leica R4 vs M6: advice sought

[zweeko]

hi, all -

 

having used an M6 kit [2 classics, 35/1.4 asph, 50/2, 90/2.8 - oh, and three II-model Ds!] for ten

years, i was just wondering if lenses for the R system are in any way better than their M

counterparts? i fancy getting two R4 bodies, and a 90 summicron, as i'm disenchanted with

rangefinder focusing on anything over 50mm. i'm even considering converting completely to the R

system - if it's quiet enough. i'd be ﾣ1-2k up, too.

 

is the quality of R optics higher, due to their 'uncompactness'? i was just wondering. would there be

any benefit in my converting from M, to R?

 

also, could anyone tell me when the small, red, leica roundel on the R4 started being used? as

opposed to the original, large one. i think it was round-about 1984/serial number 1600000 - can

anyone give me Definite info., on this?

 

finally, could anyone tell me where to get 2 x M6 flash terminal covers, and a hood cover for 35/1.4

asph., in the uk? - i've been waiting Two Years for R G Lewis to sort their stock out!

 

hope this isn't asking too much. it's my maiden post.

 

sincerely, ian cook

[Troll]

Have you considered a Visoflex?

[len_smith]

Generally, rangefinder lenses have less restrictions placed on their optical design and they tend to be optically superior as a result. Lenses for SLRs have to clear the mirror and tend to be retrofocus designs which bring a whole host of problems for optical designers, especially with wide angle lenses.

 

Having said that, optical designers have found ways to overcome or at least minimise those problems.

 

I use Carl Zeiss (Contax) lenses on my Canon EOS 3 and 5D bodies. For the same focal length, the only person who can tell the difference between the results from my Leica M lenses and the Zeiss glass is me. That gives me great confidence in using the Zeiss lenses on my Canon EOS 5D rather than using my Leica film gear and scanning the film, which takes a lot more of my time.

 

Having said all that, there is still no greater pleasure than using a rangefinder camera and some of the best lenses ever manufactured for still photography.

[steven_moseley1]

Professionals HAVE to get top quality results and with great consistency.

 

Ask yourself WHY have the overwhelming majority of pro's who use small format gear, have for the last 45+ years chosen to use SLR's and not rangefinders....

[steven_moseley1]

"finally, could anyone tell me where to get 2 x M6 flash terminal covers, and a hood cover for 35/1.4 asph., in the uk? - i've been waiting Two Years for R G Lewis to sort their stock out! "

 

1. google 'Leica dealer UK'

2. Have a day out in London and visit the capitals photo shops...the only town in the UK worth going to camera shops any longer.

3. The obvious route...evilbay.

[robertodad]

Ian, I do agree with Tony on the SLR vs RF lenses quality/design, I have a RE and

R6 with a 21+35+50mm. The R body is very noisy compare to a m series, it does

the usual CLONK" with a noisier winding mechanism.

I did use my 21mm on my 5D and the canon 24-105mm was sharper at 24 than was

the Leica SA 21, they are about 20 years a part and new technology is way superior

in quality than it use to be.

For instense my Mamiya 7 lenses are 10x better than my 10 year old Hassy

lenses, coating and resolution far superior than anything else, also because it's a RF

designed lens compare to the Hassy design.

Having used my R series for 20 years on jobs i find the quality to be inferior from

new SLR equipment and M leica's lenses, that's why it's taking the dust for the past

7 years. Don't buy an R if you have already the best gear in hand...

As far as Steven comment, well it does not apply to you as it is a matter of AF and

looking thru a lens for accurate framing a pro choose a SLR as it as been intended

to...

[brucecahn]

I used R4 Leicas in my portrait studio. They are excellent. I currently use an M6 and M3 on the street. They are excellent. There may be a slight edge to the pictures from the rangefinder, but it is very small. The rangefinder is quieter and overall I prefer it. Either is a good choice. But R4s are an older model now, and not one known for reliability (though I only had one problem with mine), whereas the M6 is very reliable. I would stay with that. If you want a new camera why not try something different, such as a good 4x5?

