who uses only the R?

[status_flo]

i was just curious to know if any one from this forum uses only the R

system and not the M? it seems that everyone on this forum who is an

R user is also an M user.

[Robin Smith]

If I had to use only one system I would use only the R. But the M is the "real Leica deal" so I use it too. I like its relatively low mass, smaller size and superb optics. But fundamentally I am not an r/f person. Or perhaps it is more that I do not wax lyrical about them. I like them in low light and with "standard" lenses, but otherwise I prefer reflex viewing. But as I have both I do not fit your category. How about Doug Herr?

[luther_berry]

I use only the R camera. The M camera just doesn't feel comfortable to me after using SLR's for 30 years and there are too many quirks with the focus, parallax, viewfinder alignment, viewfinder flare, etc. Also, my preference is for the longer lenses, i.e. 80 to 400mm, and I like to see the image as it appears thru the lens so the R8 is the natural choice for me. But I think your impression is correct. Most of the participants on this forum do seem to be M users. Good shooting with your choice, whether that be R or M. LB

[al_kaplan1]

I've dabbled with the Leicaflex SL, SL2 and R4S. The 'flexes were big and clunky and primitive and hard to hold. I got into them for the lenses as a supplement to my M system. I'm now out of 'em. Over the years I've known two other photographers who used Leicaflex/R cameras. Most of the folks I know who own them are wealthy profesionals, but not profesional photographers. Leitz made a major mistake when they hooked up with Minolta in the early 1970's. They should have cut their losses and discontinued the whole Leicaflex line as it existed then. Instead of an R3 with a modified Leicaflex mount they should have come out with a Wetlar made Leicaflex SL3, with a standard Minolta MD mount. A premium line of Leitz Leicaflex lenses would also have been available for those who wanted them. Instant entry level stepping stone! Instant inexpensive second bodies. Instant lower price point line of lenses (something that worked for Nikon, and even Minolta with their Celtic lenses). Tens upon tens of thousands of photographers owning a body compatible with Leica reflex mount lenses. Think about it! Instead of just now dreaming about the R9 you might have been shooting Leica glass on your Leicaflex Maxxum for a decade, after briefly bitching about the almost orphaned MD mount.

[skip_williams]

Al, that's a very interesting postulation of what might-have-been. But we all know that Leica was far too stuck-up to go that far. The german mentality over the past 30-40 years has been to stick one's head in the sand and plow ahead. Thus the result that almost all the great German camera makers are dead or morphed into Japanese companies.

 

What you describe would have been fabulous. Could you imagine using the great Leica ROM lenses on a Maxxum 9 or Maxxum 7!? In fact, I will suggest that Leica should have long ago morphed itself into a lens house, just like Zeiss did. The M business could have been kept as a sideline to feed the specialized M optics designs and cross-over to the reflex lenses. Leica could have made lenses for other cameras as a licensing deal. Or they could have widened the scope of their designed-by-Leica-made-in-Japan lenses. But instead, we have a company that struggles to "compete" in the ever-changing quicksand marketplace with a limited R&D and Sales/Marketing budget.

 

Oh well, at least they have a sugar daddy of a parent now, which should allow them to survive.

[neil_johnstone]

I do - after several years using a Visoflex for macro and longer lenses the simplicity of an SLR for these purposes won, so the M system was sold. Moving from an M what other option is there for an all manual SLR with equivalent lenses?

[bobtodrick]

Strangely enough I too fall into that group of people who, though uses my rangefinder (IIIg) for easily 80 percent of my photography would, if forced to only keep one camera, would keep the R3.

[jay_.]

I used Leica M and Nikon SLR from the late 1960's until a few years ago when I got into the R system mostly to check out the glass. Got into the R's in a big way, first R7's then R8's, and a number of lenses including zooms and the 280/2.8APO and 280/4APO. I never could get comfortable with the R8 and was sorry I'd sold the R7's, but then I switched from Nikon AF to Canon EOS for the IS, and there was suddenly the possibility to mount my R glass on the EOS bodies with adaptors. At that point I sold the R8s, the long glass and zooms (since they lacked IS), and kept a couple R6.2's and an SL because there are no Canon equivalents. But for the most part I shoot the R lenses on a 1V nowadays. I will look with open-minded curiosity at the "R9" or whatever it'll be called, but I'll think long and hard before putting any more cash into the R system.

