Leica R - Thumbs up or down?

OurManInTangier

OurManInTangier

An Undesirable
Local time
11:10 PM
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
2,053
I sold my Leica M9 to free up some cash and return to some film shooting and had assumed that I would get myself another M - an ugly duckling in the hope the price will be reasonable:rolleyes: However, I've been wondering about trying out the Leica R system and have been reading up a little recently - which is where I thought the uber knowledgeable RFF'ers may be able to supplement my own meagre knowledge.

From what I've read the R6 and 6.2 are seen as the bodies to get as, like an M6, they're manual with a battery powered meter. Also, again from what I've read, they seem to have better quality rubber sealing(?)

So, can anyone give me their opinions, experiences, prejudices, stories or thoughts? I haven't turned my back on another M, but I'm open to new experiences;)

P.S. Apologies, I have an early start tomorrow so I'm off to my bed now but will check in again tomorrow.

Thanks
 
Never use the R6, but I had an R8 for one roll of film and did not like it at all. I expect the R6 is a very different beast though.
 
I like them but I find the price of appropriate glass a little high.

I also can't help thinking that an OM system would be cheaper and probably better in many ways ... though I'm not suggesting Zuiko lenses are better than Leica R.
 
I currently only have the R8.2 and SL2. They both feel like classical M's. Just be aware that the SL2 won't take ROM lenses.

I also very much like the R9. In spite of how it looks, it feels wonderful in my hands. And I very much like the auto modes. But I sold it because I didn't need 3 R cameras.

Now, I've also had R6, R7, R5 and I think R3. Didn't like any of them. They are bigger than the R6.2. And the thing I hated most was the shutter lag. There was no shutter lag in the R9, SL / SL2 or R6.2, no worse than the M.

Make sure you read this while shopping: http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/page6.html
 
I have owned most of the Leica SLR's at one time or another. "Weeded" out the stash and kept a R6 for use with the Mcaro Elmarit 60f2.8, The Macro Elmar 100mm f4 and the 180f3.4. It is a good camera, meter works well (important when you are using bellows and try to calculate extension factors). I had a Leica 6.2 which one day decided to shear the shutter blades - nicely sliced through them!!!! For sheer durarbility, I think nothing beats a SL/SL2 - but they are heavy and a bit clunky and if something goes wrong - very expensive to fix. I tried the R7, but I prefer manual control of the exposures. Also tried the R8 - did not like it at all. Probably a good design, but it was a beast to handle - and not very reliable (flash synch fried, meter went nuts - and later on strike, motor attachement never did what it was supposed to do - advance film and more stuff went "boink" at inopportune times! Admittedly, this was an early version of it and supposedly they fixed most of the stuff later).
My recommendation is a R6 or late R4S (early R4 had 228 hard soldered wires in the system - and if something went wrong - they all had to be de-soldered).
 
OR (big OR) there's the Leica M coming, with roughly the M9 form factor you're familiar with. it will take your favorite M lenses and, for example, 1-2 Leica R lenses to be selected which add macro, telephoto or shift capabilities (see Tom A's list above for a starting point).

just a thought, in case you'd like to continue with digital rather than return to film.

greetings from hamburg

rick
 
I never really liked the R3 although I used to have 2. I liked the SL2 I had but it was to big after all. The R8 I still have and I really like it a lot. But I like the form of the R6 better but I miss AE. So, leaves me with a R7 which suits me best.
 
I've got the R8 and R6. Although the R8 is big and to my eyes ugly I still prefer it to the R6. My R6 has terrible shutter lag - you press the shutter release, the camera has a think about it, then it takes the picture. The R8 has auto exposure and an accurate meter.
 
only r8 and r9 are worth considering, any body lower than these two I'd say japanese camera equivalent would be more superior and cheaper.
 
i like my r5 - -- a lot of snobbery against many of the r series.....

get one, the bodies are cheap, the lenses are not too expensive --- great system
 
R6's & R6.2's always looked nice. Was nice to see William Klein with his partially taped up Leica R the other night on a BBC documentary, and wondered which R it was. Salgado obviously was also quite fond of his R6.2's when he shot film by the mile. All anecdotal stuff really, but seems the R endeared itself to many different photographers..
 
the r series has it's own elegance.... the rangefinder purists look down their nose at them, but they also hate the m5 as well, so... get a body / lens combo from keh.com and have fun
 

Attachments

  • L1110001.jpg
    L1110001.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 1
I've got R6 and R7. The 6 is a little smaller, mechanical mostly and manual. The R7 does several modes very well. Both produce nice results, not much shutter lag on either.
 
I had a R4 once with a Leica 50mm lens on it, I liked it a lot, it had one of the
best focusing screens in it, it was so easy to focus.

Range
 
I owned 2 SL's and a SL mot at the time they were in production. I sold them after a year due to constant problems. I had shutter failure and meter problems in the SL's and the mot locked up totally. Also disliked the shape / feel of the bodies and they were very heavy . Very chunky feel and disliked the single stroke non ratcheted film advance and the focusing screen was terrible for my eyes.

I went back to M's and Nikon F2's. 3 F2's with 2 motors under heavy use with only one repair on a used motor after thousands of rolls. In 45 years of professional M use only three repairs that I can remember. One self timer spring on a M3 back in the early 70's, one RF calibration and a shutter failure in a new MP after a year of good use. Oh yes, my 1960 M2 that I've had for decades finally needed a CLA.

Im still using my M2 and original heavily used F2. I love Nikon glass too.

As to the SL glass, I had the v1 19, 28, 35, 50, 60, 90 Summicron and 180 apo. The 19 was only ok as was the 28, the 35, 50, 60 & 90 were good and the 180 superb. Overall Nikons glass was just as good.
 
Thumbs-up from me.

I own an R8 and a few lenses. I had an M2 and a nice kit of Contax SLR gear (RX, ST, 167) in my posession but sold the M2 and am selling of the Contax stuff. My take is that I'm mostly an SLR guy, thus the M2 sale. Choosing to keep the R8 over the Contax gear was a tougher choice. I think Contax got a lot more things right in the "user interface" (switches/buttons/knobs) of their SLRs, but the Leica just fits better in my hand. Sometimes I like to wind my own film and the R8 allows that. Slap on the big motor drive, and it's a brutish handful, but very easy to carry due to the built-in hand strap. The VF is huge and bright, and the lenses are great. So I'm keeping the R8 and selling the Contax gear (this is made easier because I still own a Contax G kit, so get to enjoy the Contax UI experience that way).

I have a series of YouTube vids up on the R8. Check them out for more details.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV6qKRhkLMw&list=PLC8757C82C2094143&feature=g-list
 
Thanks for all the responses, experiences and advice.

There's an R4 (early jobbie) for £95, body only, in very good condition. I know alot of people would recommend the later R4s, and Tom's talk of 228 hard soldered wires is enough to make me squeek, but I wonder if its worth a punt.

I have no R series lenses though and wouldn't really want to get into the full system, whereas if I go back to an M body I have a Canon 50 1.4 which just needs the blades fixing. Trouble there is prices appear higher than when I bought my first M6s' six years ago...and it hurts to pay more than I originally paid (and far more than I sold the old bodies off for.)

Time for a think
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom