Leica R system: are you kidding me?

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by katherine_welles, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. I know this may seem like a flamebait post but it is really just my honest
    reflections on the Leica R system.

    I have recently decided to get back into film photography after 5 years of
    shooting purely digital. I visited a friend recently to try out some of their
    film cameras (they have a few) and I was somewhat surprised by the results.

    I shot a test roll myself with each one and then had them developed. I wanted to
    see which would have the kind of look I wanted to go for.

    Leica M system:
    M6 body and 35mm (f/2.8 I think??) (aspherical lens I think also??): 10/10 (it
    better be for how much it costs!)

    Old Canon QL body with 50mm lens: 6.5/10 not bad considering its age and how
    cheap they can be found on the internet nowadys.

    Nikon 35mm film camera with 35mm lens(can't remember what model but it wasn't a
    Pro model): 7.5/10

    Canon EOS 1 or 3 (some professional film body; can't remember exactly which but
    it was big and bulky and an EOS) body (I supplied a 135mm "L" lens for this one)
    10/10 very surprised how nice these shots came out. Almost indistinguishable
    (quality wise) from the results the same lens gets on my 5D and I think slightly
    better than the 5D in an intangible artistic sense.

    Leica R 6.2 body with 50mm f/2 lens: 3/10 (being charitable there)

    All shots were taken at the same time and same place and of the same subject,
    and several different exposure times and apertures were used to see the range of
    results. I also took a few shots indoors with each setup to test low-light
    performance. All were using Fuji 400 speed color Superia film.

    In summation: I can't afford the M system so no point in even worrying about it.
    Nice to finally see firsthand how good they are, though. Canon EOS1N? Very
    pleasantly surprised there. Leica R system? Extremely disappointed. I thought
    all these years that Leica R was like 1/2 or 2/3 as good as the M system. It was
    like 1/3 at best in my 1 roll experience. I have seen similar results with
    disposable cameras, it was that unimpressive. If you did a blind side-by-side
    comparison I doubt there would be anyone who could tell the difference unless
    they were trained in such matters. Anyway, I guess I finally understand why R
    bodies can be found for $150-$300 on ebay and the lenses around the same price.
    Is there some killer R body or killer R lens that I am missing? I probably won't
    ever try it out but it would be nice to know just for the heck of it. My
    experience with R: soft images, poor color, poor contrast, poor low light
    performance. In short similar to a disposable camera.

    O.K., unload on me now. I'm sure this opinionated post has angered someone, not
    to mention that I am basing my assertions on only one roll of film!!! The gall
    of me! Well I do declare.
     
  2. Karherine, if you look hard you can find a good user M3 for less than 500 bucks. Of course the finder lines are 50mm at widest for the M3. But, if 35mm lens is what you want, you could get a 35 2.8 summaron with/eyes that is made for the m3, a great lens, for less than 400. These 2 items are top notch professional equipment. If a 50mm lens is what you desire, you can pick up the older version 50 2.8 Elmar for 300 or less. Leica is not as expensive as people first think. E-mail me directly if you want more specific information.
     
  3. Hmm. Well, I'm not angry, but I truly am thoroughly amused. In all the years that I've been
    reading this Forum, I must say that this is the single, most ludicrous post I have ever
    encountered. It is so absurd, in fact, that there is really no place to even begin with an
    intelligent answer. So, I will simply follow the author's lead, here, and give an arbitrary rating
    of 10/10 for "Most Nonsensical Post Ever Submitted to this Leica Forum."
     
  4. Yeah this is laughable.

    I'm supposing you want to be taken seriously, but you lose all credibility with statements such as:

    "Nikon 35mm film camera with 35mm lens(can't remember what model"

    and

    "Canon EOS 1 or 3 (some professional film body; can't remember exactly which"

    Yup...give me lots of confidence in your testing procedures.

    You should send this to the likes of Salgado...to think he's taken all those amazing images on sub-standard gear
    1

    Jeeesh!!
     
  5. I have many many M and R lenses and bodies. I can`t tell the difference in images. A well
    adjusted R6-2 is smooth as silk and the only thing better is a screw or M Leica.

    You tested a used camera and came to an faulty conclision.
     
  6. For your own sake you might want to do further testing. Maybe that Leica R6.2 and its lens were faulty in some way. Maybe you weren't holding it steady enough. I don't doubt your conclusions but it would help to do this experiment again and/or with different equipment.

    Oh, and if you can't remember what half of your equipment was then there might be something flawed in your testing procedure. ;-)
     
  7. Actually, having read your previous posts, I do think Katherine to some degree you do like to stir the pot just a wee bit.

    Two weeks ago you were switching to digital because, among other things you were just 'blown away' by the results your sister got from film.

    Yet a couple months ago your thoughts on the 5D were..."Just had my first formal portrait session with the 5D today. had to come here right away and rave about it. Blows everything else I have ever used out of the water and then some"

    Or are you just a real changeable sorta gal?
     