[doug herr]

Skip Willams wrote: <I>Leica could have made lenses for other cameras as a licensing deal.</I><P>

Leica has approached both C**** and N**** about such an arrangement but was turned down.<P>To respond to the original question, I use only the R system. It's far more useful than M or LTM with long lenses (my specialty) or macro lenses, and I'm not interested in maintaining 2 systems.

[MTC Photography]

I started with Leica sm camera; when I got my first SLR camera,

the large real life size viewfinder, the easy of close up and macro

same size viewfinder frame for long lens/short lens, just amazed me

and never looked back. IMO, the SLR pentaprism is a more advanced

finder system. <p> I use now only Leica R, supplemented

with viewfinder cameras Rollei 35s, Minox GT-E and Minox TLX, C/B

etc.

 

 

I think many M users started with popular SLR, M camera has sort

of novelty feel

[henk]

I am using only R leicas, ive had a M3 for some time and really loved the silent shutter. However i kept fumbling with it because of the 'petiteness' of the body and lenses. I really think leica should make an M6x4.5, if it were only for the big-handed people like me. Ow yeah and make it for use with my R lenses also ;)P

 

Greetings,

[albert knapp md]

Skip- have you bought another Hermes tie recently? Please do

as the Leica "sugar daddy" may not be so "sweet" after all.... As

to the question of the moment. I was an R user for the past four

years but, thanks to this Forum, became intrigued earlier this

year with the RF system. The launch of the M& gave me the

appropriate excuse and.... I haven't looked back! I now use both

systems but agree that they are complimentary and not mutually

exclusive.

[scot_nicholls]

My used R5 is my introductory camera to photography. I like it

alot and have taken three or four pictures where there is a high

WOW factor. It is a magical something that goes to the quality of

the lens and is not really a result of my composition or

technique. My lenses are a 24 Elmarit, 50 cron, and one of Jay's

old 90 Elmarits'. I read this forum about every night mostly just to

"listen in " on the M users, and look for Jays and Doug Herrs

posts. I was intrigued enough about RF photography to buy an

old Yashica GT. It's in mint condition but has sloppy plastic

construction and a lens that gives a hazy cast to the pictures. I

still like the SLR better . For those shots of the kids I've got to say

my wifes Leica C1 p&s is usually in her purse or close by and it

is not so dear that if it fell over the side of the boat, I would jump

in after it. It takes capable pictures and the small size and

readiness gives it greater utility for my purposes than an

expensive rangefinder. I think an M system is still aways off for

me but I just might sneak up to Palo Alto some weekend and

rent an M6 just for fun. I have low expectations about my pictures

looking any better but as someone who works with tools I know

when I am holding a nice piece of hardware and there is a

certain contentment in that .

[fotografz]

Rs have been an "on-again, off-again" thing for me. For most

SLR work I went digital to the point of having no film cameras, so

I got a SL2 and R6.2 just to be able to shoot film the old

fashioned, manual everything way with that Leica look (zooms,

macro & longer lenses). To bad that Zeiss and Leica didn't team

up way back when. Think of it, SLR cameras and Rangefinders

with a lens assortment to boggle the mind...and M/F in both SLR

and Rangefinder forms.

[fotografz]

Sorry, I meant Ziess/Contax in the above post.

[xavier_dalfort]

Well, certainly some are on this forum.

 

However, there is a nice community of 180 members who are R users, check on www.topica.com, look for Leica Reflex (LRFlex).

 

If you want to join us, you are most welcome.

 

Xavier D'Alfort, a R7 user.

[karl_yik1]

I think if given a choice, I would pick an SLR, I find that I can compose better with an SLR than the M, but obviosly the M has its own advantages

[joseph_albert]

I use Leica R but have never owned a piece of Leica M equipment.

but I don't use "only R". I also shoot a nikon outfit and a

mamiya TLR outfit, choosing the system that works best for a given

application.

<p>

Generally, I've found Leica R to be overpriced, but very nice

equipment. I had an R3 MOT and 50/2 summicron a number of years

ago, but sold it because a complete lens collection was too much $.

More recently, I was able to purchase a package of R equipment at a

reasonable price, and chose to do so. My primary interest in the

R system is to use the 180/3.4 APO Telyt. I might try to find someone

to convert this lens to Nikon mount and sell the rest of the Leica

R stuff at some point. Generally, I am now shooting Leica R for

macro and when shooting nature photography in 35mm, and am using

a Nikon outfit when I want fast lenses. My opinion is that Nikon lenses are better

optimized for wide-open aperture performance in general, but bokeh

is generally smoother with Leitz glass. Your mileage may vary, though.