Leica R system: are you kidding me?

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.

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.

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."

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!!

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.

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. ;-)

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?

""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.

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.

I sense a wee bit of the defensiveness in the OP that she expected to find in R users.

expected to find? I did find it :)

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.

Try to find a Pentax MZ-S ... they go to 11.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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

<P>

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.

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.

If you use a good slide film you can eliminate the printing variable.

"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.

"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?

"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.

<img src=

"http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a191/NightHawkZone/Emoticons/popcorn.gif">