Go M or stick with R

Bones, As has been said, the M series have a lot going for them. I love working with medium format in the darkroom, but if i choose to use 35mm M is my personal choice. As Huss said, the Bessa is not a substitute for a Leica. Yes, the prices have gone up, but looking at *bay, I'd suggest that you can find an M4 (chrome or black) in the same price range as the finer condition M2 & M3. Personally I prefer the M2,M3,M4, to the later M4-2 M4-P, M6, MP.
I like the M4 rapid loading & the 35,50,90,(135) framelines. I found the higher # of framelines in the M6, MP distracting. My very favourite Leica was a black paint M2, which i foolishly sold & now prices are collector high. There are lots of Ms out there. Choosing to use them, offers a very different photographing experience than the EM, FM2 etc which obviously are great economic choices, but don't address your M or R question.
 
I have both an R6 and an M7 that I usually use at the same outing. There are certain situations where one is advantageous to the other. I keep a 35 on the M7 and an 80 on the R6. M series cameras are quieter and lighter and quicker. The 60 macro and the 80 1.4 are the reason enough for me to keep using the R6. But the 35 summicron on the M7 can’t be beat for speed and quiet sneakier photo-making.
 
arthur berger said:
I have both an R6 and an M7 that I usually use at the same outing. There are certain situations where one is advantageous to the other. I keep a 35 on the M7 and an 80 on the R6. M series cameras are quieter and lighter and quicker. The 60 macro and the 80 1.4 are the reason enough for me to keep using the R6. But the 35 summicron on the M7 can’t be beat for speed and quiet sneakier photo-making.
Click to expand...


I shoot both the R6 & M6. I gravitate toward using the M with at 35 far more often. I haven't shot the 60, but having access to the 80 Summilux and closer focusing on the 50 Summicron is worth the price of admission with the R6.
 
While Leica cameras have never been inexpensive, I am honestly very surprised by the prices some are willing to pay for new Leica cameras and lenses today, be they film-based or digital. Similarly, watching what people are willing to pay for used Leica gear — the M6 TTL in particular, along with used Leica lenses of the same era, is also incredibly surprising to me. So I decided that it might be worthwhile for me to at least investigate the use of another camera/lens system. My thinking is that should I find the use of another system satisfactory, it would open up the possibility of selling my own M6 TTL and associated lenses. That would bring me a good chunk of change in return.

As it turns out, one camera that I strongly considered as a potential replacement for my M6 was the Leica R6. The body appears to be based on the Minolta XD series of cameras, of which I happen to own one (a XD-11) since purchasing it new back in the late 70’s. Despite the fact that my XD experienced a few issues later in it’s life, I love the ergonomics of the camera. Hence, my attraction to the R6. Not only would I gain access to the Leica R lenses (that are bargains when compared to their M counterparts), but I would also be largely familiar with the metering system for the most part after already knowing the M6.

Honestly the size of the respective camera bodies seemed like a wash to me. The size of the R lenses on the other hand is where the use of the R system might take it’s toll to some degree . However, that did not end up entering into the equation as I wound up finding a less expensive alternative to the R6 that also manages to keep the overall system size incredibly small (relatively speaking) in the Minolta CLE rangefinder along with the use of Minolta M-ROKKOR lenses. I’ve only just recently begun to use the CLE and am enjoying it. I’m not feeling any rush to replace my M6 TTL so I can take my time with getting comfortable with the CLE. Should the CLE just not suit my fancy, I still wouldn’t mind giving the R6 a try.

In reality, had I not purchased the M6 TTL and a trio of Summicron lenses a couple of decades ago, I surely would not consider buying such a setup today given the prices that examples like mine are bringing in return. In all honesty, the R6 looks like quite an interesting alternative to me. As much as I like the M6, at today’s prices I can’t imagine that it would be worth the additional investment over your current setup centered around the R6.
 
Stick to the R; compare SLR's to RF's and you'll see a lot of limitations that either restrict you or mean you sometimes have to take both with you. Take both with you and you'll realise you could have left the RF behind.

But, when you get to my age you'll appreciate the ease of focusing a RF or else you start again with an AF SLR and there's few as nice as the R's.