  8. ""Canon EOS 1 or 3 (some professional film body; can't remember exactly which"

    I remembered but I forgot to go back and edit that part. It was an EOS1N. The Nikon was one of those silver consumer bodies they made in the late 90's or early 2000's. Like an N6006 or something like that. i didn't think all that mattered so much, at least in this post. If I had taken painstaking notes and emailed you a scan of the data you still would have found a way to tell me I'm an idiot and I don't know what I'm talking about.

    What is happening was 100% predictable, but I just wanted to post it anyway on the off chance that an objective person would happen to post a response. Someone who doesn't have an ego about the brand of their camera body and feels no need to defend it in a purely subjective way.

    And what I posted above was a little shootout that I did. Is that a Cardinal sin? Is doing a shootout yourself and not relying on internet reports not allowed? Sorry if I have aroused the Leica R gods.
     
  9. Actually, having read your previous posts, I do think Katherine to some degree you do like to stir the pot just a wee bit.

    Two weeks ago you were switching to digital because, among other things you were just 'blown away' by the results your sister got from film.

    Yet a couple months ago your thoughts on the 5D were..."Just had my first formal portrait session with the 5D today. had to come here right away and rave about it. Blows everything else I have ever used out of the water and then some"

    Or are you just a real changeable sorta gal?

    Yes, it is true. I decided to go back to film. I did, however, in the end decide to keep the 5D for a variety of reasons. I'm sorry if that is not O.K. with anyone. How is my raving bout how good a 5D is, and then independently of that wanting to return to film an example of "stirring the pot?" Are photographers forced to stick with digital once they have started using it? Are they not allowed to return to film if they feel they can get a certain result from it? Again I decided to keep the 5D and do film as well. I hope it is O.K. to be "bi-cameral" like that.
     
  10. I sense a wee bit of the defensiveness in the OP that she expected to find in R users.
     
  11. expected to find? I did find it :)
     
  12. Because Katherine, your methodology is poor...no real side by side comparisons of the same subject under the same lighting, the use of a questionable used body with one lens, etc.

    Again, Salgado (have you heard of him) as well as a few others would be somewhat surprised to find that they are using a camera comporable to a disposable...man "The Workers" http://www.terra.com.br/sebastiaosalgado/e_op1/ew_fs.html must have had a great post-production team to get the images they got out of the R series Leica that Salgado often uses.

    Uhhh..."O.K., unload on me now"...well, you did ask for it.
     
  13. Try to find a Pentax MZ-S ... they go to 11.
     
  14. I've never owned or shot with a Leica SLR. They never appealed to me. But there are many, many people both in the past and currently who are using them to make some really fine photography. To me, that says that the cameras are highly capable machines with fine optics. Since it performed so poorly in your informal testing, it may be that something is wrong with the camera, lens or combination. Or the processing/printing. But I wouldn't form an opinion on the performance of all Leica R cameras and lenses based on one sample that performed poorly.

    I've owned more Nikons than any other brand. Of the 10 or so Nikon bodies I've owned and used, one had chronic mechanical problems and two were the proverbial POS. I've had really good luck with the Canon EOS bodies I now own. One of my two Pentax 645 bodies has an intermittent hiccup. One of my two M6 bodies is currently in the shop with numerous problems. I have four 25-43 year old Kiev rangefinders that cost between $60 and $100 each with lenses included and they all perform perfectly.

    Go figure.
     
  15. "Because Katherine, your methodology is poor...no real side by side comparisons
    of the same subject under the same lighting, the use of a questionable used
    body with one lens, etc."

    I did shoot the same subject, at the same time, with the same lighting. I know it's anecdotal, but is there any other way? Isn't every test on some level anecdotal? I mean there is no official research source for this material. I also asked in the first post if the Leica R people could tell me what the good body and good lens combo is since I may not have used the best one. As far as a problem with the lens and body, they were both in mint and had just been CLA'd. Also, I said the M system did awesome so I don't have an anti-Leica bias. My dad shoots with Leica pretty much exclusively but we don't live in the same state or I would have tried his stuff out. Next time I visit him (could be months) I may do just that. He is an "M" man but also has R stuff on hand.
     
  16. You're basing your opinion of an entire system on a limited and questionable test of a single sample of one model in unknown condition. Yep, that seems like a reasonable test to me.
     
  17. "You're basing your opinion of an entire system on a limited and questionable test of a single sample of one model in unknown condition. Yep, that seems like a reasonable test to me."

    Well, again I tried several different setups that spanned models, prices, and years. The Leica R was the loser of the test. This is my experience. If others have different experiences fine. This is mine.

    Again I ask you: what is a good R body/lens combo?

    Again also I am quite sure that I could have presented a 100 page PDF of my findings and you and others would have found a way within 5 minutes of shooting it down. You know this is true.
     