[orvillerobertson]

Actually as far as value for your results are concerned you'll be far happier with the R series of

cameras and lenses. The lenses are just as good as the M lenses and much cheaper. For

bodies I would get nothing older than the R5. The R3 and R4 are more prone to electrical

problems. The R6 would be my personal favorite. There's also the amazing SL and SL2 series

that use the same lens mount.

[zweeko]

thanks for the info., guys - most of it useful, SoMe not. the reason i want to get an R

body - or two - is to be able to use the 90 summicron, and focus it accurately!

 

"also, could anyone tell me when the small, red, leica roundel on the R4 started being

used? as opposed to the original, large one. i think it was round-about 1984/serial

number 1600000 - can anyone give me Definite info., on this?"

 

bruce: i already have a fuji 6 x 9 - that's as big as i want to travel with!

[derek_stanton2]

All of the M lenses i've used have been better than the R lenses i've used.

 

I've (only?) owned the R80/1.4, 50/2, and 35/2, and honestly, none of them were better

than the Canon equivalents i use now. If you're as "disenchanted" with rangefinder

focusing, as i often am, and prefer SLRs, get a Canon or a Nikon (or a Contax) and get rid

of the notion that anything branded with a red "roundel" is automatically superior.

[jenny_jaques]

The Leica R cameras have good dampening in the mirror mechanism. They were always quieter than the competition, and do have that solid Leica feel about them. I do agree with Bruce that the R4 is getting a bit old, although if you find one that has had little use and has been cared for, it would be a good choice. Although I would go for either the R5 or even better the R7, which has an absolutely superb AP mode. The shutter speed will adjust by the smallest fraction of a stop if required. One the best R models in my view. (Just never liked the R8/R9 things - ugly,huge and heavy.)

 

The Visoflex system has it's loyal fraternity, including me, but for studio work mostly. For the Leica R, you can buy the fabulous Schneider 28mm Super Angulon shift lens. http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/r_system/lenses/3798.html

[leicaglow]

I used an R3 for awhile. But I found that across the lens line, there were some differences in consistency in terms of image quality. I guess the same could be said about the M lens line, but probably to a lesser degree. For me it comes down to this: SLR=quantity of images, Leica M comes down to quality of images. I personally don't have a problem focusing with the 90mm Tele-Elmarit M, and I don't have the best eyesight anymore.

[james mitchell dc]

I had an R5 for many years, with a 28/2.8, 50/2, later a 50/1.4, 90/2 and 180/2.8. Then I switched to the M series and have never looked back. Maybe it's my style of shooting, but I never found the SLR to give the same uninterrupted feel for the shot as the RF. Also, looking over my photos of the past 25 years, my RF shots--all with Leicas--are more pleasing to my eyes. The exception is for sports. I'll take an SLR any day, of course. I got a Nikon F5 a while back for that, and I loved it, but the auto-focus soon drove be nuts. I would try both systems and find out what works best for you and what feels right. There will never be an objective answer to the look that you want.

[zweeko]

don't get me wrong: i absolutely Love my M6s - i just want a portrait-kit that doesn't

make me nervous! from your responses, i'll be sticking with my M-gear, and

bolstering it with two R4 bodies, and the 90 summicron.

 

Still Waiting for This info., if anyone has it:

 

"when [was] the small, red, leica roundel on the R4 [introduced]? as opposed to the

original, large one. i think it was round-about 1984/serial number 1600000 - can

anyone give me Definite info., on this?"

 

thanks, again

[paddler_b]

I don't think I have ever seen R4 with smaller red dot. That change may have come with R5, and embossed.

[zweeko]

there's Definitely two badge-variants! the smaller, later ones are the ones i want! i just

need to know when they came in to being:<div></div>

[zweeko]

vs:<div></div>

[richard_bud]

"Ask yourself WHY have the overwhelming majority of pro's who use small format gear, have for the last 45+ years chosen to use SLR's and not rangefinders...."

 

The answer is simple, Nikon F.