Regards, David
 
Thank you all for your considered and informative answers. I will stick with my R6 for now and trickle away some money and keep an eye out for a good price on another M (2, 4) in time.

One more quick question, I had looked at an Olympus 35 SP with fixed 40 as a handy little RF to carry around with a great lens (while sticking with R6). Is this a worthwhile little camera? Ebay sellers from Japan seem to have plenty of mint copies at £2-300.
 
Fantastic camera. People will recommend the RD or RC more mainly due to size and I think they are newer. Have a look at the Olympus 35 UC, same lens and everything as the SP but Japanese market only which means most are in better condition.

My main advice for looking at fixed lens rangefinders it to buy one asap else GAS will hit you very quickly.
 
I think that purchasing a fixed lens rangefinder is a fantastic idea. That would be a good way to dip your toes in the water so to speak. Regardless of what happens after that, there remains a strong market for those cameras at this point in time should you wish to resell it. I myself have contemplated buying an Olympus 35 RD in the past but there are plenty of others to choose from.
 
The 35 SP is one of the best but be warned that they are not repairable if the meter has gone. I'd love one as the two modes for metering and general handling of the camera are good if a little old fashioned in feel. I think it's a meter needle trap system which would explain it. Also it takes mercury batteries...


Regards, David


PS My favourites are the Konica C35, Yashica 35-ME and Mamiya 135EE instead of the more popular Olympus range.
 
I had the 35DC and i liked it. Lens was nice and sharp.


Olympus%2B35DC.JPG


The 35SP is big - almost the same size as the OM-1 (found this pic on the net)
8625212804_71a6a7b003_b.jpg
 
A Leicaflex (Standard V2, SL. or SL2) with a 90mm Elmarit is a particularly sweet combination. A fine combination for street and (small) concert photography.

My personal favorite is the Leicaflex Standard; it feels like a Leica to me. I also have R6's in my collection; the split image RF/VF of the SL2 and R6 is easy on my aging eyes but my preference remains the Leicaflex Standard.

It is worthy of comment the Sherry and DAG continue to support the STD, SL, and SL2 but are turning away work on the R6. I may hold the last R6 that Don has serviced.

Good light all.
 
What focal lengths do you use the most? Being able to look through the lens as you compose is the reason to stick with an SLR especially if you shoot a lot of wides. External finders don’t cut it IMHO.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Lenses are not bodies.
One thing is CV lens on Leics M body. Another thing is Corvette steering wheel on Lada.
Click to expand...

I started with a Bessa R3a and CV lens. Added an Elcan lens. Added an M5. Got a few ZM lenses for cheap. Ended up switching whole hog from a big Nikon D3 and related kit to RFs for both my paid work and general carry-with-me-everywhere, and now I have a mix of CV, Zeiss, and a 'cheap' Summarit.

Point is, I don't knock Voigtlander. I really like the R3 series with the 1.0x finder and AE, and both the (sadly discontinued) bodies and lenses are great entries into RFs. That was the whole point.

I really don't use the Bessa much because I honestly can't see the damn shutter speeds half the time, but it's just as capable. No, it isn't solid brass, but some argue that the finder is far better than a vintage M. and you're right, you can put any lens on it you want. For digital, you don't have much a choice but Leica or the woefully outdated Epson.

As for the CV lenses, if anything, they've got a huge range. Not all of them are fantastic, but who else has a 12mm full frame that doesn't cost as much as a car? No shame putting that on my Leica.

I really like the Zeiss lenses as a good price compromise, and they're far cheaper than some of their SLR counterparts. As someone else said, Leica prices, especially new, are absolutely absurd. When I decided I needed a more modern camera, I opted to ditch Nikon and get a digital M from KEH for a fraction of new, mostly because it had a little dent in the top plate, which I've certainly added to. I don't buy any gear new anymore.

Long rant, but probably none of that helps you make a decision. Unless you're hard up for cash or space, I'd keep the R; lenses and bodies are fantastic, plentiful and relatively cheap (for now). Others are recommending 70s compact RFs, but IME the ones I find in the wild are either in dire need of expensive or impossible repair (like at antique stores and estate sales), or are priced for collectors. If you aren't opposed to MF, why not look at one of Fuji's multitude of RFs? Might sate the itch, but format's a personal preference.
 
