Why is it that...... .

Besides the almost complete M system that I have, I also have a R7,

which I bought to replace my R6.2. I have three primes plus a zoom,

and I find the system to be very convenient and easy to use. It is a

great camera. However, ever since I become a member of this forum, I

don't recall any discussion about the R7. Can anyone explain to me

why the R7 is so overlooked?

I believe the unmentionable Jay had answered this question more than once. ;)

 

It's been a while, Sandy. Wish you had posted more often too.

<p>Thanks Andrew, looks like this question of mine is going to be a self fulfilling prophecy. Yes, I do miss Jay and his unbelieveable scope of knowledge about Leica, but such is life.</p>

Hi Sandy,

 

Good to see you are still around. Want to say thanks again for getting me into

posting pix.

 

I have an idea. Why don't you write something about the R7 and other Leica SLRs.

Would really like to know about them.

Sandy, it is interesting the conclusions people come to. Most people agree that Leica R glass is the best available for SLR cameras, and most people will agree that the lens is the most relevant factor in the performance of a SLR.

 

I personally have used Canon, Nikon, and Leica SLR bodies, and find very little difference between them.....erganomics aside.

 

Yet people do not have good things to say about R series cameras, but will rave about FM2's and K1000's....it's very strange.

<b>Most people agree that Leica R glass is the best available for SLR cameras</b></p>

 

Maybe on this and other internet Leica enclaves, however out and about most people agree only that Leica R glass is the most expensive. Many people, rightly or not, continue to believe a number of Leica R glass is actually Minolta's or some other maker's, this perhaps being the failure of Leica's marketing to clarify that misapprehension.</p>

 

<b>and most people will agree that the lens is the most relevant factor in the performance of a SLR.</b></p>

 

Again, outside these hallowed halls, most photographers believe that getting the shot takes precedence over minutae in lens characteristics, that the average client and viewer is not going to examine prints with a loupe. Very many photographers value fast motor-drives and auto-focus, as well as some form of anti-vibration mechanism. Professionals also consider the availability of speciality glass for hire, which is much more easily found with Nikon and Canon. Many photographers also consider their kit as functional tools and place little or no value-added on marque status amongst a small group of wealthy elitist amateurs.</p>

 

<b>I personally have used Canon, Nikon, and Leica SLR bodies, and find very little difference between them.....erganomics aside.</b></p>

 

Eronomics is not unimportant, especially if one earns one's keep with something.</p>

 

<b>Yet people do not have good things to say about R series cameras, but will rave about FM2's and K1000's....it's very strange.</b></p>

 

I would compare those to the Leicaflex bodies, about which I've read mostly praise, save of course for the original Leicaflex which was devoid of a TTL light meter and full-screen focusing. The R-series are, again, outside of Leica forums, almost universally thought to be thinly-disguised 70s-80s Minolta bodies.

<p>David, much thanks for your response, it's very kind of you.

<p>Jack, what you said may be true. Since I do not have the vast knowledge that you have, I can only guess. My take : Both the camera body (R7) and the lenses were mostly made in Germany, and if Minolta was a partner, they would have honed the difficult hurddle in one of Leica's most expensive R glasses, the 28-70 2.8 zoom that was made at Solms with the less automated equipment and by hand grinding for asph, and failed. So I surmise that Leica is/was sharing some of its knowhow to Minolta, but not all. Just my guess.

<P>Actually, branding is so proliferate in manufacturing, especially in automobiles, that I am surprised that Leica would rather let the purportedly their best ever R lens goes to a sudden death, non-delivery, then to seek help from Minolta. Your wisdom, please...

<P>Lastly, a big cheers for you, you know what I mean !

While Leica R glass is exceptional, after the SL2 (c. 1976) the bodies are not. In fact, until the R8, all are mostly Minolta derivatives! Bottom line is there are fewer Leica R users (any body) than any other SLR system ever produced---past, present or future. I used the "marginal" Contax SLR system for years, but would guess Contax in its heyday exceeded Leica R users by a factor of at least 10 to 1. It remains a complete mystery to me how a company with Leica's financial issues can continue to carry a loss leader like the R system. I've not seen any recent numbers, but even anemic M sales must exceed R sales by a factor of 40 or 50 to 1 (or likely more). How can people discuss what they don't use!

Jack, I use R system gear and am very happy with it. What I was trying to point out is the double standard that is applied to it.

