Godfrey
somewhat colored
Different strokes for different folks.So thankful we all have different taste buds.
On a different note I always wondered why the Leica R system never gained the popularity with photojournalist like Nikon did. & the few journalist who did go the Leica route chose the M system.
The cost of lenses was the biggest blocker.
In the late 1998s I had been using a Nikon kit nearly 20 years and was interested to upgrade. I set up "what if" lists of Nikon, Canon, Contax, and Leica R8 systems, all the high-end body and the same set of four focal length/speed lenses. Nikon and Canon priced out very close (around $5000), Contax was a bit of a premium (about $6300) due to the CZ lenses. The eye opener was the Leica R8 ... $16,000. The body was only a bit more expensive, the cost of lenses astronomically more.
While I very much appreciate the quality and 'goodness' of the Leica R lenses, it was simply beyond my pay grade to afford that kind of basic system cost, and I imagine the same is true for most photojournalists. I feel so lucky now that I have actually assembled a ten-lens Leica R kit that cost me less than $5000 AND the lenses work so well not only on the Leicaflex SL but on the Sony A7.
G
Ronald M
Veteran
With few exceptions, R`s were good cameras. The better lenses have become really expensive because the adapt to digital.
You can get a very nice lens set for not too much if you stay away from the APO `s and 21/35 zoom, 35/70 2.8, last version 50 1.4, 80 1.4 Be sure to buy 3 cam lenses.
You can get a very nice lens set for not too much if you stay away from the APO `s and 21/35 zoom, 35/70 2.8, last version 50 1.4, 80 1.4 Be sure to buy 3 cam lenses.
gb hill
Veteran
That $16,000 price tag estimate is astromical, especially on a photojournalist salary I woud think. Didn't realize the lenses were so expensive. I always assumed Nikon gear too expensive for my budget, one reason why I chose the Canon fd system.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The top end Nikon and Canon lenses were always pretty close once the Canon F1 series came out. Prior to that, the FT/FTb etc were a bit lower than comparable Nikon bodies and the FL/FD lenses were a bit lower as well. Canon set its sights and pricing models on Nikon in the middle 1970s and achieve virtual parity in market share by the time they tossed the FL/FD mount and went to EOS.
Photojournos could afford a Leica M and a couple of lenses, but most SLR equipment was always going to be bought on the basis of having a much larger lens kit to work with, the big advantage of SLRs over RFs. Leica did not compromise on lens quality or price. Just too rich for the rank and file like me when it was all new...
I just passed on a mint R8 for sale myself. That was my Object of Desire in 1996-1998. My Leicaflex SL bodies will do for the little 35mm film I shoot these days. I'm just really happy that I have the lenses I always wanted now, and that they perform so well on the Sony A7 body.
G
Johnmcd
Well-known
Just flying back to Sydney after a week in Madrid (photos to follow). On the plane I saw a documentary on Anton Corbijn. And I am 99% sure he was shooting an R8/9 along with a H'blad. That's some serious street cred!
Thanks for all the info and advice. Passed up on a 50/1.4 on ebay as it got too expensive. Looks like a trip to KEH before I can appreciate the VF.
Cheers - John
Thanks for all the info and advice. Passed up on a 50/1.4 on ebay as it got too expensive. Looks like a trip to KEH before I can appreciate the VF.
Cheers - John
nobbylon
Veteran
The 50 summicron is the better lens. I seem to remember that there were two different 1.4's and the 1st version wasn't great.
Fwiw, Leica R 'wasn't great' could well be someone else's perfection.
I've not had a Leica lens, both M and R that I didn't like the look of the pictures.
With other manufacturers I've always had to cherry pick.
Fwiw, Leica R 'wasn't great' could well be someone else's perfection.
I've not had a Leica lens, both M and R that I didn't like the look of the pictures.
With other manufacturers I've always had to cherry pick.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
re: bolded ... Yes!
I have both a '64 Summicron-R 50/2 (single cam) and a '72 Summilux-R 50/1.4 (three cam). Stopped down to f/4-5.6, they are virtually indistinguishable in rendering qualities. From wide open to that point, they have very individual rendering signatures. The 'Lux has a lovely softness and glowy quality, while still maintaining detail, wide open which quickly turns to the biting sharpness at f/5.6 where the 'Cron is more sharp and flatter field even wide open, the transition to biting sharpness is quieter.
Love 'em both.
Of course, the 'Cron is stop-down metering only on the Leicaflex SL and the 'Lux is fully compatible with the SL's open aperture metering. Both work beautifully on the A7. G
nobbylon
Veteran
re: bolded ... Yes!
I have both a '64 Summicron-R 50/2 (single cam) and a '72 Summilux-R 50/1.4 (three cam). Stopped down to f/4-5.6, they are virtually indistinguishable in rendering qualities. From wide open to that point, they have very individual rendering signatures. The 'Lux has a lovely softness and glowy quality, while still maintaining detail, wide open which quickly turns to the biting sharpness at f/5.6 where the 'Cron is more sharp and flatter field even wide open, the transition to biting sharpness is quieter.
Love 'em both.
G
I have a series 1 summicron 50 that has been on my black SL from new, think it's 2 cam but maybe 3 converted. For some reason that I can't explain in technical terms I just like the pictures more than the 2nd version. It's sharp enough even at f2. Open aperture metering with the extra cam.
To get the best from the v1 it has been said somewhere that it needs the uv filter attached. Mine has been from new.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Interesting .. I think I've shot with it both with and without the UV filter, not noticed any difference really. But next time I have it out I'll do some testing.
