Jump to content

LEICA R8 : reasons of non success...


Recommended Posts

I would like to know why the LEICA R8 is not a great success. According to me, it is not very popular. Why.... Personaly, I do not like the design ( neither the old Leicaflex and Leicaflex SL) Why the Leica designers make such weirds camera bodies ....All technical considerations are welcome. Jean-Pierre Auger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i woudl say it is because you can get technologically much more

advanced SLR's from other manufacturers (with modern features such as

AF), that are of equal quality, cost less, and have a MUCH larger

lens collection from which to choose from (and these lenses of

roughly equal quality cost much less - i.e. Canon L lenses, or Nikon

AFS lenses)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some reasons off the top of my head: I found the camera body way too

big and bulky for something which doesn't have a built-in motor. Also

the R lenses - although well made and beautiful optics - are

v.expensive and bulky & heavy. Finally, I also dislike a camera (any

camera by any manufacturer!) which completely dies when the batteries

go. Hell, the R8 is so battery dependant you even have to switch the

camera on just to see how many frames you've shot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kind of funny that people are still making the same comments

about the R8 now as they did in 1996 when it debuted, and tales of

its poor sales and iminent demise have been in continual circulation

during all of the ensuing six years--yet nearly every other SLR

selling in 1996 has been discontinued except the R8. There are

plenty of other R bodies out there for those who don't like the R8,

and with adaptors Leica lenses can be used (albeit a bit

inconveniently) on EOS bodies. Yet the R8 is already in its (at

least) 3rd production batch. It will not be the design or weight of

the R8 that kills it, it will be when (and if) the market shifts so

much to digital that even Leica's small-scale production can't be

sustained. If Leica has a digital R ready by then, it will probably

be raked over the coals too; if they don't have one, the R system

will go out of production, even if it doesn't go out of use by

determined owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From two Leica dealers that I have spoken to, the R8 is indeed a

failure. The reason? Just like the M-5: Leica was producing what it

thought that its potential consumers wanted, but not what they really

were looking for: the typical mistake of a company driven by its

prodcution people rather than its marketing people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

". . .tales of its poor sales and iminent demise have been in

continual circulation during all of the ensuing six years--yet nearly

every other SLR selling in 1996 has been discontinued except the R8"

 

<p>

 

Sales will probably end when they finished emptying the basement of

all the ones they made in the first six months of 1996. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, ven though there are various serial # batches including the

latest one which are all labelled Portugal instead of Germany, it's

not *impossible* they were all made in 1996, or at least from a

majority of parts that were. Maybe all the M6's were made in 1984,

too? Might make a nice article for the LHSA Viewfinder if someone

could have them carbon dated:>)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's totally off topic, but a nice story--I know of a book that was

published in 1902, and regularly brings about $1000 every time it

comes up for auction. The company that originally published it

supposedly still in the late 80s had boxes of them in storage, and

would send one to auction once in a while. That's where my R8 idea

originated.

 

<p>

 

Today I was in Circuit City, and went to their camera section. The

Canon Rebel is a remarkably compact and ergonomic camera with a good

solid feel in the hand, and technically far ahead of the R8, for just

a couple of hundred bucks--probably less than it would cost to do a

minor repair on an R8. With competition like that, I'm surprised that

Leica can sell any R8s at all. Certainly there's bound to be a

certain amount of mindless brand-buying by rich folks to go with

their Rolex watches (scotch, expensive fountain pens, tilley hats),

and I'm sure their are legitimate reasons for wanting an expensive

body for the Leica-branded Minolta and Sigma zooms to fit, and even

one or two GOOD reasons to own an R8, but . . .

 

<p>

 

In one sense it doesn't matter, though, since whatever makes Leica

feel good and continue to make RF stuff makes me happy. In spite of

the cynicism in the previous paragraph, as we used to tell amateur

customers buying expensive pro equipment who said they felt guilty

(those were the days!) when I worked in a camera store in the 70s--

every purchase by someone who doesn't really need the stuff keeps the

prices down for those who do, by making continued production

profitable, so please buy more. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a rather generic answer, but I haven't been enamored with any

of the Leica R bodies which were originally based on a Leitz-Minolta

collaboration, starting with the R3. The SL2 was the last Leitz

German designed reflex camera, and was a nicely crafted and well made

body. To me, the R3 and all subsequently R bodies represented the

typical "blobflex". The R8 has all of the features one could want

(outside of AF and an integral motor, both of which one could live

without). But it is a rather bloboid shape, one off from the

original R3. There is nothing "endearing" about these cameras. The

best feature of the R system is some great lenses, particularly a

series of high quality APO lenses and some newly designed excellent

zooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use an R8 when the M becomes inappropriate, and my experience with it

has been extremely pleasant. It is wonderful in my hands. I think many

people did not go past the asthetics of the camera to the stage where

they actually use it for some time. I understand the cost is high, but

having already inherited some fine primes from the days of SL2 it was

actually less expensive than to start a new system based on EOS or

Nikon. For those who are used to SLs the R8 is indeed their logical

successor, with all controls naturally falling into place. So why is it

not a success? Must be due mainly to the aforementioned cost factor.

