Leica: M vs. R thinking about a switch

<p>Hey guys. I have a Leica M2 and I'm thinking about switching to an R. I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are on Leica R systems versus M systems. I'm thinking I'm pretty poor and the R system tends to be more.... financially accessible than the M system. It's all about the glass anyway right? So... I'm thinking about selling my M2 button rewind, 40mm summicron, and 28mm f/2 voigtlander and picking up an R body and a few lenses. Perhaps a 28 or 35, a 50, and a 90 or 135. So.... how does the R system compare in terms of quality, usability etc... what are the best values in the R system in terms of bodies and glass and what do you think I can get in R for what I'm selling in M? Also what do I have to be careful about? And what is the deal with this 2 cam 3 cam stuff? Thanks!</p>

<p>Okay...it's only my opinion, but here goes.<br>

The M Leica does a few things superbly well...street shooting, available light portraits, any kind of shooting where being unobtrusive is paramount. Thing is it's not so good at extreme closeups, extreme telephoto, etc. So if your main subject matter tends to be what the strongpoints of the M are aimed at...you're all set.<br>

The R does everything 'pretty well'. And in truth most amatuers (and a whole lot of pros) photograph a bit of this and bit of that. In my film days I had both...M Leica with the classic 35/50/90 lens set and a couple of R3mots with 21/35-70/70-210.<br>

Gotta admit, as much as I loved the rangefinders for a lot of my work...if I had to choose one or the other I'd have kept the R set. </p>

<p>I have both systems and like both a lot. I wouldn't sell/trade a M for an R except I would really need a special lens like one of the Makro's or a long lens like the Apo-Telyt. If you don't feel constricted with your current set-up, don't change it.<br>

That said - if you don't mind some signs of use a Leicaflex SL (my favorite) can be found for little money - by Leica standards. I've bought a 35 Summicron-R, a 90 Summicron-R and the excellent 60 Makro-Elmarit (all 3-cam lenses for use with the original Leicaflex, the SLs and the R3-R7) for under 250€ each. Older versions of the 135, the 180s and the 250 can be found for under 200€ sometimes.<br>

The Leicaflex SL is in my opinion one of the most beautiful engineered SLRs out there and a joy to use - just like a M2 :-)</p>

<p>Cheers - and please excuse my english - georg!</p>

<p>Here's something you should consider. The R system has been discontinued　while the M system has gone digital. </p>

<p>Leica R cameras offer a few advantages and benefits over other SLR systems, but these are (at least for me) fairly marginal - many Nikon cameras and lenses perform just as well in real world use, if not rather better. The Leica R system is not cheap, either.</p>

<p>Certainly there are a few Leica R stand-out prime lenses, but the same can be said of Nikon and Canon. The results from a couple of Leica R lenses that I use (19mm f4, 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8 and 135mm f2.8) are barely distinguishable from other brands, and in some instances are marginally worse.</p>

<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. At the same time, demand for some Leica R lenses (especially the 50mm f1.4) from Canon dslrs users has inflated their prices beyond all reason. Zoom lenses for Leica R cameras are another contentious issue when comparing price or value against performance.</p>

<p>I really do like using my R6 and R7, with a couple of primes, but if I was nowadays considering getting an SLR system I would definitely not consider Leica R. I would probably go for a Nikon F3 and a handful of stand-out lenses - or a Canon F1NAE and sackfull of Canon lenses and save a very significant amout of money for quite similar results. I'd certainly keep the Leica M2.</p>

 

<p>I used to own both M and R, I bought the R first due to the lower prices, but later moved to the M which suits my style of photography better. I ended up selling the R kit earlier this year to fund a large format camera. The R system is fantastic, but as I have no interest in long lenses or macro, I had pretty much doubled up on focal lengths for no real reason. <br>

In general, I think the M lenses are a little better, though certainly the R lenses are excellent. The R lenses tend to have higher build quality. I no longer follow the prices, but the lenses are not as cheap as they used to be, people are picking them up to use on digital bodies. The bodies are cheap though. <br>

I love the Leicaflex SL2, absolutely wonderful body with the features I need, and nothing more. The best SLR viewfinder I have seen. I owned an R8 as well, which had a lot of features I don't use, was big, heavy, and unreliable. The viewfinder and meter was excellent though. For a short time I had an R3, which was pretty ordinary, and also didn't work. <br>