  18. oh--and at the end of reviewing that hypothetical 100 page PDF if you couldn't find anything to shoot down, you would have said "well, you must have had a bad copy." So there really isn't any way to win, is there?
     
  19. "Again I ask you: what is a good R body/lens combo?"
    Just about any R body/lens combination. There are very few that I'd avoid. The R6.2 and 50mm Summicron-R are among the best. Given the stellar results many people get with this equipment, and your statement that the camera and lens had just been CLA'd, the likely suspects include your technique, the test procedures and the film processing. The results you've gotten are far from universal.
     
  20. the likely suspects include your technique, the test procedures and the film processing.

    well you might have a point there. I did use a pretty mediocre local film lab out of convenience sake. I will do another shootout next time I visit my dad and I'll come back and post the results.
     
  21. If you use a good slide film you can eliminate the printing variable.
     
  22. "Win"? What are you trying to win, Katherine? Ok, you did your own test and came to your own conclusions. Your conclusions are contrary to my own, but they are in fact your conclusions. So what is the point?

    Is the point that your R6+50 is no better than a P&S? Ok, but that's your R6+50. I'm not using your's. I'm using my R6+50, and apparently mine perform a lot better than yours.

    Is your point that all R equipment is/are no better than a P&S? I think you must know better than that. Yes? No?

    If I agree with you it's a lie contrary to my experience. If I disagree with you I'm just blind. So no matter what I say, I can't win either.

    So I'll just say too bad for your experience. Use what you prefer to use. I'll use what I prefer to use. Adios.
     
  23. "If I agree with you it's a lie contrary to my experience. If I disagree with you I'm just blind. So no matter what I say, I can't win either."

    Absolutely wrong. I never said that anyone with a different experience was wrong, nor did I imply it. In fact I said "this was just my experience." I don't take exception to anyone having a different experience. The only thing that bothers me is that instead of telling me what a good experience they had and how they achieved it, most people would rather tell me that my findings were wrong. So basically people with good results are right and people with bad results are:
    not using the camera the right way; not using proper "shoot-out methodology," etc.
    Do you see where I am coming from?
     
  24. "oh--and at the end of reviewing that hypothetical 100 page PDF if you couldn't find anything to shoot down, you would have said "well, you must have had a bad copy." So there really isn't any way to win, is there?"

    I'm not arguing with your findings. All of us develop our preferences and prejudices based on personal experiences. But you appear to be jumping to a conclusion without universal objective evidence to support your position.

    If I based my opinion of Nikons on the two crappy ones I've owned vs forming an opinion of Kievs on the four reliable models I've owned, I would conclude that all Nikons are totally unreliable and all Kievs are 100% dependable. That is simply not the way it is in reality.
     
  25. <img src=
    "http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a191/NightHawkZone/Emoticons/popcorn.gif">
     
  26. Katherine, give me the R6.2 & I'll give you an hour of therapy.
     
  27. Katherine, given the expertise level of some of the posters here and their mostly restrained replies, you may wish to go back and try the R6.2 again. I'd like to see what you can do with a repeat of your R test. Depending on the subject matter, I go back and forth between M system and R with equally good results. My Kiev works well too. The only disappointment lately has been with a Kodak Instmatic 500 with 25 year old film. Lets hear from you again after your next try.
     
  28. Most of us that use Leica R lenses are quite satisfied with the results and the opinions of others, whether positive or negative, really matter not at all. I take pictures to satisfy myself, but those that have seen my work seem to like it a lot. I have no experience with the R bodies, since I have a Leicaflex SL, and cannot comment on them. The 4 R lenses that I own are well built and give superb results.

    If you like the M cameras and lenses you may try to find an M2 - an extremely well built camera. A body in excellent condition will probably command a premium price, but for a good reason. An M4 will also serve you well but if you require a built-in meter you should be able to find a reasonably priced M6. I've been using an M2 and M4 for over 40 years and the M2 is still the first choice.

    There's really little point in posting "flaming" comments on this site. We're all quite secure about our choice of Leica equipment and do like to give straightforward advice to those with legitimate questions. Good luck in your quest for the camera that's right for you.
     
  29. I do think it's fair to say that, at the very least, you could have done a side by side
    comparison on slide film as opposed to neg.

    "In short similar to a disposable camera." Thank goodness you weren't being too
    provocative, you rascal!

    It doesn't matter whether you used an R6.2 or a Leicaflex, the 50mm Summicron is a
    perfectly adequate lens for most purposes, as were all the other cameras and lenses you
    tested. End of story. That's all, folks.
     
  30. Good one Brad:)
     
  31. What we have here is someone who shot a roll with a few cameras and liked the Leica R
    least of all. That's perfectly legitimate. Doesn't mean the R series is trash. It just means
    Katherine didn't like what she saw.

    Couldn't help but notice, too, that it was the Leica Defense Corps that came out of the
    woodwork, as usual. Show me a site where that doesn't happen anytime someone says they
    think Leicas are less than perfevt.
     
