Leica R Bodies!

Don't got any Leica R bodies but Leica R lens are great on my Canon 6d. Elmarit 35 is one of the lens that is normally attached to it, as well as Summilux 50 and 90.

Great lens. Love the way they render monochrome on Canon 6d.

Marcelo
 
The R8 I had seemed about the same magnification as my current R6.2 and Leicaflex SL. all of them have a more comfortable eyepoint than my old Nikon F, FM2, and F2, closest to the F3 high eyepoint finder. None seem “tiny” to me.
 
Godfrey said:
The R8 I had seemed about the same magnification as my current R6.2 and Leicaflex SL. all of them have a more comfortable eyepoint than my old Nikon F, FM2, and F2, closest to the F3 high eyepoint finder. None seem “tiny” to me.
Click to expand...

Just in terms of viewfinder mag,

Leicaflex SL = .9 with very good eye relief

R6, F, F2 = .8 with good eyerelief

R8 and F3HP = .75 with excellent eye relief (high eye point if I recall) but a smaller image.

FM2 = squinty, terrible eye relief

For me, the best of the Leica SLR's was the Leicaflex SL. A big, bold, beautiful viewfinder and exceptionally well damped shutter. Followed by the R8/9.
 
The SL2 is head and shoulders above any other SLR of mine, other than the exceptional viewfinder of the Pentax LX with the 50mm f1.2 lens (it should be bright).

I think the R8 is good and it doesn't seem tiny. Just smaller and less helpful than the SL2. In every respect that is one great camera.
 
Rs have to be the outstanding value for money in Leica photography. From experience with them, I commend the late R4 and R4S MOD2 - very reliable bodies, I find.

The under-rated Minolta zoom is a super lens too
 
They're all Minolta cameras with the exception of the Leicaflex (I think) and the R8/9. The latter are just amazing devices so long as you find more reliable, later versions.--especially the R8.

They were designed in-house by Leica so you really can't be lumped together with their predecessors.
 
I started with the Leicaflex SL, of which I have two. I thought the R8 was quite a lump when they were introduced, but in holding and using one, they're very nice. Both the SL's and R8 fit my hands well, are well built, and fun to use.

My lusted-for R camera was the olive green R3 Safari. I'd ordered one online and it arrived in mint condition. Unfortunately, the camera was totally dead and I couldn't get the shutter to work no matter what I tried.

I like the unique program mode design of the R5 and R7, so I'm looking to get one of those.

I have no interest whatsoever in the R6 or R6.2 because I have plenty (dozens) of high quality all-manual all-mechanical SLR's.
 

Attachments

  • 20200301a.jpg
    20200301a.jpg
    43.8 KB · Views: 0
  • 20200301b.jpg
    20200301b.jpg
    30.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 20200301c.jpg
    20200301c.jpg
    41.7 KB · Views: 0
f.hayek said:
They're all Minolta cameras with the exception of the Leicaflex (I think) and the R8/9. The latter are just amazing devices so long as you find more reliable, later versions.--especially the R8.

They were designed in-house by Leica so you really can't be lumped together with their predecessors.
Click to expand...

I have a bunch of Minolta SLRs and the Leicas are nothing like them.
Minolta did provide help with the electronics and some mechanical basics, but the build, fit, finish, feature set, mirror and box assemblies are entirely different.

The most similar ones were the R3 and Minolta XE5/7. After that there was a major deviation.
 
I have an XD7 and an R4s and R7, different metering, and handling, but same shutter sound. I also have the Minolta 35-70 zoom. Given the cost of the Leica version and body vs the Minolta ones, if that is the only lens, stay with Minolta.
 
R4s, R5, and SL. I like them all. The electronics failed in my R4s, but were fixed before the advent of digital. Love the lenses. Love, love, the lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom