Minolta Leicas

[HuubL]

Whoever started the story that Leica R cameras are substandard when compared to contemporary professional Nikons and Canons?
I just got an R5: awesome, hefty, sturdy body that would equally well hammer nails.

 

[back alley]

i never heard that story...

 

[Dwig]

The early R series bodies were built on a Minolta chassis. That said, it was a darn good Minolta chassis, the XE series, from before the slide down to the plastic bodies 2 generations (in camera terms) later.

 

[dacookieman]

Mine says Hello! Right back at ya!

 

[johannielscom]

Mine is a Minolta X700, which I team up with a 58mm 1.2 and an 85mm 1.7 (both of which I'm unfortunately trying to sell in the Classifieds, alas) and Leitz ain't got nothing on that kit. Honestly, I fail to see how the R5 could be any nicer 😉

Happy shooting Huub!

 

[HuubL]

@Johan, thank you. Good luck with the sale.
@dacookieman, Nice twin. How come the logo and "R5" on mine are on opposite sites as on yours?

 

[David Hughes]

The Minoltas are pretty good in their own right too...

Regards, David

 

[dacookieman]

@Johan, thank you. Good luck with the sale.
@dacookieman, Nice twin. How come the logo and "R5" on mine are on opposite sites as on yours?

Variants - Red logo on advance (ELW) or rewind (ELP) side of camera; in 1988 the red logo changed from 'Leica' to 'Leitz'

 

[HuubL]

Variants - Red logo on advance (ELW) or rewind (ELP) side of camera; in 1988 the red logo changed from 'Leica' to 'Leitz'

I see, yours is a late, mine is an early version. Are there other differences?

 

[Dwig]

The Minoltas are pretty good in their own right too...

Regards, David

+1, at least the SRT, XE, and XD series, along with the XK. I was never fond of the X- series or the Maxxum/Dynax series. Even the early SR series (pre SRT) were rather good for their day.

 

[jajong]

I see, yours is a late, mine is an early version. Are there other differences?

Hi Huub, it is the other way round: the LEICA logo is the "late"version, assembled in Solms. The other one is "early" and assembled in Portugal. No difference in quality whatsoever. The Minolta chassis would be the XD chassis in this case. The R3 was based on the XE (also a terrific machine).
Have fun with it!
Cheers,
Jan

 

[HuubL]

Thanks Jan,
Stupid of me. It must be the same as with M6s of the period. Most have a "Leica" dot, but I have an early "Leitz" one.

 

[Graybeard]

Whoever started the story that Leica R cameras are substandard when compared to contemporary professional Nikons and Canons?
I just got an R5: awesome, hefty, sturdy body that would equally well hammer nails.

Leica got off to a bad start with the R4 which was often unreliable (and sometimes not repairable). The zinc alloy outer shell seems to corrode easily and the black finish can lift in spots; this is pretty ugly. Neither of these faults conveys an image of quality.

Gus Lazzardi has posted, elsewhere, some favorable comments about the R-series optics and metering system. You might check for thwm with Google.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

+1, at least the SRT, XE, and XD series, along with the XK. I was never fond of the X- series or the Maxxum/Dynax series. Even the early SR series (pre SRT) were rather good for their day.

WUT? 😡

I mean, what do you mean by «even»? 😡

The Minolta SR-7, particularly the very Bauhaus-like uncluttered last version, is «even today» a very, very, very useful camera. It's one of my favourite SLRs, and I like this model more than her German cousin Leicaflex Standard. One can read the exposure meter «even» when the mirror is locked up! The Leicaflex doesn't have that feature. (And then the Leicaflex SL abandoned the MLU facility 🙁)

 

[lxmike]

I own a Minolta XE-1 a very sturdy camera