  32. Don't feed the troll...
     
  33. I agree with W.A. She just didn't like it, that's all. That's OK.
     
  34. It is very obvious that either that R6 and/or the lens in question was faulty, or the person did not know how to use it, or the processing was completely messed up. It is a bit strange that a person bothers to write a long explanation of her findings without at all questioning how it is possible that a well known high quality camera produces results that are similar to a disposable camera. Surely at some stage before posting the results one should have raised the question and found out what went wrong before proceeding. I have no problem admitting that Canon 1 or 3 with L lens would be as good or better than Leica R, but only a faulty body or lens or complete user ignorance at some point in the imaging chain could give the results that have been posted here.
     
  35. I had an R8 once. With the 50 and 35 Summicrons, and 80 Summilux. None of those lenses
    was better than the Canon 50/1.4, 35L, 85L i also own. But, they also weren't so poor that
    they would rate poorly against the Canon glass. I also now have some Nikon lenses ?
    they're pretty good, too. The best 35mm lenses i've ever used were the Leica-M
    Asphericals, the Contax G45, and the Contax 50/1.4. This seems to be in line with what
    Katherine is saying.

    But, without showing your results, it is almost certain that there was some
    testing/methodology error involved, for the results to be so widely skewed.

    As mentioned above, if you re-test, shoot slide film. Poor lab processing will significantly
    affect print film results. If you do shoot print/B+W film when testing, use the Same Roll of
    Film in multiple cameras, to take out that variable.

    Which body/lens combo would offer better results? The bodies aren't responsible for
    image quality except for potential the mirror slap factor. Some cameras are better
    dampened than others. The R5, for example, has a very pronounced 'kick.' I have a Contax
    RX on the other hand, which is the smoothest camera i've ever used. It feels smoother than
    a rangefinder, oddly enough....
     
  36. this seems like someone trying to stir up some abuse. did you get away with something you should've been disciplined for?
    <P>
    i'm an 'M' person but i would never say that the R system is any percentage better or worse than the M system. they're different animals and serve different purposes for different people. i'll bet there are a lot more professional photographers using R cameras and lenses these days.
    <P>

    just my .02

    <P>bob
     
  37. What are you even trying to test? You're shooting film. A film camera is a light tight box. So you're comparing lenses? What are you looking for? Sharpness? Color rendition? Bokeh? Giving an arbitrary number rating doesn't really say much.

    Personally I've never used the R system nor do I care to but it's quite clear you aren't very scientific when it comes to reviewing equipment which severely detracts from your credibility.
     
  38. okay, i'll bite...

    hi FrankG!
     
  39. I shoot with an M6 and Leica lenses 90% of the time and my results are appalling. Chalk that up to my lack of skill. I am equally bad with Nikon equipment.

    There is something to be said for Katherine's observation about the market values for used R equipment.
     
  40. I have 2 more bags of popcorn left...

    Katherine - I have no long term alliance with any camera makers - I have used from Leica to Nikon to Linhof & many others - I don't care who they were - all I've ever cared about is if they work for me & gave me the results I was looking for - no more - no less

    What concerns me is your flippant quick study wherein you cannot even quote the corresponding models/details of the different makers of the "tested cameras"

    Such as:
    "Leica M system: M6 body and 35mm (f/2.8 I think??) (aspherical lens I think also??): 10/10 (it better be for how much it costs!)
    Old Canon QL body with 50mm lens: 6.5/10 not bad considering its age and how cheap they can be found on the internet nowadys.
    Nikon 35mm film camera with 35mm lens(can't remember what model but it wasn't a Pro model): 7.5/10
    Canon EOS 1 or 3 (some professional film body; can't remember exactly which but it was big and bulky and an EOS) body (I supplied a 135mm "L" lens for this one) 10/10 very surprised how nice these shots came out. Almost indistinguishable (quality wise) from the results the same lens gets on my 5D and I think slightly better than the 5D in an intangible artistic sense.
    Leica R 6.2 body with 50mm f/2 lens: 3/10 (being charitable there) "

    It's interesting that the only body/lens combo that you could quote exactly was the Leica R 6.2.

    New batteries for all?

    Straight processing w/out compensation?

    I could care less about Leica or any other body/lens - I feel you are not to be seriously considered for your opinions based on your approach & methods of testing.

    Re: Ken - I was going to suggest Frank as well - tends to liven up the place a bit:)
     
  41. Each to his/her)own. If she beleives as she thinks, let it be.
    Just get an old pinhole and do your best no body pressure you into buying anything.
     
  42. Katherine,

    I would consider yourself very fortunate had I had your experience with the camera tests. I've spent way too much money on Leica M and R cameras and lenses. I would be tickled pink if I found a disposable camera that produced better results than I am getting with my Leica R gear! I could sell this stupidly expensive Leica stuff and just buy a disposable camera at the nearest 7/11 store. That would make me very very happy.