IMHO, the EOS looks ugly, too:) Come to think of it, the SLs were

'minor' failures, too. Seems like the general buying public just like

the competetor's offerings better, for some valid reasons i'm sure.

 

<p>

 

As a general observation, M users, when they decide to use an SLR, they

will opt for the very features they abhor in an M, ie all the

electronics bells and whistles. As such, Leica SLRs are sorely

uncompetetive. But for those who want the viewfinder of an SLR but

don't want or need all the 'features' available from the likes of EOS1

and F5, the R8 is probably right, if they like the look of it in the

first place. Alternatively, an R6 or an SL2 will do just fine.

 

<p>

 

As to why the designers make the R8 the way it is, Erwin wrote an

entire article on his site. Designers are artists, too. As such, it is

subjective. Good design don't always succeed, and some very bad designs

are very successful, no doubt due in part to the efforts of the

marketing departments. Whatever that makes us tick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mostly don't care one way or the other, but comparing the R8 to

the Rebel is a bit over the top...

 

<p>

 

Seems to me you can't judge the success of the R system by

Canon/Nikon metrics. Leica reflex cameras have not been competitive

in the professional sphere going back probably to the 70's, except

in some pockets in Europe. As more folks switched over to AF in the

last 15 years, Leica's market position has worsened, if anything.

 

<p>

 

I'm sure Leica is aware that it is not offering a mainstream

product, so to expect success on the level of the F5 or EOS-1 series

is probably unreasonable. As a camera for a niche audience of

traditionalists, the R8 is pretty appealing.

 

<p>

 

The problem for Leica is that this niche is shrinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<As far as a Leica reflex goes, I wish Leica made a basic all

mechanical slr with a metering system and display like the M6 TTL and

a mirror lock-up feature. Nothing inovative, just a finely crafted,

durable, camera that would accept their fine lenses. Maybe I'm just

weird!!!

 

<p>

 

-- Art Waldschmidt>>

 

<p>

 

Art, have you checked out an R6 or R6.2? Seems to fit your bill to a

T. Get one while you still can.

 

<p>

 

<<For those who are used to SLs the R8 is indeed their logical

successor, with all controls naturally falling into place. So why is

it not a success? Must be due mainly to the aforementioned cost

factor. IMHO, the EOS looks ugly, too:)

Steven Fong>>

 

<p>

 

Steven, as someone who recently switched from Nikon AF to EOS, I now

understand why former Canon users find the R8 so refreshing. I never

needed to carry the manual for my F5, but with the EOS 1V I feel like

I'm studying for the regional boards again. The R8 has a lot of

faults but confusing controls aren't one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have ahndeled the R8 a few times and it always created an itch to

buy it. I find that body le best designed reflex available on the

market today. Period. Personal taste :-) Why didn't I buy it ? Because

all the lenses I need are available for the M. Maybe a 135 would

appeal to me, espescially a Summicron one, but that does not exists. I

know about the 180 Summicron and Elmarit, they are just too long and

expensive for the limited use I have. Sadly, Canon has that 135/2, and

a quite good one too. So, for me, the prime problem with the R range

is the lenses. Or the lack of it. Even if I looked for a shift lens

(which I will do at some stage), there are none in the Leica range,

while Canon has 3 to offer! I love the R6 too, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For those who are used to SLs the R8 is indeed their logical

successor, with all controls naturally falling into place."

 

<p>

 

After working with an SL for 6 months, I will say I appreciate the R8

concept more than I did before. It is indeed an attempt to back up and

pick up where the SL left off in some ways - ultralow-profile prism

housing, simplified control groupings, etc. I don't do enough SLR work

to justify more than a $400 body, though.

 

<p>

 

And I get much better results from the SL than I ever did from the R4-7

bodies - I (personally) find it easier to hold steady. But there it

is...

 

<p>

 

Stephane - there is in fact ONE shift lens in the R line - the 28mm PC

Super-Angulon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The R8 is a wonderful body. Perfect ergonomics, great features (such

as the flashmeter), the unique option of not having to use a motor

(and thus silent wind/rewind), beautiful viewfinder, reassuringly

dense and heavy . Shutter is state of the art, and so are the light

measurement options (matrix, centreweighed, spot). The different

exposure modes are foolproof and easy to access. They work with all R

lenses manufactured since the mid-seventies.

