The difference

<p>Was always thinking of buying a leica and now that prices are more affordable may get an R7 or R8 off ebay i know the rangefinder quality is better but for those who have changed from one brand to a leica i'd like to ask what specifically would you say is better than other brands?</p>

<p>The Leica is definitely superior ornamental jewelry (bling), especially among would-be one-percenters.<br>

Quite aside from that it is a fine camera and very well made by craftsman methods.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Leica & Zeiss M mount lenses are the best. There are some outstanding Nikon lenses and Zeiss lenses in M mount for Nikon. I knew someone who adapted the Leica R series lenses to his Nikon but he was not satisfied with the results. Given the choice between an R series or a Nikon F3hp I would go with the Nikon. For Leica the best is the M6 (in film) with a 50mm Summicron. (I have no experience with the M9)</p>

<p>Is everyone sure that M quality is better than R quality? What is that statement based on? </p>

<p>Barry, the quality difference is likely based on the fact that the R series, R3 to R7, was based on Minolta designs. Not sure how many, if any, were built in Wetzlar. Discussions such as this one are largely based on opinions which may or may not be valid. Slightly off topic - I have a 1958 button-rewind M2 and a 1967 M4. Both of these cameras have served me well but there have been some issues with the M4, none with the M2. In my opinion, based on my experience over 40 years with these cameras is that the M2 has the edge in quality over the M4. Both cameras were made in Wetzlar.</p>

<p>I'm lucky enought to have used an R8 a couple years back. Both of the Vario-Elamar-R's were stunning, to say the least.<br>

A client dropped off an M6 with 35/2 Summicron and and R5 with two zooms.<br>

Hope i have the time to squeeze a dozen rolls through 'em both for a "definitve" comparison ( LOL)<br>

====<br>

I kinda miss the R8... 'twas an ugly beast, but a joy to hold and metering accuracy was tops.<br>

The R5 , to , me is a pretentious Minolta.... I much prefer the X-7 over some of the early R bodies ( and those Rokkors are nothing to sneeze at).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've owned an R8, R4s, and the Vario-Elmar 80-200 f4, the 24mm, and the lux 50mm (e55). Glass was amazing. Nothing to complain about - only wish I could have tried it on a digital body to compare it with the M lenses I currently have.</p>

<p>The reason I sold the R system is because of the weight - I travel, and weight is a big issue. Other than that, I was perfectly happy with the R's. 'Cept the R4s had a sticky shutter, and both bodies were quite loud (shutters). Having used some Nikon film and digital SLR's before, I honestly prefer the Nikon bodies. I personally loved the R8. It just felt so good and solid in the hand.</p>

<p>As for the M's. I love 'em :D... Can't say M's are better than the R's. I guess it comes down to what you need - and there are definitely more lens choices for the M system. If I were you, I'd go straight for the M's (I had the option of buying the M's over the R's; bought the R's, then sold them, and got the M's). Size, weight, the experience is pure pleasure. Yes, I am a Leica fanboy, although their digital offerings do not make sense to me (yet). </p>

<p>Oh, and to answer your question: I cannot say that Leica is worth the cost "upgrade" over the Nikons. Are they better? IMHO, yes. But that's a subjective thing. There are thousands of photographers that are more than happy with their Nikons - so see for yourself. I personally am happy with the Leicas (and Zeiss glass), although not too happy to pay the super-inflated prices. But hey, at least they're going up :D.</p>

<p>I prefer the rendering of the images, the sharpness, and the build quality of the lenses. The glass is truly built without compromise. It's solid mechanically, and performs solidly as well. I have been able to notice the differences in the pictures (Nikon vs Leica/Zeiss), so I'm content. Others will disagree. As mentioned, Zeiss makes wonderful glass for the Nikon mount, which I haven't tried, but would love to, as the Nikon film bodies (not the cheap plastic ones) are excellent. </p>

<p>I was recently tempted to buy a Nikon film SLR, and 2-3 lenses for it, but weight/travel considerations won. Sad, cause I sort of miss the Nikons.</p>

 

<p>I was thinking more of the lenses. But yes the M2-M3's have a great build quality to them. I've never seen an SL or SL2 before. But Doug Herr had lots of good things to say about them and general knowledge on the Leica R and its lenses and he is the best bird and nature photographers I know of. To bad he hasn't been around. He is a person I would consider a real authority on those cameras and would have lots of knowledge on their build quality. </p>

<p>Having owned both M's and R's (as well as an SL and SL2 - both tanks), If I were going to buy a used Leica, I'd look at one of the rangefinders. I've had an R3, R4, R4s, an R6.2 - all fine cameras, but saw very little difference in my prints and chromes versus the Canons and Nikons I had at the time. Also owned an M4-2, an M4P and an M6. The rangefinder lenses are just jewels, superb results and actually the M's were very fast and easy to use. I'd venture to say a perfect condition M4-2 or M4P could be passed to your grandkids (provided film is still available then).</p>

<p>It's a mistake to think M lenses are better then R, unless it's the very recent formulations (e.g., asphereical). Any difference is usually to camera shake or something like that. I know, I use both.</p>

<p>It's a mistake to think M lenses are better then R, unless it's the very recent formulations (e.g., asphereical). Any difference is usually to camera shake or something like that. I know, I use both.</p>

<p>It's a mistake to think M lenses are better then R, unless it's the very recent formulations (e.g., asphereical). Any difference is usually to camera shake or something like that. I know, I use both.</p>

<p>Having owned both Nikon gear and Leica M & R gear for a number of years, I think it is an exercise in futility to generalize one is "better than the other". Each is well made, durable, and has excellent glass available for it. Most photographers never rise to the level that their camera and glass can offer, I don't think it makes a whit of difference in terms of what most of us achieve, which camera we are using. The lenses, of course, are unique and one can compare specific lenses against their specific counterparts...and, yes, there are differences....although I doubt that the differences translate into one being "better" than the other, mere having different rendition characteristics which may or may not help the photographer achieve his/or her vision of a specific photograph. What I can say is that, from my experience, the Leica R glass always seemed physically heavier than its counterparts, and often the optical formulation was designed to optimize overall performance near full aperture; color rendition seemed a little warmer than Nikon equivalents, and the throw in the focusing scales was often longer than the Nikon glass. As far as the RF lenses being better than the R glass, people often try to compare modern RF lenses with much older R formulations, which is a totally unfair comparison. Overall, when comparing same date of design/manufacture there is much more in similarity than in discernable differences in performance. If you really want lots of detail on each lens, I strongly encourage you to read Erwin Putts' Compendium, which will overwhelm you with detailed analyses and historical information. As far as shooting with R cameras, I preferred either the SL2 or the R8 over all other models. But again, each model has something to recommend it. I was stunned when once somebody gave me an R3 because he hated it, I used it for a couple of years and found it delivered on all counts, was reliable and was quite easy to achieve excellent photographs. Good luck in your quest, but don't let yourself get sidetracked by gushes of enthusiasm in any one direction. The end result (the photograph) will probably be indistinguishable from the same shot with the equivalent gear of the M or the Nikons.</p>

<p>I agree with the Stephens. When comparing the optics (M and R) of a similar vintage their quality is pretty well equivalent. In the last decade Leica has revamped many of their M lenses making many of them superior on paper at least to the last generation of R lenses, but at a tremendous $ cost to you.</p>

<p>The theory is that since there is much less distance between lens and film, the M-mount lenses will perform better. Much of this may be do to the lack of a mirror, which means M-mount lenses can be sharper when handholding.</p>

<p>In practice, M-mount lenses *may* be less prone to internal flare and ghosting because there is less air space, but that depends on who you ask. The mirror-slap thing is the only 'hard' difference, and even that is minor. The biggest difference is that M-mount lenses cost more, and hold their value better, because they are much more collectible. There is also a wider variety of lenses for the M-mount (some of them much nicer than the R-mount versions), but they cost MUCH more.</p>

<p>If you compare the same lens, in the same design, from the same era, in both mounts you should get two identical photos, less any difference from mirror slap or ghosting.</p>

I've been a long time M shooter, but never had anything to do with the Leica SLR bodies. A chap at the local camera

shop, whom I engage in long chats with from time to time about photography and also cameras, personally owns over 1600

cameras! He tells me that the Leica R8/R9 is the best SLR he's ever used, and he's used them all.

<p>The Leica R series are great cameras but they differ from the M series substantially. The R series bodies are well made and can be found used for a lot less than M series bodies. The R series lenses are very good - probably the best 35mm SLR lenses out there in general (although the Contax SLR lenses are also very good). In real world use I find there is a difference between the images form a Leica R or Contax SLR lens and my Canon lenses. That said I think it is more of a design philosophy than one being "better" than the other. The Japanese lenses tend to be very sharp at the centre, have bold colour and high contrast for the in focus areas. German lenses tend to have a different set of trade offs having more subtle colours and less aberrations in the out of focus plane. This is a great generalization and obviously depends on the lens but there does seem to be a difference in the philosophical approach and trade offs taken. This is not a function of where the lens is made but a function of the designer.<br>

The Leica M series lens designers have an advantage over the R series designers as they do not need to worry about the space taken by a reflex mirror which allows them to have less compromises - especially for wide angle lenses. However, for me the big difference between the M series cameras and SLRs is the approach to shooting. The rangefinder is a different experience from an SLR and for me this creates more of a difference than the actual lens quality. It is hard to explain but while I take a lot less images with my Leica M bodies than my Canon SLRs many of my favourite shots have been taken with the Leica M bodies.<br>

If you are buying an SLR and don't need all of the electronic aids (modes, metering auto wind etc...) or AF then the old Canon F1s ( three different bodies) and Nikon Fs (F to F3) are remarkably well made, have very good lens options and are a lot cheaper than the Leica R bodies and lenses so you may want to consider them.</p>

<p>Wow what a response thanks and Phil's response is something that i have heard that somehow the closer distance of the lens in the rangefinders allows the designer greater ability to do what he wishes. I have gone from Minolta to sony so now have some zeiss lenses but i also have a 24mm VFC lens which i understand is similar in design to an elmarit. The Minolta AF lenses were definitely better than the rokkors which forced me to go AF even though i loved my X-700 and i have several very fine lenses but rangefinders are probably better but more for street photography and travel whereas my preference would be landscape and nature. There is a local photographer who used M6's and for his still life work he would use an old 35mm lens i stress the focal length not format which had 49 iris blades this was about 50 years old he loved the bokeh and he was a fine art printer but i lost contact with him</p>

<p>I have Nikon digital SLR's, an R6 and several R lenses, owned an m6 and a couple of summicron's for a couple of years, and used OM cameras for 30 years. Personally I think some Leica lenses have something special, especially at close distances, but not everyone sees what I think I see. I adapted my R35/2.8 Elmarit to a Nikon D700 for a while but it didn't seem the same and I converted it back to film. I know that the R6 shares features with Minolta, but to me the R6 feels better made than the M6 and certainly much more solid than the OM bodies I owned. Perhaps the earlier rangefinders are different, I haven't used them. In any case, using a rangefinders is different from SLR's. I kept the R6 as my film camera over the m6 because, given the few times a year I shoot film, I couldn't justify the expense of the M lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i'd like to ask what specifically would you say is better than other brands?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The <strong>price</strong>, if you're selling.</p>

 

<p>IMHO, John Boyle is right-on: M2 M2 M2!!</p>

<p>The Leicaflex series of SLR cameras are very resistent to vibration. Something to do with their breaking system. You can shoot at one or two stops slower then corresponding brands. I've gotten sharp images at 1/15, hand held, with focal length ranges from 35 to 90. And they're build similar to the M3, M2 and M4. Lastly, Leica still has spare parts for these cameras. Just great cameras. </p>