    It's like my .22 long rifle target rifle shooting. As you may know, .22lr rifles tend to show a marked preference for certain types of ammunition, and there's only one way to find out what that might be. Test it all in your particular rifle. Unfortunately that preference can range from cheap Wal-Mart ammo to the most extremely expensive Ely target ammo. Personally, I absolutely love a rifle that shoots cheap .22lr ammo great.

    With that thought in mind, I will be heading to my local 7/11 to pick up a disposable camera, or two... hey what the heck, they're cheap so lets throw consumer conservatism to the wind, to test against my Leica R cameras. Based on your results I expect to have some ebay ads up soon to dump my Leica R gear!

    With any luck what I make will offset that darn expensive Ely .22lr ammo I have to pay for.
     
  43. SCL

    SCL

    No troll feeding here.
     
  44. The M is rangefinder focussing. (Easy to focus)

    The EOS 1 and Nikon SLR are both Autofocus. (The camera focuses for you)

    The R6.2 is manual focus. You have to focus ....

    Katherine maybe you need new glasses LOL ...
     
  45. Funny you mention that, Ron. I was just thinking the same thing. I wonder if Katherine
    realizes the R Leica is a manual focus SLR system.
     
  46. Come to think of it, Katherine, do you realize the R6.2 is a manual exposure SLR, too? You
    need to set the shutter speed and aperture manually. There's no autoexposure on the R6
    bodies.
     
  47. my antonio stradivarius violin doesn't sound good when i play it...what's wrong with it?
     
  48. The R6 has two metering modes - large spot and full screen. You'll get very different results
    depending on the scene. Do you know which metering mode you were using, and how to
    meter with it?
     
  49. I'm not sure what you're asking, or what the purpose of the original post was. But I can
    offer something of an unbiased opinion. By far I've owned more Nikon cameras and lenses
    than any other brand, including F3, F4, F5 and my personal favorite F100. I've also been
    shooting with Nikon and Canon digital gear since the 90's. I currently use digital gear for
    work and have an M system and some hasselblads for personal work. I once had an R6.2,
    an 80/1.4 and a 180/2.8apo.

    I can honestly say that the R6.2 was the best SLR I've ever used for my type of
    photography. It was a great long-lens partner to my M system, and selling it is definitely
    the dumbest thing I've ever done when it comes to equipment decisions. The camera was
    small, mechanically precise and easy to use. (Once you figure out the pesky manual focus
    and exposure.) The lenses were incredibly sharp, even wide open and at close range.

    If your results did not at least match those of the Nikon or Canon system you tested, there
    are two reasons I can think of. Either there are serious problems with the camera and/or
    lens you tested, or operator error was involved with exposure and/or focusing. The lab is a
    possibility, but I assume you used the same lab for all the cameras you tested so that
    seems less likely.

    There is certainly nothing wrong with shooting film along with digital. Lots of people are
    realizing that film has a quality that digital lacks, and I'm not talking about purely
    technical quality. It has a different look and is a different tool that many photographers
    want in their arsenal.

    Seems to me that if you already have canon digital gear and lenses, that a canon film
    camera is the most intelligent choice. You're happy with the lenses, (the 135/2 is superb),
    and you know how the system works. You may or not be aware that the eos 1n and the
    later 1v have a removable grip/battery pack, so if you can get by with a slower motor drive
    speed, you can take it off and have a smaller camera, about the size of your 5d. Canon
    also made other smaller AF slr cameras that are smaller than the 1n. So if you're actually
    looking for unbiased advice, that's mine.

    The only Leica R lenses i can actually personally talk about are the ones I quoted above.
    Alhough I'm not sure that the 80mm has the best reputation, I can tell you that both it and
    the 180/2.8apo are wonderful lenses and equal to or in some cases far superior to the
    Canon or Nikon glass I've used, both in optical quality and mechanical precision.

    If you seriously want to give the R system a fair shot, I'd visit your dad and try his out, and
    ask him about your experiences. For the record, R6.2's in ex condition are around 1200+
    at keh, so they hold their value fairly well, as do late model lenses. The cheaper ones you
    mention are much older. But if you're happy with your canon digital gear, I can't
    understand why you'd want to add another system since canon makes fine film cameras
    that are available inexpensively on the used market.
     
  50. the poblem katherine, is that you hold too much value in your 'findings'. do you think it's edgy posting this here?

    " unload on me now. I'm sure this opinionated post has angered someone, not to mention that I am basing my assertions on only one roll of film!!! The gall of me! Well I do declare."

    you don't really have any opinions. you simply name a few cameras you shot with and their prices. nowhere have you written what it was about each system's results that you did not like. nowhere have you posted results with any examples of who knows what you're trying to say.

    cheers
     
  51. The R6 does not have DX film speed sensors. You have to set the ISO manually. Did you check
    the speed of the film and the camera ISO setting?
     
