Leica R system: are you kidding me?

[paul_neuthaler]

Katherine, give me the R6.2 & I'll give you an hour of therapy.

[christopher_a._junker1]

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.

[john_boyle3]

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.

[andrewlamb]

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.

[lee hamiel]

Good one Brad:)

[w.a._gerrard]

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.

[lawrence_beck2]

Don't feed the troll...

[Rob F.]

I agree with W.A. She just didn't like it, that's all. That's OK.

[ilkka]

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.

[derek_stanton2]

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....

[robert_woodrum]

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

[waltflanagan]

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.

[monochrome11]

okay, i'll bite...

 

hi FrankG!

[george_conboy1]

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.

[lee hamiel]

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:)

[sandor_a._feher]

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.

[gaijin]

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.

[SCL]

No troll feeding here.

[leica ron]

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 ...

[kens]

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.

[kens]

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.

[matt_m__toronto_]

my antonio stradivarius violin doesn't sound good when i play it...what's wrong with it?

[kens]

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?

[noah]

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.

[matt_m__toronto_]

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