Takkun said:
As for the CV lenses, if anything, they've got a huge range. Not all of them are fantastic, but who else has a 12mm full frame that doesn't cost as much as a car? No shame putting that on my Leica.
Click to expand...

Just a heads up that Laowa has gotten in the M game now with a 9/5.6 and a 11/4.5, both rangefinder coupled and decently priced.

And yes I just love CV lenses like any sane person would. There is no brand magic in optical design.
 
I have R and M systems. I don't shoot too much with the R bodies any more (don't really shoot that much 35mm film) but I use the R lenses extensively with my Leica CL and used them as well with the Leica SL and Leica M-P 240 before that. They're excellent lenses.

I did a lot of shooting with film Ms, as well as M9, M-P 240, and then M-D 262. Over time, I've replaced the digital M bodies with the Leica CL. My M lenses (both Leica and Voigtlander) are now my 'carry' lenses for the CL due to their smaller size and lighter weight, and of course are still used on my M4-2 when I shoot film in the M.

If you like your R6 (lovely camera, I have an R6.2), keep it and your R lenses. If you want a digital body, try the Leica CL with the same R lenses. (Drop down one focal length to compensate for the smaller APS-C format.) The CL and the R6 will give you a similar, through the lens viewing/focusing feel, and the CL is essentially a state of the art digital body with nice controls in a slightly smaller form factor. The R lenses work beautifully with it; you need to get mount adapters to fit them: I recommend using the stack of Leica R Adapter M on top of Leica M Adapter L. This nets the most advantage in that once you have both these adapters, you can use L, M or R mount lenses on the CL and have full access to the Leica lens profiles for the M and R lenses.

Later, if you find yourself wanting them, you can add TL or SL lenses for autofocus and other features, M lenses should you like to try any of those (like the excellent Voigtländers or Zeiss M mounts), and other R lenses. The CL body is extremely adaptable and versatile, produces super image quality.

And if you find yourself really wanting a digital M body as well, you can use the same R Adapter M to use your R lenses on the digital M10 body along with the Visoflex EVF accessory as well as any M mount lenses you have acquired as well.

This is the most economical way to move along into digital Leica bodies, IMO. You can do it in small steps, both with respect to viewfinder type and costs; and the CL body is less than half the cost of the least expensive new M body.

G
 
Here's a different perspective: you want the rangefinder experience? Go for it. It is not clear how much longer that experience will be available. It is a different way of shooting. You've got the itch and you really won't know how it works for you until you try.

I have an R4s and an R5. They are solid, solid cameras - no doubt. But the M's are where my heart is. Buy an older M3 with a reasonably accurate shutter and your most-used focal length Leica lens. Shoot it for a year. You don't like it? You'll probably be able to sell it for most of what you have into it. Here's more bad advice: buy the M and lens on credit. Let the interest ride for a year. You like the camera? Keep it and sell your R6 at that time. Don't like the M? Sell it and think of your credit card interest as a rental fee for the year.

Bottom line: I wouldn't sell your R6 and lenses. That's your "home base," your default, your comfort zone.
 
R6 were the best of the R series. Think VERY hard before selling a good one. The biggest issue is repairs and who can do them.

I would rent to borrow an M to see if it is for you as it is not for everybody. Older ones often need expensive repairs which you will not detect as a new owner.

Pics are the same for the same generation of lenses.

Nikons are very close and have advantages of Leica.

To be honest a leica is a money pit which I would not get into if you even have to think about money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kxl
Considering my first Leica M body (film)
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
2K
rfaspen
rfaspen
H
first steps with the KEKS M Meter
Replies
6
Views
258
rezalon
R
macmx
Best M body for 75mm?
Replies
2
Views
356
Harry the K
H
kxl
TT Artisan M-Z (or M-E) 6-bit Mark 2 Adapter
Replies
1
Views
105
bcostin
bcostin
tortellini_man
first M mount film body
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
JohnGellings
J
Back
Top Bottom