  52. Hi Katherine, your post here is quite interesting can I make you an offer for the R6.2 plus Summicron , lets say $ 700.00?
    Your valuation and a bid I am being charitable here.
    One more thing it seems Leica R is just not for you selling the camera will save you from more extreme disappointment.
    Cheers Manfred
     
  53. Hmmm

    Rather odd conclusions re R6 and 50 Summicron combo and the stark difference allegedly
    seen as against the M6 body 35 is surprising.

    Strange choice of film IMO slide film or perhaps something like 160s might have been
    more appropriate.

    I've worked with all the cameras you have mentioned (well the ones you can identify) The
    135 L is with out a shadow of a doubt Canon's premier performing lens so there should be
    surprises on "how nice these shots came out" and the 1N probably the best EOS camera
    they made.

    "Canon QL body with 50mm lens". Assume something like the FTb QL with FL 50? good
    workhorse but nothing special and the mysterious old Nikkor same could be said for that.
    Classic 35mm cameras wonderful image making tools. Shame on you, you should take
    more interest.

    "Is there some killer R body or killer R lens that I am missing?"

    well yeah... I wouldn?t phrase it in a catch all competitive way like that but...

    all but two lenses I can think of atm. But from the tone of your post you don't sound that
    interested really? One couldn't compare with Leica R. Hard to imagine a more delightful set
    up as an R6 with 50
    Summicron.

    Perhaps you might like to look up Doug Herr's shots where he makes do with the Leica R
    system. I just recognise his name here.

    So I guess the question you might like to ask yourself is why were your conclusions so out
    of step with years of experience and knowledge.

    Was the dioptre wheel for the VF eyepiece set up correctly?

    You blithely dismiss the R system at your own loss and it is your loss no one else cares nor
    should they. If you are halfway serious do your self a favour check that the camera is set
    up correctly and learn to focus properly.

    Whatever works for you personally... whatever helps you bring life to your pics.

    Peace and good shooting
     
  54. it

    it

    Salgado used the R system to make some nice photos.
     
  55. I think that you may want to consider re-doing your tests with your friend's equipment. Or maybe just re-test the low-scoring cameras.

    This time, with the manual camera(s) use a handheld meter; mount all the cameras on a tripod, and use a cable release.

    Please take the film to a reliable lab.

    Then, evaluate the prints.

    But possibly more important, as you test the cameras, test also for how each camera feels in your hands, how "intuitive" each one is for you, and how steady you think you can hold each one comfortably.

    I think though that based on Leica's standards over all these years, either you got hold of a lemon, or it was mis-adjusted in its CLA, or you just picked it up on the wrong day (for you) and possibly made an error or two in using it. The closest I can afford to get to a Leica is cheap Russian imitations, and I love using those. (I also have a great Nikon, various medium format equipment, and lots of view camera equipment up through 8x10, just to let you know a little about who's talkin' at ya).

    Anyway, good luck settling on a system that works well for you. The best system for you will be the one you take out and actually shoot with, and enjoy doing so, and like the results you get.
     
  56. Camera tests should always be done with slide film. Way less variables in processing
     
  57. Katherine - Lets see some pictures from your tests.
     
  58. Hi,

    Yet another 5D 'user' who has little real photographic knowledge and seems happy to show this to the whole world...
     
  59. "Yet another 5D 'user' who has little real photographic knowledge and seems happy to show
    this to the whole world..."

    Oh, c'mon. There are plenty of Leica users who are embarrassingly proud of their
    embarrassingly lame photographs. What's a 5D got to do with it?
     
  60. Guys, give it a break, already! Haven't you noticed: Katherine has long ago given up responding to the posts!! I also thought she might have forgotten about focusing; but what the heck...
     
  61. "Come to think of it, Katherine, do you realize the R6.2 is a manual exposure SLR, too? You need to set the shutter speed and aperture manually. There's no autoexposure on the R6 bodies."
    "The R6 does not have DX film speed sensors. You have to set the ISO manually. Did you check the speed of the film and the camera ISO setting?"

    Wow.....of course. I knew there must have been something. I thought the Leica R6.2 was a fully automatic point and shoot digital camera. No wonder I couldn't find the slot for my micro SD card. That explains the lack of an LCD on the back, too. Plus, I did think it was weird that the lens didn't move into focus by itself when I lightly touched the shutter button. On my 5D when I do that it autofocuses for me, so long as I have it in AF mode......You think maybe I just didn't have the R6.2 in AF mode? I didn't see that button....

    Yes Leica fanboys, I am a giant idiot with no sense whatsoever who doesn't understand how to use a manual camera, let alone a manual Leica camera which is clearly reserved for Mensa members only. I stupidly except every camera I pick up to be fully automatic. I thought all the settings and buttons were just there for marketing purposes..... ISO setting? What's that??? If it's not automatic then I can't understand it. Please accept my sincere apologies for speaking negatively about a camera which I clearly had no idea how to operate. I'm sorry that you had to suffer through my stupidity.
     
