Leica R6.2 vs. R6

I've checked dealers and watched eBay auctions, and have observed that the R6.2

commands such a higher price, usually selling for 2 times an R6. Is there a

true difference in the mechanics or performance of this camera, other than the

1/2,000 shutter speed advantage, or is it a perceived difference as a result of

some clever marketing by Leica when the R6.2 was introduced to replace the R6?

All Leica R models up to the R6 included major components from Minolta.

 

The R6-2 contained no Minolta components. All the components were either manufactured or sourced by Leica. So the purity of the Leica DNA in the R6.2 may account for its greater perceived value.

 

Apart from the higher 1/2000 shutter speed, the R6.2 also has a reputation for excellent reliability.

The 6.2 gets a strange sound at 1/250. Normal so don`t panic.

 

I must have gotten one of the last run as I waited months for a chrome model, then the R8 came out.

 

The R6 seems to be a nice camera also.

Hi,

 

Re this "All Leica R models up to the R6 included major components from Minolta"

 

Please give an official and reputable source for this info...or is just yet more web heresey and rumour?

 

thanks Steve.

I think the intent was 'hearsay', but I like 'heresy' better in that sentence.

I too have a r6.2. It's a great camera, i can't say enough about the quality - small and

rugged. I thought about selling it at one point, but changed my mind, knowing I would

deeply regret it. There is a little adapter that gets screwed into the front of the body below

the lens that allows mirror lock up. Thought you might like to know, if you didn't already.

Good luck with your future purchase.

Personally I think the high price of the 6.2 is just because it was the very last all-mechanical

version, and the resulting demand of purists, collectors, etc. The R6 has a top shutter speed

of 1/1000, and the 6.2 took it to 1/2000. The change in model is usually accompanied by

other internal improvements, but I'm not aware of any other change that would account for

the difference in demand.

BTW, I bought my 6.2 brand new in 1998 at a local dealer for (gulp) $2,200. I think eBay

existed in it's infancy at that time, but I knew nothing about it. Accounting for inflation over

the past 10 years, that was a pretty expensive 35mm camera even then, with no significant

"features" except onboard metering. It's a wonderful camera, though somewhat of a throw-

back in time. Sometimes I get weary of the framelines in the M. I put a Summicron on the 6.2

and the world is pure again - if only my temporary little view of it.

what is exactly wrong with minolta components? i have a cle, which performs perfectly. myth or reality?

"The R6-2 contained no Minolta components. All the components were either manufactured or sourced by Leica."

 

Leitz is reputed to have lost money manufacturing the R6 and R6.2. Under those circumstances, it is difficult to imagine Leitz bringing parts manufacture in-house, at German labor costs, if the components were available from Japan.

'R6.2 also has a reputation for excellent reliability.'

 

Well, when Rob Appleby, who used to regularly post here, used a pair of R6.2's in Bombay, he got so fed up with both of them breaking down and then the long repair times that he switched to M6's.

 

Before you try blaming the humidity, which can be bad, I also used a Pentax LX and two M6's for over three years in Bombay, with no problems. The LX regularly got wet in the monsoon.

My local Leica rep told me at the time the 6.2 came out that it had a redesigned shutter, rather like the difference between red and black dial IIIf's. That wouldn't mean it was more reliable, and I'd buy if I were looking by condition. BTW I own several 'Minolta' R's along with a couple of Leicaflexes and haven't noticed any difference over decades in reliability. Of course, I don't get them wet, but I do live with 95-100% humidity year-round.

I think Rob Appleby shot an R6 and he was standing on top of an active kiln in India, when his R6 died on him. I'm still trying to figure out how HE didn't catch fire. ;-)

 

If I remember correctly the only Minolta part in the R6.2 is the body shell, which they cast for Leica. At some point Minolta was no longer able to supply these and that was the end of the R6.2

 

What people should keep in mind is that at one point Minolta actually made pro level cameras and was in direct competition with Canon, Nikon and Olympus. Like everyone else Minolta produced consumer level gear, but were quite capable of turning out some high quality bodies.

Thank you everyone for your feedback and comments.

I don't think there is, in principle, anything wrong with using Minolta bodies or parts. The important thing is whether the finished camera is reliable or not.

 

Leica marketing made a great deal out of the ruggedness of the R6, Salgado also used them extensively - it would be interesting to hear what he has to say about them - and on spec, they seem very interesting. However, the only person I know who used them extensively gave up because of unreliability and repair-turnaround issues.

The R6 didn't contain any Minolta components. The difference between the two is the 1/2000 top speed of the R6.2. That's about all.

Hi,

 

Thanks for pointing out my crap spelling, although an answer to my question mught have been nicer. I guess it was HEARsay after all. This would not surprise me one bit as PN generally and the Leica forum especially has many people just spouting much internet 'chatter' and myth..

 

cheers Steve.M.

<p>My 1989-model R6 is flawless and an absolute delight to use. Ditto my 1979-model R3 MOT. The R3 clearly has a lot of Minolta DNA in it, while the R6 only has the Minolta body (XD-11). That said, there is no noticeable quality difference between them and I wouldn't hesitate to use either in any conditions. </p>

<p>The R3 just spent 1200 miles in a motorcycle saddlebag and still looks and feels like new.</p>