 

A couple of zooms and the 24 2.8 lens were Minolta designs, while the 24 was made by Leica, yet people claim it is not up to Leica standards, but people do not complain about the Minolta version of the same design.

 

The R4 thru R7 bodies were based on a Minolta design with upgraded components in many areas, and again people will tell you that these R bodies are not up to Leica standards, yet again people will tell you that the XD-11 was one of Minolta's best designs and a great camera.

 

Leica R glass while very affordable used, can be expensive new, but no more expensive than Canon L glass for instance. Again people continue to talk about the expensive R glass while the Canon is in fact comparable price wise.

 

It is interesting that people with Canon digital cameras often use Leica R lenses and rave about the quality vs Canon glass. There has to be some advantage to the Leica glass to have someone sacrifice automatic diaphragm usage to get the better image quality.

 

In short people hold Leica products to different standards than other manufacturersand, a FM2 or K1000 cannot be great cameras when a R6 or R7 is just a cheap Japanese design.

I am way outside my depth in this thread, inasmuch as I have never even touched an R

camera, much less used one. However, I do want to say that it is good to hear from Sandy.

I look forward to more posts in the future.

Sandy:

I just bought an R7 body myself. I also owned an R4 since the early '80s. [bTW, some might consider it heracy that you would buy an R7 in exchange for an R6.2.]

 

I think the R7 is a great product. I compared it side by side with my R4, and the only obvious thing I noted was a significantly brighter viewfinder, which also had more contrast; and the 2000 shutter speed. But that said, I compared meter sensitivity of both down to the low light levels near 1 or 2 EV, and the R4 was just as sensitive as the R7, even though the specs say it should be two stops less sensitive. All the the other specs for the R4 were right on the money.

 

In my opinion, the R series products are highly underrated. The lenses are great, and the bodies are not Minolta copies. Just go pick up an XD-11 used somewhere and compare it directly to an R4 or R7. No comparison. There's a reason they (XD-11) sell used for a lot less money.

 

I just got my new Canon 20D delivered, so I could use my R4 lenses and do digital. I would never take the 20D (which costs more than my R7) over the R7, now that I have had a chance to compare them side by side. That's saying a lot for a camera designed 20+ years ago. Where the R7 is pleasurable to use, the Canon is, well, irritating. Why would you put lens aperture adjustment on a wheel on the camera back?

I own and use an R5 and R6. I have 24mm, 28mm, 35 f/2, 50 f/2, 60 Macro, 90 f/2, 135 f/2.8, 180 APO-Telyt, 35-70 f/3.5 zoom, 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 zoom.

 

I also have three Nikons and 14 lenses for them.

 

Some observations: My Leica viewfinders are clearer, brighter, and easier to focus than the Nikons are. When I put a motor drive MD-12 on a Nikon FE2, I have to fiddle and fuss with it for 3 minutes before it starts working. Tighten, loosen, wiggle, re-tighten, loosen, wiggle, tighten. When I put the motor on my R5 or R6, it works. Period. The F3 motor goes on easily, admittedly. Which brand has the sharper lenses depends on which lens we are talking about. I can't recall being dissatisfied with a Nikon lens. But the color I get with Leica lenses never ceases to surprise and please, even after some years of owning them.

 

I don't get the high barrel distortion with my 28-70 that Erwin says is there, at 28mm. I do get the high pincushion distortion at 70mm.

 

I like it that most of my Nikkors take 52mm filters. With my Leica lenses, I need 48mm, 55mm, 60mm; series 7; and the 24mm can take a series 8. And I still have not figured out how to put a filter on the 180 f/3.4 APO-Telyt.

 

I like the old-fashioned meter needle on my FE2's. Exposure is inherently analog in nature. I like a continous analog exposure indication better than a digital readout that goes in steps. The three-diode setup in the R6 and M6TTL/MP/M7 serve the same purpose. The fact that the R6 has that setup makes it easy to shoot with both M and R in the same session.

 

I think it's somehow easier to hold a Nikon than a Leica R. It has to do with the shape of the body.

 

I guess that's all I have to say about that. Maybe we answer more questions about Leica M because while there are lots of SLR's in the world, more similar than different, Leica M is almost unique and thus attracts more interest. And aren't there are more new products and developments in the M line? Sure, I know about the digital back and the aspherical zooms. The digital back seems to draw more interest than the zooms. More people want to know if a Version IV Summicron is really better than a III, or an ASPH, than whether an aspherical zoom has good bokeh compared to a 35mm Summicron-R. I don't know why that is. I'd like to see those discussions.