At the time of the introduction , there was Speed Graphic, Leica M, Nikon S and a number of SLR's of various types. The advantage of the SLR was WYSIWyG and the use of long lenses. The Nikon F modular system with great lenses and a Motor in a camera that was virtually industructable rapidly caused the changeover starting with newspaper photogs and then later almost all Pro's who used 35mm format.

Then the addition of the Photomic Finder for the Nikon F, followed by the FTn made thru the lens metering the accepted norm. By 1970, one literally couldn't give a Leica M away among newspaper photographers.-The M has really been trying to come back over all these years with the culimination of the M7, has probably reached its pinnicle. If the M7 with Motor M had been available in the 1960's, many Pro's would have continued to use M's for most of the thier work, except sports.Dick

[zweeko]

er, thanks for that. dick. i had nikon F2s when i was a student - i have owned canon,

pentax, yashica, mamiya, rollei, hasselblad, also - i have moved on. i am happy with

what i've got, now. all my other cameras were ok. my leicas suit what i shoot; they

give me what i want; they work for me. nothing else has. or will. they are an extension

of me. implying that i ought to consider 'something else' is like asking me to amputate

one of my own limbs, or to remove one of my vital organs. oh, and it's pinnacle : ]

[ronald_moravec1]

R4 and R5 has no mirror dampening or so little it is worst in the entire line.

 

You will get what you pay for.

 

No spare shutters are available. It was another camera that almost bankrupted Leica

with repairs.

 

Reconsider.

[charlie_chan2]

Ian,

 

Get a R8. there's a mint- R8 at Aperture in Museum St for GBP450. It's bigger

(much bigger) than the older Rs, but ergonomically it's great. Short of a SL2 VF, it's

the brightest VF in the R range. I love my R9/DMR - it's so good, I'm not sure I'll

need a R10 if it comes out. For those who don't belive that Leica make good R

glass, here's a shot from tonight. I went to see Duffy at our local music festival in

Cheltenham - truly fabulous. I even had some Canon pros ask me about my 180/2

Summicron R!!!

 

Oh and I do use my Ms too - M6TTL, M2 and CLE. But they're different tools.

 

Charlie

[stuart_richardson]

I use both Leica M and Leica R. In general, the lenses are quite comparable,

assuming they are of the same generation. Some lenses are better than others on

both sides. I would advise an R6 over an R4 though...the R6 is a fully-mechanical

design, while the R4 requires batteries to operate. The R6 was also built entirely by

Leica, while the R4 was a Minolta collaboration (not that that is a bad thing

necessarily). <P>In terms of lenses, many people (myself among them) prefer the

100mm APO macro to the 90mm summicron. It is one of the legendary lenses, and

in my opinion, the finest lens in the R system (the 180/2.8 APO and 280/4 may be

sharper, but for me, they are not as practical). If optical quality is your main

concern, then choose either the 100mm APO macro, or the 90/2 APO ASPH.

<P>On the other end, there is no equivalent to the 35/1.4 ASPH in the R system.

There is a 35/1.4, and while very good, it is not as good as the 35/1.4 ASPH. The

50/2 in the R system is supposedly not as good as the 50/2 in the M system...I

have not used it. The latest 50mm f/1.4 Summilux (E60 filter ring) is superb though.

Not as contrasty as the 50/1.4 summilux ASPH, but very sharp, beautiful bokeh and

excellent overall. It reminds me a lot of the 35/1.4 ASPH...as sharp as you could

ever want, but still quite pleasant.

[ken_park2]

Ian,

 

Some info. on the badging: I've come across a photo of an R4S dated 1983 with small logo.

 

Also, if you're interested about R4 reliability issues - from1980-82, there were three changes to the soldering points of the circuit board (starting with 138 then 100 and finally only 38) in order to minimise electronic gremlins.

 

All the above comes from a really informative French Leica site: summilux.fr.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers, Ken.

[nrb]

I prefer rangefinders for street photography. SLRs for other purposes.

It goes without saying that I'm referring to the Leica brand.

[paul_neuthaler]

They used to say the best Leica reflex was a Nikon F3 -- but I have found the SL and SL2

Leicaflexes to be amazing -- incredible build & incredible viewfinders. Get one.