  62. Thom, is that you Katherine?
     
  63. My attempt at satire. Just a friendly defense against the throngs of sexist man-jewelry toting Leicaphiles.
     
  64. C'mon Thom, if someone walks into a biker bar and starts telling people that Harley's suck and Yamahas and Kawasaki's are much better choices, what do you expect will happen ?
     
  65. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    Ken Ng is probably correct. His last name began with G? It's been so long I can't remember.
     
  66. Fellas! You are wasting psychic energy! This is a non-event and a non-issue. Feh! Don't take the bait. Go take pictures, be creative!
     
  67. "Just a friendly defense against the throngs of sexist man-jewelry toting Leicaphiles"

    Oh really? In what way are my questions sexist, Thom? It seems pretty clear to me that the poster got the results because of lack of familiarity with the R6. Male, female, neuter, I don't care - the questions would be the same.

    Exactly how would you begin to sort out the reasons for the stated results? Or maybe you would just throw out labels and name-calling.
     
  68. Oh come now Mr. Shipman, you don't think that implying Katherine doesn't know the basic functions of a camera like ISO (and even how to focus for Chrissakes) isn't sexist? Something tells me that if Katherine's name was "Mike" or "Steve" she still would have received the same (as someone else put it) Leica defense corp. treatment but the obvious sexism of "are you sure you know how to focus a camera honey?" and "sweetie, you know this isn't an autofocus camera, right?" would have been left out.
     
  69. Mr. Henderson, if you think my questions would be framed differently based on the name of the person, then I am truely insulted at your assumption. I don't know where you get the false statements you quote above, but I think you are practicing the kind of stereotyping you pretend to admonish.

    There are all levels of skill on these forums, and even experienced photographers on picking up a fully manual SLR could forget one or two of the controls that have long been relegated to automation, and get poor results without realizing why. It has nothing to do with gender, and your presumption is ludicrous.

    Do you have something constructive to address the poster's question, or are you just ammusing yourself with unmwarranted labeling?
     
  70. I my experience people who complain of sexism are themselves the worst perpetrators.
     
  71. " now Mr. Shipman, you don't think that implying Katherine doesn't know the basic functions
    of a camera like ISO (and even how to focus for Chrissakes) isn't sexist?"

    Perhaps it was simply based on her prior posts. She clearly has an extremely limited
    knowledge of photography.
     
  72. The level of pride and arrogance that is on display here is nothing short of breathtaking. Some of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I don't own a Leica, never have owned one, and after this display I don't think I ever will. If coming to this message board to talk about it is what I have to look forward to, anyway. Jesus H. Christ. GOODBYE.
     
  73. Your unfounded assertions are themselves breathtaking. Talk about arrogance - take a good look in the mirror. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.
     
  74. thom...do i read right? you're basing possible future purchases on us yahoos in some public internet forum? :)
     
  75. Hey guys, I was the second poster here and nobody is giving me a HARD TIME. What's up? I feel left out, not being bashed and trashed. Jeez, I'll have to be more careful next time.
     
  76. Ok, John. Yadda yadda yadda yadda. Your mother wears army boots. So there. :)
     
  77. Assuming it is correctly chosen and in proper adjustment there is little or nothing to be gained by nit-picking with any Leitz or Leica equipment. I would say the same for Nikon, Canon, or any of the other first class brands for that matter. Bench tests and definition charts may reveal minor differences, but there are so many variables otherwise that any differences are inconsequential. Select good equipment, use a tripod where practicable, calculate your exposures correctly, and forget about trifling comparisons. Remember, the human factor is the most critical consideration in any application of photography, nit-picking is a waste of time and effort!
     
  78. This is silly. A troll evolves into absurd charges of sexism. Good riddance, Thom.
     
  79. Let's see... Original poster says 'I have a problem getting this camera to perform.'

    A bunch of people say 'maybe this is the problem.'

    Then Thom joins photo.net, apparently just to say, 'you think she had this problem
    because she's a woman? You're obviously sexist.'

    Hmm, projecting much?

    If Thom had been around here much, he would know that folks here have no trouble
    accusing one another of not knowing the basic functions of their cameras, regardless of
    their genders!
     
  80. >>> Hey guys, I was the second poster here and nobody is giving me a HARD TIME. What's
    up? I feel left out, not being bashed and trashed.<P>
    <img src= "http://www.wylieview.com/forums/non-cgi/emoticons/kick.gif">
     
  81. Scott is right. I've been a Photo.net member for a long time. Many gentlemen visitors here have been told to go get a basic book on photography, or to take a course. I'm married to a feminist professor of woman's issues. I would know if there were any sexism going on here. I don't think there is. The IP was simply inflammatory, and you guys took the bait.
     