For the metering to work on R bodies, you need 3 cam, 3rd cam only, or rom lenses. Leicaflex bodies work with 1, 2 or 3 cam lenses, the 1 and 2 cam lenses tend to be cheaper but are also older. </p>

<p>I have owned M system bodies & lenses for 40 years, R system bodies & lenses for about 15 years. At one time R lenses were pretty inexpensive, but demand and prices have picked up, especially for the better performers. I agree with a previous poster that performance of most R lenses (except the ultra expensive ones) is matched by quality offerings from Nikon (can't speak to Canon) especially if stopped down 1-2 stops from wide open. Shooting wide open, there may be an advantage to the R lenses, which are generally optimized for wider aperture performance. I've owned the SL, SL2, R3, and R8 bodies, and prefer the SL2 over the others - but it is old and not without its faults...notably the 1/2000 shutter speed isn't accurate, even after 2 CLAs. The M system lenses are mostly better (IMHO) than the R system lenses, for my uses. By better, I mean that I see better resolution and contrast, certainly less weight, and more flexibility of choice in the normal ranges. If you want telephotos...the R is the better choice because the M shifts over to the Visoflex at this juncture, which is less convenient than a dedicated SLR. If you want to try the R system cheaply, the R3 body can be picked up for a song.</p>

<p>Had a friend with both systems and we did a little test. Found the wides better on the M (no suprise here as R requires a retrofocus design) and the 90 and 135 about the same. He also preferred the SL2.</p>

<p>Keep your M2. Some, myself included, claim it is the best-built Leica ever. I've been using an M4 and button-rewind M2 for over 40 years and would never trade them. I have also been using a Leicaflex SL for about 10 years. Each has its advantages and limitations so it comes down to personal preference. The R is the heavier camera-lens combination and also has the mirror slap. You should definitely try an SLR before even considering selling your M2. You may like the concept, you may not. My preference is for the M system.</p>

<p>There is no mystery about the Leica cams. The Leicaflex SL and SL2 take 2 or 3-cam lenses. The Leica R cameras take 3-cam or R lenses. The ROM lenses are for R cameras only.</p>

<p>I only have Leitz lenses and my 35, 50, 90 and 135mm M lenses all take E39 filters. My 35, 60 and 135mm R lenses all take E55 filters (as does the 50mm Summicron R). This may be a consideration if you do much b & w work or use UV or polarizing filters.</p>

<p>The quality of both M and R lenses is excellent so this should not factor into your decision as to which way to go. None of them are inexpensive. If you do go for the R system I would suggest a Leicaflex SL. Look for the later model with the metal lens-release button, rather than the one with the red plastic button. Also make sure that the viewfinder is clear. Some SLs have had issues here.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As a newbie to Leica, I also starting out with R4 and 50 cron. I figured out after reading various forums that buying into Leica is glass first and body second. I also can't tell the difference between R4 and Nikon FM (similar price range), but there's a HUGE difference between 50mm 1.4 AIS and 50mm cron - again, this is also debatable "to each his/her own".<br /> If you put all specs and whatever is written on the paper aside, just think about the tourist factor... which is easier to carry around? <br /> I sold my R4 and cron few months to fund M6/8 and will never ever want to get R body again.<br /> Are you not happy with your M2? Or are you looking to use "a Leica camera" with few other lenses?<br /> I agree that R4 plus three lens will probably be easier on the wallet than either a 50 or a 28 cron-M.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with most of what everyone has said.<br>

But, one more thing - RF shooting vs SLR. Big difference there, in "seeing" and focusing. You can use an SLR for focusing outside of the little rectangle in the middle and I'm finding that there are many times when I wish I were shooting an SLR than my M.<br>

I have both kits, M and R.<br>

The R kit, lens for lens, is heavier. And bigger. And the R kit is film (a DMR weighs a ton; I sold it). And you can zoom with an R.<br>

Read about R's here, before you buy: http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/page6.html<br>

And don't discount the R8/R9 - they are easily my favourite R. My other R is an R6.2</p>

<p>Vick</p>

 