 

<p>

 

Only downsides (in my opinion): needs to be turned on to view frame

number (I hate that), leather hand strap only available with larger

motor (it can thus be very tyring to handhold the R8 vertically with

lenses such as 180 elmarit without that motor), choice between well

designed heavy and expensive motor or poorly designed lighter and

more affordable winder, motor works only with dedicated Leica battery.

 

<p>

 

The lenses are absolutely gorgeous, with benchmark items such as the

new (unaffordable) 15mm elmarit or the more reasonable 19mm elmarit,

28mm elmarit, 35mm 'lux and 'cron, 50mm 'lux and 'cron, 80mm 'lux,

100mm apo-elmarit or 180mm apo-elmarit and 'cron, plus a whole series

of unaffordable exotics in the longer range. Not mentioning the

current zooms, which are systematically rated as top performers

(except the 28-70).

 

<p>

 

OK, the price tags are high. But so is the M system's price tags.

However, at that price, you get Leica construction and Leica optics.

Manipulate R lenses in shop, and, if you enjoy fine mechanics, it

will be torture for you to leave them behind. You alone can judge if

it is worth the effort and sacrifices.

 

<p>

 

Visibly, the market as a whole has voted against the R system. I'm

convinced the real reason is lack of AF, something ageing amateurs

and pressurised pros seem to require. And no I do not want Leica to

follow the disastrous example of Contax N....

 

<p>

 

So try it, and enjoy it, while it is still there !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I wish Leica made a basic all mechanical slr with a metering system

and display like the M6 TTL and a mirror lock-up feature. Nothing

innovative, just a finely crafted, durable, camera that would accept

their fine lenses."</p>Art, we'd better not even think about the

response to <i>that</i>; remember that those who can't afford Leica,

or were to lazy to adapt to a rangefinder and hence couldn't take

decent pictures with one, always complain about the obsolescence of

the M series as it has no AF. (And, of course, cursed be the Leica

users.)</p>The R8 <i>is</i> a worthy successor to the Leicaflex

SL--although I'd like to see the latter revived, with the current lens

mount. (Andrew Nemeth has a story to tell about modern R lenses on

Leicaflex bayonets, and then there's the meter coupling...)</p>For the

serious applications, there's the R-to-EOS lens adapter. Tell an

editor that your images will be sharper and more brilliant than he can

imagine 'cuz your optics are the world's best, but they must be

developed and scanned first, why doesn't the paper accept anything but

tiffs and jpegs nowadays--and you don't get another job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think electronics aside, the R8 is quite a unique and striking body

design. It embodies the traditional Leica solid metal look and feel

which is lacking in other SLR manufacturers. I certainly think its

the best looking R body of the whole range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

<p>

 

I am not an R8 owner but I have manipulated it

 

<p>

 

Jacques writes:

 

<p>

 

>> The R8 is a wonderful body. Perfect ergonomics, great features

(such as the flashmeter), the unique option of not having to use a

motor (and thus silent wind/rewind), beautiful viewfinder,

reassuringly dense and heavy . Shutter is state of the art, and so

are the light measurement options (matrix, centreweighed, spot). The

different exposure modes are foolproof and easy to access. They work

with all R lenses manufactured since the mid-seventies. <<

 

<p>

 

I tend to fully agree with Jacques here

 

<p>

 

>> Only downsides (in my opinion): needs to be turned on to view

frame number (I hate that), leather hand strap only available with

larger motor (it can thus be very tyring to handhold the R8

vertically with lenses such as 180 elmarit without that motor),

choice between well designed heavy and expensive motor or poorly

designed lighter and more affordable winder, motor works only with

dedicated Leica battery. <<

 

<p>

 

Though I agree on the battery question, I�m not so bothered by the

fact you�ve to turn on the camera to see how many frames were

consumed (I have the same feature on the Hexar RF and it never

bothered me that much)

 

<p>

 

>> The lenses are absolutely gorgeous, with benchmark items such as

the new (unaffordable) 15mm elmarit or the more reasonable 19mm

elmarit, 28mm elmarit, 35mm 'lux and 'cron, 50mm 'lux and 'cron,

80mm 'lux, 100mm apo-elmarit or 180mm apo-elmarit and 'cron, plus a

whole series of unaffordable exotics in the longer range. Not

mentioning the current zooms, which are systematically rated as top

performers (except the 28-70). <<

 

<p>

 

Well, the question of lenses is something to be considered another

way perhaps�

 

<p>

 

First, having used for a long, long time Nikon lenses, even if I

admit the Leica ones are better, you really need some particular

circumstances to make the difference to appear in real life. Bench

tests are one thing, practical results when using a body hand held

and with relatively fast films another one� Even more than with M

lenses (chiefly due to the way they are often used i.e. wide open

more frequently than with a SLR) the diffrence of quality with

competing lenses is less PRACTICALLY evident � Hence the importance

of the price tag in the lesser success of the R8.

