R8 - why all the knocks?

I realize from reading this forum for some months now that this is primarily a "M" body forum with the occasional "R" question. Why does the "R" body get such bad press when the subject comes up? One participant even said that he sold his shortly after he bought it because he'd "had a bellyful" of it. I'm not after comparisons against the "M" but comments on the nature of the "R" body and its lenses alone perhaps against other popular SLR's, i.e N or C. I've handled the "R" and while it has its quirks it does seem workable and it has some spectacular lenses. Just wondering...

I suspect that a lot of it is the fact that the Leica R8 had a rather

rough beginning with several problems in the first couple years of

production. A good number of folks don't like the bulk of it either,

then there are others who cannot see the high prices vs the lack of

modern SLR features.

 

<p>

 

For my part, well, I love the ergonomics of the body ... it just fits

my hands brilliantly ... and the viewfinder, lenses are all to die for.

But for gosh sake, a body and three lenses will set me back FAR more

than I can justify for my SLR usage, an equivalent kit in Contax, Nikon

or Canon equipment would cost a third what I'd spend on Leica R while

providing a lot of things that Leica doesn't. And while the Leica

lenses are indeed stunningly superb, well, Zeiss, Nikon and Canon don't

make such bad lenses either.

 

<p>

 

It's all a matter of perspective and interest. I love Leica Ms and Rs

are both very fine cameras with lenses that are the standard of the

industy, but the M is much more worthwhile to me for the kind of

shooting I like to do.

Let me begin by stating that I prefer the R8 to any other SLR camera,

Leica or otherwise. Its strengths, to me, are its:

 

<p>

 

- comfortable shape

- ease of use

- sensible layout and functioning of controls (ergonomics)

- choice of operating mode and metering methods

- support for flash, including pre-metering

- range of shutter speeds, with flash synch at 1/250 sec

- build quality

- most importan of all, the range of first-class Leica R lenses.

 

<p>

 

As an expensive SLR camera with a famous name, the Leica R8 is an

obvious target for criticism. Many consider it to be lacking in

features compared with modern SLRs from the competition. The most

common gripes are:

 

<p>

 

- lack of autofocus, with no known plans by Leica to address this

- size and weight, especially in comparison with previous R models

- lack of built-in motorized film advance, despite the bulky body

- low speed of the accessory motor drive

- unreliability/bugs.

 

<p>

 

Only the last of these criticisms concerns me. Although the R8

received a "bad press" early in its life because of (mainly

electronic) bugs, the problems at that time appear to have addressed

successfully by Leica. Some have speculated that recent Portuguese-

made R8s are more reliable than the previous German-made ones.

Unfortunately, my own exerience is at odds with that opinion. My R8,

serial no. 2725***, which says "Made in Portugal" on the underside of

the box it came in, has a problem with the aperture control ring

sticking. This prevents lenses from closing down to the selected

aperture when the shutter is released. I have been told, by several

knowledgable people, that this is a fairly common problem with the

R8.

 

<p>

 

Apart from that one fault, I have found the R8 to be a rewarding

camera to use. It seems to meet my personal requirements very well

indeed and I have no regrets.

 

<p>

 

Regards, Ray

The current R line is even more overpriced than the M series.

Spectactular could refer to the lens quality or their price tag. You

could buy a Contax 645 outfit for about the same price as an R8 basic

system. The camera is big enough to have a built in motor drive-but

it doesn't. Add the drive and the camera is massive--the fellow above

must have way bigger hands than I do. The problem is that Leica

missed the market for a high end SLR (again?) and the poor R sales

reflect this. I don't have the answer as far as what they should

build (not that they'd listen to me anyway). I am not sure anyone

could come up with a manual focus R camera system at this point that

would sell at the prices they need to get for the stuff.

Dan,

 

<p>

 

If you can afford it, the R line is the most pleasant SLR system to

use. The word 'pleasant' is key here: it relates to build quality, to

smoothness of operation, to ergonomics and, with recent lenses, to

the intellectual satisfaction of using the top end of what optical

engineering can provide today.

 

<p>

 

Apart from that, you are left with the choice of believing or not

believing the quasi mystical arguments on Leica's unique

imaging "glow".

 

<p>

 

Personally, I sincerely believe that there is no picture shot through

a R that could not have been shot with *equivalent* quality through

high end nicaminpentax gear available new at 1/4th of the price.

 

<p>

 

Inversely there are quite a few instances where excellent pictures

taken through modern nicaminpentax gear would NOT be taken as

efficiently through a R (sports, family snapshots, hectic

photojournalism reporting, etc). If your living depends on the

results of your photography, productivity is a real issue, and R does

not win.

 

<p>

 

However, my personal experience also leads me to confidently state

that it is much more fun and motivating to use a R8 + 180mm apo-

elmarit or 100mm apo-macro-elmarit than to use any nicaminpentax

combinations of equivalent focal lengths. But my living does not

depend on the results of my photography...

 

<p>

 

The "bad press" you mention relates to such mundane issues as

price/quality ratio, objective productivity or quality needs, weight

and sheer frustration at not having a R in the hands as we type...