<p>Sounds like you want to switch just to have a larger lens selection. Careful before you go down that rabbit hole. Don't end up a few years from now, surrounded by several bodies and a multitude of lenses, asking yourself how you got to this point and why they haven't improved your photography.<br>

Patience. I think you should stay with your M2, maximize the potential of the lenses you do have, and save your nickels & dimes for the time when you have determined, from experience, what that additional lens must be.</p>

<p>Everyone has their own views and preferences. This is just mine: I have use both systems over a number of years and have owned many lenses both M and R. Most later M lenses are sensational. Some R lenses are also. <br>

If you want an R system, I would suggest the R9 or a late R8. I had both and never a problem. The metering is outstanding, the build is superb and the controls are great. For lenses: 19 second version (excellent - the lack of distortion has to be seen to be believed), 28 last version (excellent), 90 asph (Excellent), 180/2.8 apo) second version (excellent incl with teleconverter), 280/4.0 (incredible but super expensive if you can even find one). I couldn't afford any of the super telephotos.<br>

I found the 35/1.4 to be outstanding despite the mediocre looking performance charts. Again difficult to find but worth it. The 135/2.8 was considered to be a poor lens always but I didn't ever own one. <br>

In my opinion, the reasonable cost of the R8 and R9 is worth it. If I were buying lenses now, I would buy the 19, 28, 90 asph and a teleconverter, plus the 180 apo if affordable. You could probably find a 50/2.0 as well for a good price. The cost of this outfit would still be considerable and possibly many people wold not invest that much in a discontinued system.<br>

The 80-200/4.0 zoom was also good, as was the 35-70/4.0. I tested a 35-70/2.8 and despite its astronomical cost, it was all but unusable due to it's severe focus shift. Just my opinion. </p>

 

I'd sure keep the M2, or if anything, trade it for a different model M. If you want an SLR you can pick up an Olympus OM1n or OM2n and a lens or two for much less money than the R. I have

an R5, and while it's an elegant camera, it's also clunkier and not as ergonomic as the Olympus, which

is a little jewel of similar size to the Leica M. It's an easy camera to carry about in one hand, even without a strap. If you sell away the Leica rangefinder I give it a better than 50/50 chance that

sooner or later you'll want it back again.

 

By the way, R lenses aren't exactly cheap, even if some of the bodies are, in relative terms.

<p>As with others, I have both M and R. For flexibility the R excels. BUT. I would not use anything later than the R4S Mod2. This is a surprisingly small camera but takes all the R lenses. Only if you really want to carry out surreptitious photograhy do you absolutely need an M.</p>

<p>If you have not totally blended with your Leica M2, a few lenses none are by Leica maybe it is time to move on!I am poor so making a change to a R-System is not a marriage made in heaven! Until Leica released and mostly made the R8 and R9 (the hunchbacks of Solms) the R series of bodies were overpriced, problem infested, interfered and messed up Minolta. Minolta made many fine cameras but the similar ones and the ones for Leica were awful. The variety of cams required and now probably cannot be done, leaving one meterless with a lens very high. The lenses are good but some are very BIG and very Heavy.<br>

One thing before I say more! Try some old Leitz Leica lenses! They are different. They may flare, not that sharp but write with light in a special way. Ultra sharpness comes at a price in money and look of images. My 1954 50mm Summicron f2,0 Collapsible makes wonderful photographs.<br>

Film SLR are easily available and some leave Leica R system standing in the dust. Nikon with the Nikon F3 was 20 years in production without tampering with the mount. Even the earliest non coupling Nikkor lenses can be used,with a small adjustment! There are so many more Nikkor lenses why bother? Your choice is immense. Each make has wonderful bodies and lenses as good or in a few cases better. The defunct Canon AE-1P,F1,F1n are really nice boxes with truly good lenses. My experience of a whole system given to me is simply pure pleasure. Everything so in-expensive, no problem in acquiring gear. I wish when I had carried on with my Pentax system, I had used them! The Pentax is utterly reliable, lenses are equal to Leica except with flare! Pentax has NO FLARE. Pentax lenses the easiest to couple to their digital bodies..<br>

You will get "GAS"/ Gear acquiring syndrome which as Ken Shipman warned may not lead to better photos..<br>