Mine could use a CLA, and Leica USA says they can still do the single-cam to later model update (amazing ... it is a 50 year old lens!). Only thing is that since I use it mostly on the A7 now, a CLA will cost about $100 through my local tech where having Leica update the mount and do the CLA will cost about $400 or so. I've been thinking about it, but still haven't decided.
They're all good performers really. With these R lenses, it's more what you like than whether the lens is good...
G
GarageBoy
Well-known
How big is the hunchback of solms compared to, say, a Nikon F4
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I played with one at a camera store. First, I loved it (it was a Leica, it's a VERY original design)... but the weight was one reason for concern... and the viewfinder wasn't all that great. Perhaps outdoors it may be, but indoors, and with not quite dim light, but not bright indoor lighting, it was a pain to focus it.
The truth is that after that I never got why the R body was that hot among some people... The M, I get, but this one... I don't.
But I respect those who like it.
The truth is that after that I never got why the R body was that hot among some people... The M, I get, but this one... I don't.
But I respect those who like it.
nobbylon
Veteran
Got to say that I think you are the first person that I've heard knock the viewfinder on an R8! Each to their own but I found it to be better than everything apart from a Leicaflex. Granted I used it mainly with a 60 and images just popped in and out of focus no matter the ambient light.
nobbylon
Veteran
Don't get me wrong here, I'm a bona fide Nikon user through and through but the F4 is the only F series I disliked. My recollection is that it was bigger than the R8. Mine had the larger battery pack. Ugly to look at and neither one thing or the other. A hybrid camera mixing analogue controls with a/f. Thank heavens they dreamed up the F5. The R8 is way nicer to use than an F4. I don't say it's more reliable, just nicer!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
In specification, they're close in size and weight. In the hand, the R8 feels much nicer, smaller.
G
GarageBoy
Well-known
Thanks
I'd like to pick up a Leica R system one day, but it seems to me, its either deal with flaky electronics, shutter lag, or an "ugly" + large camera, if I want to use one that has AE
I'd like to pick up a Leica R system one day, but it seems to me, its either deal with flaky electronics, shutter lag, or an "ugly" + large camera, if I want to use one that has AE
nobbylon
Veteran
A serviced R3 maybe? I've had a total of 4 R4's I think and 3 of them had electrical issues, mainly mode dial switch related but don't forget that these cameras are 30 years old now and likely been sat in a closet for 20 of those. The other had been serviced by Leica and was basically a new R4 and I really wish I hadn't sold it. My point is that if you want any old camera to work as intended without issue then it needs to be serviced with the correct and preferably new service parts.
All old cameras have their issues, it matters not what make they are. Read enough here and you will find more Leica M's going off for CLA than anything else has ever been talked about.
Shutter lag? I know what you mean with regard to the operation of the R4,5,6 and 7 but I never missed a shot with mine and I believe it's not actually lag, more shutter release travel and mirror dampening.
Ugly? I'd say a metered F or F2, an F4 are ugly but because they have stood the usage test have become ikons and therefore desired by people as the bench marks for others to try and achieve. I'd say the R8 and R9 are incredibly well designed SLR's with big easy to use controls, protected re wind and very smooth operation.
If you want to use R lenses I would not hesitate to use R bodies as long as they have been serviced like any other camera we discuss here.
regards john
teddy
Jose Morales
The Macro Elmarit is a special lens. It miss focuses on my R5 too, but I manage to get fantastic images from it even though I sense that I miss focus. The out of focus areas and the whole image over all has some beef to it that I can't explain.
Leica R5, Macro Elmarit 60/2.8
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143101
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143101
Congratulations!
Many opinions here but get a lens!
The original 50mm Summicron-R when released was considered the sharpest
normal lens yet tested..1964?
The cam problem is easily solved, the cost not!
I have had friends who told me of very high prices to do cams and calibrate.
Price wise the R-lenses were so expensive, that it killed sales..
Please don't tell me about the cost of German labor.
The truth is quite a few lenses were Minolta and one a Sigma!
The "Hunchback of Solms" is a fitting comment.
Not sure what to call those bloated SLR's from Canon and Nikon.
Many are same size or larger than a Pentax 6x7!
That needed wheels for transportation..
Get a lens that works, use the rig.
Decide.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143101
Congratulations!
Many opinions here but get a lens!
The original 50mm Summicron-R when released was considered the sharpest
normal lens yet tested..1964?
The cam problem is easily solved, the cost not!
I have had friends who told me of very high prices to do cams and calibrate.
Price wise the R-lenses were so expensive, that it killed sales..
Please don't tell me about the cost of German labor.
The truth is quite a few lenses were Minolta and one a Sigma!
The "Hunchback of Solms" is a fitting comment.
Not sure what to call those bloated SLR's from Canon and Nikon.
Many are same size or larger than a Pentax 6x7!
That needed wheels for transportation..
Get a lens that works, use the rig.
Decide.
Johnmcd
Well-known
Thanks for the continuing commentary. All great information. Just waiting for the camera to arrive then it looks like I'm off to KEH for a Summicron
Thanks - John
Thanks - John
skopar steve
Well-known
Some early models had interface issues with the winder. Something to look for. I had one with 35, 50, 90, and 180mm lenses. As others have mentioned handling is great. As I recall the R8 also has a built in flash meter.
Yes it is large for a 35mm body. And with it's size comes a little extra weight. However unless your 4'5" tall and weigh 65 lbs, it should not be an issue. I've never found using a large camera for "street photography" to be an impediment.
Yes it is large for a 35mm body. And with it's size comes a little extra weight. However unless your 4'5" tall and weigh 65 lbs, it should not be an issue. I've never found using a large camera for "street photography" to be an impediment.