  82. Probably so. The accusation really enraged me, and anyone who knows me would be amused
    by it. Slurp...gulp. Yummy.
     
  83. I love the 'net...it gives idiots like Thom (whoever he is) an audience that they'd otherwise never have.

    It was tough before the net and people like this could only have their inane little conversations in their head.
     
  84. Katherine has left the building guys ! She's yanking your chains...Now let's go back to sleep shall we ?
     
  85. katherine,congratulations on returning to film.
     
  86. My humble opinion.
    I once owned and tested a Konica Auto S3.
    The results that came out were less than steller.
    I had muddy shadows, weird color, soft images with only
    a few exceptions.
    I would never own or buy a Konica auto S3 again because of this.
    However, i did use THE ORIGINAL PX625 BATTERY! as found,
    AND CHEAPO $2.50 FILM! hmmm ...
     
  87. Great going Katherine, whoever you are.
    You got the guys rav'in , ta be sure!

    All you Leica gods and stuck up Leica owning " collectors" ;
    Nobody cares anymore!
    Leica is a legend, like a Van Gogh painting.
    Just like owning a Van Gogh, it satisfies the ego and makes the owner feel and appear special.
    The world and life go on, Leica club aficionados.
    Go smoke a cigar or polish the Leica chrome on that C3.
    Nothing wrong with Leica or any of their owners ,
    but attitude is everything.

    Be a well rounded Leica individual and count the lesser
    non Leica owning " folk" in!



    Nothing wrong with owning a legend,
    but there are very few still alive!
     
  88. ps: Is Leica still in the film camera business, and if so,
    wonder what their sales figures have been the last few years?
    Surely that paints an obvious picture, doesn't it?
    It is a niche market only, the used Leica fan club market.
    Like l said , nobody cares.
    Especially Canon.
     
  89. I wonder what the replies would be if...

    I know this may seem like a flamebait post but it is really just my honest reflections on the Canon EOS system.

    I have recently decided to get back into film photography after 5 years of shooting purely digital. I visited a friend recently to try out some of their film cameras (they have a few) and I was somewhat surprised by the results.

    I shot a test roll myself with each one and then had them developed. I wanted to see which would have the kind of look I wanted to go for.

    Nikon 35mm film camera with 50mm lens: 9/10 very impressed with this system.

    Leica R6 with 2/50 lens, 8.5/10 very nice these shots came out.

    Canon EOS 1 body with 50mm f/1.4 lens: 3/10 (being charitable there). Extremely disappointed. I thought all these years that Canon was as good as Nikon or Leica system. It was like 1/3 at best in my 1 roll experience. I have seen similar results with disposable cameras, it was that unimpressive.
     
  90. I call attention to the leading camera-equipment sales mfr- distributor in the world. Canon.
    I do not even own a Canon and i don't care if i ever do.
    Sports pros? Canon.
    On and on .

    Point being, i agree with your findings to this extent Ilkka:
    Everybody has an opinion, ask 25 people the same question and ,you all know the rest of the line.
    Nikon has some superb lenses, as does Canon, as does Leica,
    as do any of the major mfrs, we all know this.

    It is a dud you have stoked, Ilkka, not a flame-bait.

    Again, i say, the pros use the best and don't bitch about it.
    You get what you pay for.
    As for Miss or Mrs. Katherine's original post. Like the man said,
    have a look at Salgato's portfolio, Katherine.
    He never whined, he just took the shots.
    They were very good, because he is a very good artist.
    One cannot give or take away credit to the Leica "R" system.
    The camera he used worked for him.

    Katherine, and this goes out to all the Katherines out in cyberspace,
    ( lest Katherine take the comments personally- i am just using her post as a general example of what is so typical amongst unqualified and subjective opinions such as hers, touted to be quasi-factual-) if Sebastian had used the VERY SAME camera Leica R system, do you think he would have taken less meaningful photos, or that his photos would have failed to have impact?
    Personally, i do not think so!
    You could give me a Hassy or the latest pro Canon digital and the
    very best "L" lens and it would be pointless.
    I may as well use a good quality point and shoot;
    hey, maybe my Yashica MG-1 would get me the shots! hahahaah!!!!

    Leica shm-eica ; Canon sh-manon- its the photographer that
    wins the best photos- the cam is just a tool.

    Get over it Katherine and get yourself the best Leica you can afford .
    Then come back and tell us all that the camera and lens is no good.

    Why crank about your own photographic inadequacies?
     
  91. If you like the M cameras and lenses you may try to find an M2 - an extremely well built camera.

    The pinnacle of Leica hand craftsmanship build quality and innovation.


    Then the quality walked away and the innovation was trapped in an eternal time warp.
     
  92. Read a National Geographic paper a few (or more) years ago,a sort of special issue where one NG photograper said that he used Leica R's because of optics but gave up due to poor reliability of bodies. The opinion floating about was that R4 & 5 were not that hard wearing. I use M.
     

Share This Page

1111