My thoughts are and what I would do,get an inexpensive Film SLR. The strongest are the Nikon F, F2 and F3. newer F models are all great but getting bigger and bigger and way more complicated.. Pentax and Canon SLR available for peanuts! Lenses are all good, esp Primes(non zoom). Canon EOS system allows easy transition to Canon digital.<br>

Friends and acquaintances have given me their old cameras. TG no R-system! I do not need problems.<br>

One person wrote Leica wide angles on M are not retro-focus! Sorry all the new ones are!<br>

I actually purchased Spotmatic with 50mm f1,4 Super Takumar for $35. You cannot buy a used Leica filter., for that money.<br>

My way is to keep the M2. The nicest viewfinder of all Leica-M. I prefer the 50mm so for me it is the M3. Everybody who sold their M, wished later they hadn't!</p>

Keep the M2. Unless your photography has gone to hell you're a natural RF shooter and those two lenses are all you'll

ever need.

<blockquote>

<p>"notably the 1/2000 shutter speed isn't accurate, even after 2 CLAs" <em><strong>SL</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK Stephen, that goes <strong>totally contrary</strong> to all of the SL and SL2 camera bodies I've tested in over 32 years.<br>

There must have been something else in play with your sample; either the lack of knowledge & skill in adjusting, or some other outside force that's no fault of the camera. (Heavy shock, impact or liquid: A definite <strong>outlier</strong>)</p>

<p><em><em>This horizontal traveling curtain design, with it's</em> precision, tamper proofing and the use of super hard quality metals, makes the SL/SL2 shutter speed accuracy</em><strong><em> legendary.</em></strong></p>

<p>Hi Gus - re the 1/2000 shutter speed. All other speeds are within 3-6% (I test all my bodies to have a reference when shooting slides - or at least I did until Kodachrome processing by Dwayne's disappeared at the end of last year), but the top speed rarely holds to even close tolerances. The CLAs were done by one of USA's top Leica repair persons with whom I've done business for many years on a variety of bodies and lenses, so it must be the sample. The body is at least 2nd hand, so I can't attest to previous abuses it may have encountered. I rarely use that speed on any of my cameras, so for me it isn't a big issue, and the big beautiful viewfinder makes up for this minor inconvenience. I have heard of others who had issues with the 1/2000 speed on the SL2, but I have no idea what tolerances they were working within, so I'm glad to hear from you that in your experience it isn't specific to that model.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I test all my bodies to have a reference"<em><strong> SL</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That might account for the inaccuracy.<br>

Is your tester a <strong>3</strong> sensor, curtain travel time featured and <strong>specified out</strong> (for accuracy, not just reading) to test above a 1,000th?</p>

<p>If this was a poll I'd vote that you should stay with the M system. Outstanding lenses. Are you going to an SLR to use a 28/135mm lenses, my too least used focal lengths on my M system? If you want thoses lengths look into Nikon 24/28mm and the 105mm. </p>

<p>if you're serious, I'll trade you my r5, 24mm elmarit and 90mm elmarit for the m2 and cv 28</p>

<p> </p>

<p>IMHO keep the M system and the lenses. Find a user quality Leicaflex SL with one lens and maybe a non working metering system along with prism issues to keep the cost down. See if that works for you at this time. As you can afford it, build on the SL lens inventory should you really like the SLR. I have both M3 and SL and like them equally. I use the M3 when I want to travel light. The DR Summicron is my best lens on all my cameras.</p>

<p>The M is for street (my main subject area) For everything else, I use Nikon FE and other cameras. (The R seems too heavy and expensive.)</p>

<p>Gus - not that fancy - a simple Calumet tester with averaged out multiple readings. Having said that, my curiosity was piqued by initially noticing that when I did a test roll upon receipt of the body that exposure was noticeably off at 1/2000. That's about the time I bought the tester, as my wife had purchased an old Exakta Varex for me to try out. Subsequently I came across a note on Doug Herr's website that the reliability of the shutter speed at 1/2000 was a function of a design flaw which occasionally resulted in the shutter not opening fully at speeds above 1/1000, and that repairs had often not reliably corrected the issue. My experience precisely.</p>