Minolta Leicas

HuubL

HuubL

hunter-gatherer
Local time
8:21 AM
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
2,405
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.

R5.jpg
 
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.
 
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!
 
@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?
 
HuubL said:
@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?
Click to expand...

Variants - Red logo on advance (ELW) or rewind (ELP) side of camera; in 1988 the red logo changed from 'Leica' to 'Leitz'
 
David Hughes said:
The Minoltas are pretty good in their own right too...

Regards, David
Click to expand...

+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.
 
HuubL said:
I see, yours is a late, mine is an early version. Are there other differences?
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
HuubL said:
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.

R5.jpg
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dwig said:
+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.
Click to expand...
WUT? :mad:

I mean, what do you mean by «even»? :mad:

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 :()
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom