m versus r

hello everybody,

i?m new to photonet and this is my first thread. maybe it has been talked about lots

of times and therefore bores a bit (though i didn?t find any info through the search-

function): are there any m- and r-users able and willing to compare both systems

quality-wise? (not regarding the cameras themselves, only the results, this means: the

lenses)

 

after my mother passed me her old m2 years ago i only shot with m-system-gear -

except for a minilux for the holiday-use, and was never interested in anything else

because i was perfectly happy with what i got. my interest arose after carefully

reading rogliatty?s book on leica lenses from the beginning of time until 90-

something. i noticed remarkable differences between the m- and the r-lensdesigns.

generally, the r-lenses seem to have much more elements and mostly much different

designs. i wondered if this might be due to vf vs. slr design or to quality-issues. any

opinions?

The wide angle lenses for the R are what is called "retrofocus" meaning that there is more space behind the real of the lens than the focal length would indicate. This is required by the need to have room for the mirror to swing up without hitting the back of the lens. These lenses have a more complicated design with more elements than standard design wide angles that fit the M cameras. The French optical company Angenieux invented the basic design, and in the beginning the name "retrofocus" was trade marked by them.

After going from M to R...<p>

 

1. Use M if you prefer the wide to normal focal lengths, R if you like semi-wide to tele<p>

 

2. Use R if you prefer WYSIWYG viewfinding and close up photography<p>

 

3. Use M for lesser weight and street photography<p>

 

4. Save a bit of money on the R system - generally cheaper<p>

 

The lenses, on average, are both superb and you cant go wrong with either. In fact, many give very similiar results and even in some cases have the same fomula ( 50 summi + 90 elmarit for example ). M & R are very different - you need to decide your style of shooting<p>

 

After going from M to R...

 

1. Use M if you prefer the wide to normal focal lengths, R if you like weim-wide to tele

 

2. Use R if you prefer WYSIWYG viewfinding and close up photography

 

3. Use M for lesser weight and street photography

 

4. Save a bit of money on the R system - generally cheaper

 

The lenses, on average, are both superb and you cant go wrong with either. In fact, many give very similiar results and even in some cases have the same fomula ( 50 summi + 90 elmarit for example ). M & R are very different - you need to decide your style of shooting

<p>

www.antiquecameras.net

Thomas, I have M (M4 and MP) and R (R8). Lens-wise there have been 3-4 generations of designs for most lenses in the M series, whereas with a few exceptions most R lenses are only 2 generations deep, with the second generations coming sporadically over a wide time span. So it is very tricky to make comparisons unless we know exactly what M lens you want compared to what R lens. I personally do not own any of the latest versions of R lenses, and only a couple of recent vintage M lenses, and none in the same focal length/speed so as to be able to make a meaningful comparison. I have shot with Pentax screwmount Super Multi Coated lenses for many years, and even there I can't compare directly to my R lenses because I don't have a one that is the same focal length and f stop in both brands. All I can say is that I am no more and no less pleased with the overall picture quality of my M, R or Pentax lenses. All the differences for me rest with the bodies. The Spotmatics have no way to put a corrective diopter on the eye piece that will still let me use my distance glasses, so I no longer use those cameras. The R8 has a corrective eye piece built-in, plus the automatic exposure modes (I normally use spot metering and aperture-priority with exposure lock) and fast loading. The M with its rangefinder/viewfinder is the only one I can comfortably focus in really dim surroundings with any speed or focal length lens, and the R8 is ok as long as I'm using one of the f/2 lenses, though the 50 and 90 are definitely easier to focus than the 35. What I do notice about the R8, and which surprised me a lot, was that I can handhold it to the same speeds as my Ms, in this respect much better than the Spotmatics. Partly I suppose it's due to excellent mirror damping, and partly I suspect is the R8 mass absorbs more vibration and the shape gives me a steadier hold. In all, I think that unless you're into shooting the Sunday comics taped to a wall, you will find more striking differences between M and R in the way the bodies function. That'd be the way I'd choose between them.

Actually come to think of it, my 35 Cron R and 50 Cron R are latest versions, although the 35 is designed in 1977 and the 50 in 1976. What I meant was, I do not own any of the very newest R lenses like the 50 Lux E60 or the 90 APO or like that.

Tom

 

I will read and respond to your message after you learn how to punctuate.

 

Goodby,

Jerry

FWIW a simple answer not possible.With a slr you see beautifully but focus badly(this includes auto-focus) The viewfinder or rangefinder not that great at seeing what a lens is actually doing...but focus is spot on. in time you will have to use few lenses on M but with slr always carry more!! the R series esp the R8/9 are monsters in size and lack the performance of Nikon and Canon. The lenses "may" be better.. but doubtful.Some were made by Zeiss(japan not in germany) others by Sigma.Thses are all zooms. The M is superb. Which should you get? What do you shoot?

Jason, I think that if you have a good focusing aid like the split prism in the SLR camera,

then focusing accuracy can be very good as well. Of course, this means that you'll have to

use fairly fast lenses, or else the split prism will black out, and is more of a hindrance than

anything. Also, some people feel that focusing with long lenses is rather difficult with the

M system, and of course this is where the strength of the SLR becomes more obvious.

 

I think an SLR is a very good complement to the M, because both systems where one

system is lacking in one area, the other system is able to make up it. Personally, I still feel

that the SLR is generally more flexible, but there's nothing like the experience of shootin

with an M as well.

thanks for postings. my point was not so much about which system to choose

because i?ll be shooting with m-gear anyway (basically because i got used to this

system in more than 25 years). seeing all these lens-designs i just wondered that one

company makes designs that are so different. the m-lenses seem to follow a straight

path of development, whereas r-lenses like eg. the super-elmar 3,5/15 (13-

element!!!) or the elmarit-r 2,8/19 (12-element!!!) seem to be of totally different

origin. especially the 35mm lens-designs differ a lot. the summarons, summiluxs and

summicrons 35 from the m-line of the sixties to eighties are quite similar designs,

whereas the summilux r 1,4/35 (10-element from 84), summicron 2,0/35 (9-element

from 72) or the elmarit r 2,8/35 (7 element from 79) are totally different. i wondered

why a company that already has fantastic lenses like the summicron m 2,0/35 in the

stable doesn?t simply convert the same design to a different ® mount, but develops

completely new lenses. there must be a reason for that, either technical necessities or

quality-issues or production costs. and the results can?t be similar.

 

ps: dear gerald lehrer! i?m deeply sorry for offending you by obviously wrong

punctuation! maybe this is due to a german keyboard, maybe because it?s a

macintosh or maybe because english is a language i learned in school some 25-years

ago and rarely use in daily life. pity there is no psycho-teachers-anal-about-

punctuation-forum here.

Yes, your are right. There must be a reason for it. And that reason was pointed out by Al Kaplan in the very first reply to your question. They couldn't just take the good old M lens designs and use them in R/SL bodies without modification due to the required back clearance. And the wider the lens, the bigger modifications are required. Just compare the size and design of a 15mm R lens with a comparable 'M design' in Voigtlanders 15mm lens.

 

Since you sort of asked the same question again at the end of your latest lengthy reply, I wonder if there is still something unclear?

<BR>Gerald - it's "Goodbye".

a lot of the M users are also collectors, they drive up the prices of both M bodies and its

lens, in comparison, R bodies (SL, SL2) are much cheaper, it goes too for those 2 cam R

lens.

<I>Gerald - it's "Goodbye".</I><P>Shouldn't there also be a 'comma' after

"Tom".

OK, gentlemen. Thomas came here seeking information, not comments on his English language abilities, or insults from us. We have people here from all over the planet. Many of these people didn't grow up speaking English. We should be sharing our photographic knowledge with one another. I took two years of French in high school, mostly forgotten now, and know a smattering of Spanish and German. Perhaps living in a multi-lingual town like Miami makes us a bit more tolerant. Within a few blocks of my house I can hear Jamaican patoise (English based), Haitian kreyole (derived from French), half a dozen or more varieties of Spanish, and English spoken by former New Yorkers, New Englanders, folks from the mid-west, the deep south, assorted Canadian provinces, the Bahamas, even England itself! We get along and manage to conduct business with one another.

 

Stick to discussing cameras and photography!

Monkey, you beat me to it. Geraldo pretty much blew his own foot off with a rocket grenade there.

It is due to the different requirements for M versus R. The 90mm Elmarit of 1984 (I think ) the 135mm Elmarits of 1965/68 and the current 90mm APO summicrons are the only R lenses that are exactly the same designs as their M-lens equivalents. Some of the lenses you mentioned in the R system are the older versions - for example the current 35mm f2 is a six element design. If you compare comparable versions for the 28 - 135mm M and R lenses you will find less of a difference. Although some R's such as the 35/1.4 and the current 28/2.8 have floating elements which often increases the number of elements. This helps to improve close focussing quality - remember that these lenses focus closer than their M equivalents. The new 50mm lux ASPH-M design also has floating elements but uses aspherical elements which reduces the number of elements required. Most of the R lenses have not used aspherical elements in their designs. I can only hazard a guess that this may be because the larger the elements the more expensive aspherical elements become relative to their advantages. When things get really wide then elements tend to increase anyway - hence the 19mm and 15mm-Rs.

"Since you sort of asked the same question again at the end of your latest lengthy

reply, I wonder if there is still something unclear?"

 

yes, indeed, because thats the point, where my initial question came from: ok, they

made different designs in order to get more space between lens and film. but did

they succeed in maintaining m-quality with this workaround? or did leica reach

something that is optically even better? or are r-lenses generally speaking a

compromise? to put it simple: would i get better results (contrast, resolution,

distortion, flare, coma etc.) with a m- or a similar r-lens? for example with with the

above mentioned summicron 35 r or m? anybody able to compare, maybe other m-

and r-lens-aequivalents? (sorry for the punctuation...)

 

and gerald: if you are as precise with lenstesting than with punctuation, then i should

really try get my first post corrected to read your comment. must be fantastically

interesting!

Al--my comment was NOT aimed at the original poster but the person who

griped about his punctuation. I couldn't agree with you more. Sorry for any

confusion. (Actually I know better. I should have withheld my comment. No

response to trolls is much more effective than anything one can respond with.)

Both the M and the R are compromises. The M is compromised in telephoto and close up whereas the R is compromised in the speed and super wide department. So it is difficult to say which one is superior. If you want portability, low light capability and quietness, the M wins. If you want precise framing, telephoto and close up, then the R wins.

 

Where there are similar lenses in both the M and the R, the M design is either the same or better than the R design. But the R range is wider, have zooms, macro, 19mm and wider, 180 and longer.