I believe that the M-series is much more signifigant from a

engineering/design standpoint, and I have to admit that the R series

cameras (R3, R4, R5, R7) left way too much to be desired. I swear

they are just expensive minoltas(yuk). The lenses would certainly

justify their use, but at those prices, one might as well shoot the M-

series.

 

<p>

 

But the R8 really changed my opinion of that after handling one after

their introduction in 1997.

 

<p>

 

I didn't know of any bugs/problems with the R8, but I would hope they

are Ironed out at this point- the 180 is a wonderful focal length,

and I'm sure the combonation is very nice, but my F3 and 180 does a

great job on film.

 

<p>

 

But I think that the appeal of the M-series vs. the R is due to it's

design signifigance.

"The current R line is even more overpriced than the M series."

 

<p>

 

Not really, most M and R is stuff is pretty close, with some

exceptions. Secondhand the R cameras are a good deal cheaper and

represent bargains very often.

 

<p>

 

The R6.2 is an excellent camera and has no faults as far as I can see.

Excellent build quality, superbly sensitive meter and superb screen

brightness. It is also pretty small. But it is a manual camera, so has

few "exciting" features to talk about. I see this as a virtue.

 

<p>

 

The only improvement I would like to see is 1/250th flash sync speed,

but to get this I would have to sacrifice the manual shutter I

suspect.

 

<p>

 

I am not interested in autofocus so fail to see the great fuss that is

made over this feature. I can focus my R6 much quicker than my wife

can focus her Elan 7.

I too think the problem for most people is price related. Though no

more individually than Leica M product, it amounts to volume. A

completely workable M kit for most people amounts to a body or two and

often three lenses. 35,50,90/21,28,35 etc. Enough to buy a small car

with. But a comprehensive SLR kit for a working pro may entail a

couple of bodies and lenses from 19 to 300 mm with a couple of zooms

thrown in. Now all of a sudden we're talking the price of a small

house! Though many M users (IMO) know how good the R system is, for

their SLR system Nikon or Canon provide good quality at much less

expense....

Actually Bob, I agree with you. An M system forces limits on you. Many

people buy all sorts of lenses when getting a reflex (most of which

are rarely used, I suspect), but you are right this gets very

expensive when it is all Leica glass. If I was going on safari, I bet

I would get or rent Canon EOS really long lenses - they are expensive,

but the Leica APO teles which I would, a priori, like to use I suspect

are totally out of the question.

 

<p>

 

In my case the longest lens I feel I want is a 180mm so that is my

limit and with the R-system this doable with saving.

All IMO: The R8 does not satisfy enough of my requirements to justify

its expense as a dedicated SLR system. As stated earlier, the optics,

while very good, are not as good as the M's. (Granted, it has focal-

length options available that the M does not...) And the body lacks

many of the sophisticated niceties of the Canon, Nikon or Contax AF

counterparts. Granted, the R has better glass available, but with my

F5 and 80-400 VR combo, I can fire off 8 frames per second from the

back of a moving (and bouncing) ski-boat at f8 with 400 speed film

and catch an entire sequnce of a wakeboarder doing a complete flip on

his board, AND all the images will be in sharp focus! Same thing with

horses jumping over fences, kids playing soccer or basketball, and

auto or motorcycle racing. For nature photography, I believe Nikon's

excellent line of AFS telephoto optics will stand up to any of the

similar offerings from Leica - even wide open - and probably come out

sharper due to Nikon's excellent shutter damping system. So, when I

added it all up for my uses, why should I even consider the R8? Add

in the cost compnent, and the aforementioned alternatives become a

much easier choice.

I think Alan's point is actually a fair one. The R's are a fine

photographic experience - traditional materials, made and built to

last, with top notch optics. They are particularly good for those of

us who buy into the Leica quality, but do not necessarily think that M

photography is the be all and end all of the photographic experience.

If SLRs are secondary to you then certainly the other brands make a

lot of sense. Still if you like manual focus SLRs then I think they

are unsurpassed and that includes Nikon.

 

<p>

 

Personally, I can never see myself as taking serious auto racing shots

which might, I suppose, benefit from very fast AF (although I am not

sure). A motor drive that does 4.5 fps rather than 8 seems to me to be

a small difference in practical use, but might possibly be important

for some users. Most of what is extra in Nikon and Canon bodies

compared to the R8 is associated with AF functions, which if you don't

want, are unnecessary and complicating. I think it should also be

pointed out that Nikon/Contax and Canon top end bodies are not that

much cheaper than the Leica R8, if at all. Likewise Nikon ED/AFS or

Canon L's are not cheap. Leica optics are often more expensive still,

but if you can pick them up secondhand, for example, they can be quite

comparable. It is always interesting that when comparing SLRs, Leica

Rs are always stressed to have fewer features than competitors,

whereas this very difference is part of what is praised so much when

comparing Ms to SLRs. Look at how the Konica RF is often poorly

compared to the M6. It is a little inconsistent. Personally I am not a

great fan of automation, whether in reflex or "viewfinder/rangefinder"

cameras, or autofocussing.