 

Glad you dropped in, Sandy. Don't be such a stranger!

<p>It's really nice to be amongst friends again, I <b>missed</b> that.

<p>The Leica M no doubt is a great set up, but it takes away my excuse of taking lousy pointless pictures. Along with that, it also comes with high expectations which translate into fear. The fear that I don't belong to this group of knowledgeable and smart friends. It makes me want to hide. Peter A, my good pal is a good example. I am absolutely thrilled to see him became a master of the craft along with Alex S who is going to have his own book. It makes me put down my cameras - don't want to shame my friends, no more mundane pictures to bore you, something you do not need to understand.

<p>Heartfelt thanks to all my old buddies and friends, it's such a warm feeling....

Sandy,

 

Well, I am a great fan of the Leica R system, and I have had an SL, an R6 and R6.2. I would quite like to get an R9 or an R7 myself as a backup. The main reason I think that these cameras are overlooked is: a) truly terribly expensive new - in fact probably not really justified b) "behind the times" i.e. no AF, and the camera bodies have the same spec or often less than the competition - for many this matters more than it should in my opinion. c) poor marketing leading to the confusion over the optical source of their lenses and d) they are not legends like the M (the reasons for the M's legendary status are complex and not altogether fully rational.

 

This being said I have found the lenses very fine indeed and beautifully made. The R3-R7 are well made, but not so luscious as an M camera. The R8 and R9 I think are M quality and feel.

Do rent or at least "fondle" an R8 or R9.

 

I own and use both + two of the later R-Elmarit lenses (28-90 and 80-100 APO).

 

One of the few fine SLRs that any amateur SLR user can load, shoot with and get good results without bothering to study reading the owner's manual.

 

As well, the newer Elmarit lenses (sorry, not a scintilla of Minolta glass or plastic)really are better, and continue to show me the difference. I should add that the Canadian product is supereb as well (thanks to the U.S. Navy...).

 

Funny looking body from the top, not so funny when you pick it up, fingers and thumbs go exactly where they should, latch in a lens and ACTUALLY use it.

 

Until you do this, it's all conjecture.

 

Regards,

 

Bob

<p>Bob,

<p>You are bad! Trying to lure me into the R8/9 hah? How much are they run for now? 3 grand plus? I paid $900 for my nice, boxed R7. Pssst, just don't tell anybody :-)

<p>Cheers.

Hi Sandy, nice to here from you. I think the R7 may be overlooked because there aren't

many users of R posting on this forum. I've used most of the R bodies at one time or

another, and found the 7 to be a great camera. The last of the classic looking Leica SLRs

prior to the redesigned R8 and now R9.

 

But things have moved on since then, and while M lovers

revel in older models, there is less of that with the SLRs (except Doug's SLs ). R8s and R9s

may now be getting a bit more attention than in the past due to the new DMR digital back

that only fits those cameras.

 

The issue of lenses is one of either seeing the difference or not. If one gets some the R

lenses designed to be less expensive "entry level" choices, then it is questionable why go

Leica in the first place. But there are some lenses that do stand out, and produce a certain

look and feel not readily available in other systems. That becomes a selection wholly based

on your eye and subjective personal preference.

 

So, IMO, owning a R camera is not a decision of camera body, but one of a box to hang the

R glass on. For those that dispute the value of the lenses, the cameras are useless and

easily sniped at.

For Sandy:

 

In the US, expect to pay about $ 1,000 to 1,400 for a respectable R8.

 

You'll pay the higher amount for the one that is in really nice condition and

has been DMR-certified by Leica USA.

 

I suspect one could find an R8 for less than $ 1,000 U.S. with a bit of cosmetic

issues but in good working order.

 

Mine was a "demo" and could pass for new and has been certified for DMR.

 

Since it came back from Leica I must confess I am loathe to break open the

Leica-sealed plastic bag, load some B&W (that was the plan - use the R8 for

manual wind and B&W, use the R9 with Motor Drive and the big lens for color,

blah-blah-blah) and start shooting again with the R8.

 

Yes; this is very, very lame. A Real Man would bust open that plastic bag in a

heartbeat, slap a lens on the R8 and nevah, nevah look back...

 

It is, to be sure, a sickness.

 

Regards,

 

Bob