 

<p>

 

But we must also consider for what purpose someone might consider

buying a high end 35mm SLR. Jacques quoted a fair number of lens

which, but for the 180mm one, are more or less available to a

rangefinder user. A customer who wants a SLR to be used for macro-

photography with such a price tag as the R8 system will be tempted

to see what he can get for the same budget in the medium format SLR

range. A customer who wants to use its 35mm SLR body with long to

very long tele-lenses will certainly de more tempted by an AF

version than a manual focusing one (indeed I hate AF most of the

time but I must admit it is a bonus when the inherent depth of field

is reduced to a point stopping down doesn�t permit you to have a

visible gain in DOF as to use valuably a DOF table at all

apertures). Fast AF on fast big lenses works well now. R8 as no AF

feature even on their long tele-lens system which, by the way, is a

clever two part design but this clever design didn�t even permit the

potential owner to have any kind of real savings when compared to

the AF competitors. So we can safely say despite all its qualities

the R8 system is whether insufficiently technically developed to

suit the requirements of its potential owners or its price tag is

way to heavy for those who might want to buy it despite its

limitations.

 

<p>

 

>> OK, the price tags are high. But so is the M system's price tags.

However, at that price, you get Leica construction and Leica optics.

Manipulate R lenses in shop, and, if you enjoy fine mechanics, it

will be torture for you to leave them behind. You alone can judge if

it is worth the effort and sacrifices.

Visibly, the market as a whole has voted against the R system. I'm

convinced the real reason is lack of AF, something ageing amateurs

and pressurised pros seem to require. And no I do not want Leica to

follow the disastrous example of Contax N.... <<

 

<p>

 

I do agree with Jacques on the AF point.

 

<p>

 

Friendly.

 

<p>

 

François

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Leica can look at the Nikon FM3a and add the AE feature to the

6.2 and accept the failure and lack of interest of/for the R8 and

simply drop it.

 

<p>

 

They had one -- it was the R5 or R7. The R8 is a much better designed

camera than either of those.

 

<p>

 

What is the big deal about the FM3a that gets everyone so excited? I

handled one the other day and was singularly unimpressed - not a patch

on the quality of the R6.2 or the R8, or even an Elan 7. This site

seems to worship this camera for reasons I just don't get. Also I have

to say it in my experience the R optics can knock the MF Nikon set

into a cocked hat 90% of the time. Sure the Leica is more expensive,

but there is a lot of s/h Leica R stuff out there and this is priced

much more reasonably. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking here

that you get the "same or better camera" than an R by buying an FM

type camera. I personally don't think this is true at all. Of course a

camera is just a tool etc. etc. blah blah blah, but I too find it

strange that may fanatical M users are equally fanatical R haters

based on no data or personal experience.

Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lack of popularity for the R-8 is primarily economics. The R-8

series camera is expensive and competes in a very challenging

business and technology environment. There are many greater choices

to the buyer in the SLR arena with a range of prices. Leica is

fortunate that the M cameras have not needed to compete in that

environment in decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Art Waldschmidt (above). Something like the R6.2, with

AE. Concentrate on making it durable and quiet. Just a reliable

vehicle for the excellent Leica R lenses, for the niche that doesn't

need all the bells & whistles. Let Canon & Nikon, etc., worry about

the rest. (i.e., AF)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popularity is, of course, a relative thing. The R8 is not going give

the Nikon F5 or Canon EOS-1v a run for their money, but what it does,

it does extremely well.

 

<p>

 

The build quality of the lenses is unmatched, and the optical quality

is second to none.

 

<p>

 

I'm puzzled by those who bash the R8's ergonomics -- I think they must

have just looked at the camera in a display case without actually

trying one. It is one of those cameras that works much better than you

would think at a casual glance. In fact, the ergonomics are just superb.

 

<p>

 

And for those who think it is large, it is no larger than any of the

top-line Nikon or Canons when size is compared with the motor drive or

battery pack attached in each case. I use the R8 with winder, and it

balances perfectly with some of the longer or heavier lenses such as

the 180mm f2.8 APO or even the 100mm f2.8 Macro. I don't believe a

lighter or smaller body would be as desirable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...