 

<p>

 

Yes, you either buy into the Leica myth or you don't. The same applies

to M Leicas these days with Konica/Contax G and Voigtlander

competition. This is a relatively new development for Leica M to have

r/f competition, the last time was back in the 50 and 60s.

The Leica R8 is a superb instrument. No one makes a 50mm that can compete with the new 8 element 50mm Summilux. The combination is alone a

reason to own the two.

 

<p>

 

Kirk

I love Leica as much as many here do. But when it comes to

SLR, I readily prefer a Contax Aria and a few Zeiss primes to the

R gear. The Aria is light, compact, 3 FPS motor, quiet, big finder,

spot, CW, matrix meter. I think its the best MF 35mm camera

ever made. And I wonder how the Zeiss 50/1.4 would compare

to the Leica R-50. I know the Zeiss handily outperforms the

Nikon AF 50/1.4 when shot wide open (personal experience).

And, there is a great selection of new and used Zeiss (and

Yashica) lenses out there that can be had a prices very favorable

when compared to the Leica R lenses. As long as I am

rambling, the CZ 85/2,8 Sonnar on an Aria is a fantastic event

lens for getting tight people shots without a lot of "posed" shots

coming back from the lab.

I have also noted the M bias on this site and am a little surprised.

If you like the Leica M or Nikon or Canon, etc. that is great. Is

your camera/car/house better/bigger/more expensive than mine? Who

cares? I hope everyone can buy and use the camera system they prefer.

 

<p>

 

I recently left the N system after 30 years and joined the Leica R

family. I thoroughly enjoy the manual focus, slick precision build

quality, superb lenses, and intuitive, easy-to-use controls which let

me exercise my creativity in taking pictures. I don't care for

autofocus or motors/winders. I like manual focus/manual advance

cameras and manual shift sport sedans. The Leica R system is a joy to

use and (when I do my part well) provides great images/slides.

 

<p>

 

Having said all this, I do enjoy reading opinions, experiences, and

suggestions from others on this forum. The exchange of ideas and

knowledge can be very interesting and frequently helpful. LB

There is very little left here that i can contribute. I use an R8, but

for things that an M4 would be inadequate for. I love the experience.

When i need to do something that an R8 is inadequate for, i borrow a

friend's Canon. Don't like the experience but it gets the job done.

Believe is when i have no distinct knowlegde of. i don't believe R

lenses (those that i personally use) are very good, i know they are.

But at the end of the day, it is how i remember the experience. Ms, Rs,

Nikons, Canons, they all mean squat.

Personally, I have not been all that impressed with the R lenses, with

the huge exception of the really top-line APO stuff. (180 f/2 or f/2.8,

100 macro, 70-180 f/2.8, 280 f/4 or f/2.8) And most of that is too

exotic, too expensive and too heavy for me. And below 180 I have just

never seen results up to the M, or much better than the average (what

was that word?) Canikolympentax? Better built though, but build rarely

shows up on film, at least for the first 10 years.

 

<p>

 

And the R bodies have often been kludges - I actually appreciate the

new ergonomic feel of the R8; I just wish it were 15% more compact/

lighter. And it has it's kludgey aspects as well - after 40 years of

excellent examples of how to built a DOF preview lever (SL/SL2, R3,

Nikon FM2, etc.) you'd think Leica could have done better.

 

<p>

 

IMHO the best manual-focus bodies currently available new (not

necessarily lenses) are Contax. The Aria and RX are exceptional. Try an

RX sometime - zero - I mean ZERO - mirror vibration. But no long glass

to match Leica or anyone else. (sigh).

"I have also noted the M bias on this site and am a little surprised.

If you like the Leica M or Nikon or Canon, etc. that is great. Is

your camera/car/house better/bigger/more expensive than mine? Who

cares? I hope everyone can buy and use the camera system they

prefer. "

 

<p>

 

Of course. But I suspect the reason for Leica's existence (survival)

is the M cameras. The SLR's always seemed to me an attempt to meet

the market orientation to SLR's in general. I had the R6's for a

couple of years, but had mechanical problems. Also the feature set

(esp. flash) is primitive compared to other SLR's whereas the M is in

a class of its own - or was until Konica came up with the Hexar RF.

 

<p>

 

The M6 body is the only reason I use Leica gear, I'd be happy with

other people's lenses but the body is the only one (pace Hexar) I

find usable.

I have lived in Japan now for about one year. In this time I have

learned one very important thing about photogrphy. That is: Kobo wa

fude o erabazu. Kobo was a very famouse Japanese monk whose writting

was the most beautiful. The writing itself, like caligraphy.

This saying basicaly means: Kobo didn't chose his brush. It didn't

matter what brush he used, it was going to be beautiful. The same is

basicaly true with photography. The camera is just a tool for

getting what you see on to film. YOU take the picture not the camera.

Me personaly, I love Leica. I feel it has made me a better

photographer. If there is something wrong with the picture it's not

the camera's fault.

One more saying about Kobo: Kobo mo fude no ayamari. Translation:

Even Kobo made mistakes.