesthetics of the F4 never did much for me but it was a fine performer.
 
I used to own an SL and an R4. Sold the R4 as it was a little too small for my hands then, in a foolish moment, sold the SL and the 21/50/90/180 lenses. Now the latter was the f/3.4 Apo-Telyt R which was just fabulous, and I really miss it. I just felt I did not use the gear enough and I do not collect equipment.

Well, I bought another used SL a year ago to go with my 200 and 400 Telyts, the latter a true masochist's dream on an M/Visoflex. I rarely use lenses that long, but the SL handles well and has a truly great exposure meter, so this time I'm keeping it.

99% of what I snap is on an M2/35mm Asph Summicron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom