Leica: M vs. R thinking about a switch

<p>If your main interest is street photography or travel, keep the M, if you want 1:1 macro, and long telephoto, get R. I use IIIc rangefinder and R4,R5,RE; now I use Canon 5d II with R lenses, it is much cheaper than M9 + M lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you are unsure about which system you prefer, I would keep the M no matter what else you may decide. After reading many posts, I'm uncertain what it is you hope to attain by switching.<br>

The R and the M are two different designs for different applications (which may overlap). It's like comparing horses to camels! Whatever you do, good luck. Better yet, do nothing!(IMHO)</p>

<p>Andrew, not sure what your photographic needs are but I went from an R4 to an M6 back in the mid-80's and never desired to go back into the R system. I love my M6 and will never sell it. Since then, I have added a IIIf and a button M2. I guess it all depends on your needs and what you are comfortable shooting. For me, I just couldn't adjust to all the exposure modes and deciding what to use (my shortcoming perhaps). I wanted something more simple, elegant, and discreet: that's where the M6 fit the bill. I guess I was always a manual camera type of guy.</p>

<p>I know the M glass is really high right now but I know I would have a hard time selling an M2 to get into the R system. But again, it's all personal preference. I wish you luck in your decision.</p>

<p>I used the R (and M system) for over 20 years and I always enjoyed the results. I had lenses 21-180mm and found all of them good (with some lesser ones among them such as 21mm SA (good but not up to modern 21's) and 35/2.8 Elmarit ver 1 (soft in the corners until f5.6)). I found the 28mm (any version), 35 'cron, 50 'cron, 90 'cron/Elmarit, 80 'lux, and 180 Apo-Telyt all superb - particular favs being the 35/80 combination. The ver 2 28mm is a great lens - I wish Canon EOS had a similar lens. I used SL and R6/R6.2 - I preferred the R6s because they have a much more sensitive meter. The SL ceases being accurate under about 1/60s at f2 with ISP 50 film (EV x?).</p>

<p>The latest 19mm has a particularly high reputation as do the 90/100/180/280 Apo's. The Rs are small cameras, in fact they are about the same size as the Ms, and most have built in lenshoods which is a very nice feature - makes changing and using the lenses nice and quick.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The R system also has a quirkiness in respect to filters and hoods, as well as the cam issues, that can make it a real pain and rather expensive</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The early lenses (up to about 1972) often do use a the German series VI and VII filter system and each had a special hood, but Canon and Nikon current lenses have special hoods too (as do Leica M), so I don't really see the issue. Later lenses have built in hoods wherever practicable which in my opinion are way more elegant than separate hoods. The Leica 28, 35, 50 and 90mm I had all took a 55mm filter - hardly an issue. The 180mm Apo Telyt took a 60mm which is a little unusual, but you can get them. My 80mm 'lux took a 67mm - no problem.</p>

<p>As to the cams, all you have to remember is that 2 cam is for all cameras up to the SL2, and three or a single (3rd/R) cam is for R3-9. Unless you are getting an R8/9 you don't need to worry about ROM lenses. I don't really think it is any more complicated that the Nikon system.</p>

<p>There are one or two lenses that fit R cameras only and will not fit the SL or SL. Check out Doug Herr's site to see which ones.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"a simple Calumet tester with averaged out multiple readings" <em><strong>SL</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well Stephen that's just what I thought. That amateur tester, (to say the least) doesn't have military spec electronics internally. It in fact is made up of common "Radio Shack" style parts. Plus, the design is a simple <strong>one sensor</strong> tester. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"the reliability of the shutter speed at 1/2000 was a function of a design flaw" <em><strong>SL</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it isn't too much trouble Stephen, can you post a link to Doug Herr's comments about this issue? I looked for a bit but couldn't track it down.</p><div></div>

<p>as a professional, I worked with R4 through R6 and loved the 80 1.4, 90 2.0, 60 2.8 and the 180 2.8 also the 280 2.8 was amazing. Unfortunately with the change in auto focus and working on film sets a lot more, I had to change to the Canon system. I did however go back to an R6 with my favorite 90 2.0 for portraits, I still have them as well as a 24mm 2.8. I could do so much with the 90. In the days of Kodachrome, at the labs you could tell with a glance the difference between my Leica R shots and the Nikon/Canon shots. Ah, back in the day.<br>

R6 and R4sp are great choices.</p>

<p>I have both an M and R system. </p>

<p>Get a Leicaflex SL.</p>

<p>I have both an M and R system. </p>

<p>Get a Leicaflex SL.</p>

<p>I have an R3 MOT and an R6. These are essentially 1970s Minolta in terms of design (R3=XE-7, R4~7=XD-11), but that is not a bad thing.</p>

<p>The R3 is a delight, with about the smoothest shutter release of any SLR I've ever used, to include the Nikon F3. The R6 has definitely mirror slap, but it occurs AFTER the shutter closes and is thus a non-issue for camera shake. I generally prefer the R3 for all except travel, where the lighter, smaller and battery-independent R6 is better.</p>

<p>My lenses are 35/2.8 Elmarit, 50/2 Summicron, 90/2.8 Elmarit and 135/2.8 Elmarit. All are later versions with the built-in hood and take 55mm filters. I'm not sure yet about the 135 (just got it), but I absolutely love the other three.</p>