So... M shooter curious about Leica R

[andrew_viny]

<p>Hey guys,</p>

<p>I've been an M shooter for a while now and I guess I'm just sort of curious about the R series. I've been thinking about picking up an SLR (perhaps an OM-1) and I'm just kind of curious about the R series. R3's seem to be super affordable, R6's seem to be fully mechanical which sounds reliable... idk... Anyone have any strong opinions about the R series compared to Ms or other older film SLRs?<br /><br />Best,<br>

Andrew</p>

[SCL]

<p>There's tons of material out there to digest if you're really interested. Here's a link you might find useful....there's a whole section in R bodies and lenses http://www.l-camera-forum.com/. I've owned several over the years, beginning with a Leicaflex SL, SL2 (my favorite), R3 and R8. The R3 was an unplanned acquisition; I bought a lens from a guy and he threw in the R3 for free...I thought it probably wasn't going to be very good...but to my surprise it was quite easy to use, ergonomically very comfortable, easy to focus, and the metering was outstanding...my only complaint was that it didn't have a variable diopter eyepiece. The R8, albeit an unusual looking camera, was by far the most sophisticated one I had and a delight to use - I got it in anticipation of using it with the digital back, but never could get one at a decent price. Unless you want to pay high end prices for R lenses (which I admit some are really outstanding), you're better off in my opinion getting an Olympus OM-2, not OM-1, ...outstanding viewfinder, great selection of lenses, and excellent metering. IMHO their better lenses seem to me to have a little stronger contrast than their Leica equivalents if that matters to you. Here's a link to user evaluations of a wide variety of older lenses, including Leica R and Oly OM ones http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp.</p>

[andrew_viny]

<p>Stephen thanks so much for the thorough response. Why do you prefer the OM-2 to the OM-1? I would think that it would be advantageous to have a mechanical shutter.</p>

<p>Andrew</p>

[ray .]

OM's are sweet little cameras, almost exactly the size of an M. Their design was apparently inspired by the M. Very good lenses as well that are much much

more affordable than Leica glass. My one complaint about the design of the camera is that the

exposure time adjustments are on a ring around the lens mount. It's not a big thing though and you

should get used to it, maybe even possibly like it, though I don't see any advantage to it.

 

I know the OM-1 can still be repaired.... If you go to an electronic OM you may be out of luck if it fails,

depending on the cause, because some of the parts now are nearly non-existent. Olympus SLR's aren't

as reliable and bullet proof as some of the classic Nikons, but OM-1's can be had pretty cheaply.

 

I got myself a Nikon F2 which is supposedly the toughest most reliable mechanical camera ever built.

It's a sweet camera as well but not as compact and light or quiet as an OM.

 

If you need repair or want to check what CLA's cost for Olympus go to zuiko.com. John has a great reputation if you're looking for

someone in the US.

 

I had a Leica R5 or R6 a few years ago too. Nice camera but I greatly prefer the M.

[andrew_viny]

<p>Thanks Ray! Yea I live in Pittsburgh right now and there's just no good place to go hold any of this stuff so it's hard to know exactly what you're getting yourself into. </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Leica R cameras are well made and offer low vibration levels but are not as special as Leica M. I bought 3 Leica R3's some years ago when they were going for £150 or so with a 50 mm lens (Summicron or Summilux!) They seem to be much more expensive now, especially lenses other than 50 mm. I have 35 and 50 Summicrons, 50 Summilux and also a lot of Tamron Adaptall-2 lenses, which are very good, but the Leica R adapters are hard to find now. Leica R3's seem to need to have a contact ring cleaned which transmits the aperture value from the lens to the meter, the meters work well if this is done, otherwise they can be inaccurate, and a new seal in the back door around the film cassette viewing window is certain to be needed. I personally feel that if I'm going to use an SLR, I want AF, matrix metering, power wind etc. Having said that, I have found my Leica R's good to use.</p>

[ray .]

From ebay you can find an OM-1 with lens for around $100, more or less. You could make a careful

choice from a seller who offers a 14 or 30 day return. Just looking quickly I don't see any OM-1's available

from KEH, unless I'm just missing it with the search.

 

Manual focus film SLR's are getting so old now that they're slowly disappearing, though functioning ones

can still be found. I went with the F2 because of its reputation for durability.

 

I have an OM-4 and OM-1 that worked well for a year or two but now need repair.

[andrew_viny]

<p>@David, What you say "not as special" do you mean in terms of look and feel or in how they render?<br /><br />@Ray, I would have through all mechanical cameras would certainly be more reliable than electronic ones. I haven't heard that the OM2 has a greater reputation for durability than the OM-1. Than's super interesting.</p>

[Greg M]

10 years from now, there will be more manual focus film SLR's from the 1970's in use than digital cameras being sold

new in 2016.

 

 

The SL2 is really the only Leica SLR I've been tempted to buy.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Unfortunately, I have no experience with a Leica M; I only have a R6 with a few lenses after getting too curious about Leica lenses (and I think an R is the most economic way to enjoy those 'natively'). As a body, I quite like the R6 as it's relatively small and silent. But it also feels cheaper and more plastic in my hands than my Nikons (FM2, F3); it doesn't quite feel special or premium really. The lenses make up for this completely, though - but if you already have a M system, you already experience that, I think, so getting another (cheaper) SLR system might well be worth it.<br>

Personally, I'll stick to my R6, I find myself more at ease with SLR focussing and framing so far, and I like what I get from my R lenses too much.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>@David, What you say "not as special" do you mean in terms of look and feel or in how they render?</em><br>

I find the results from my R3 and R8 very good and also enjoy using the cameras - I mean "not so special" literally. There is no other interchangeable lens RF camera like Leica M, whereas the R series czmeras, good as they are, are one of a number of pro SLR families.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Hi Andrew - rather than try to define the differences between the OM-1 and OM-2, I'll give you a link to a lengthy discussion of each along with the differentiating characteristics: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/om1/index.htm . For my original purposes both the motor winder and more sensitive metering were the decisive factors, and as the costs of the two when I purchased mine 7-8 years ago were quite similar, it was a no brainer.</p>

[ray .]

Another option if you want great glass is to get an old Contax or Yashica camera that can use the older

Zeiss lenses. There were several models of Contax cameras, none too impressive in and of themselves,

but they're compatible with that great Zeiss glass. A few of the models I can think of are the RTS, 139Q, and

Aria Contax cameras, but there are a few more, all fairly inexpensive. The Yashicas can be found dirt cheap.

I believe the lens mount is called C/Y. That Zeiss glass is as good as Leica, maybe better.

 

https://www.keh.com/shop/contax.html

 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/contax/

 

(bottom of the page on this last link lists the Contax camera models)

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"That Zeiss glass is as good as Leica, maybe better" Ray.</p>

<p>I really don't think so.</p>

<p>Leica R5 with 50mm Summicron Lens</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>But it also feels cheaper and more plastic in my hands than my Nikons (FM2, F3); it doesn't quite feel special or premium really.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This coincides with my experience; back in the day, I thought of them as premium. This impression was shaken when I realized that a relative's Leica R bodies were in constant need of some service or repair (so much for well made) whereas my Nikons kept humming away without issues (similar usage pattern for the both of us). When I eventually owned an R4, R-E, and R5, Wouter's impressions were confirmed: (some) of the lenses are great (and priced accordingly); the camera bodies not so much.</p>

[wendell_kelly]

<p>My preferred Leica SLR is the original Leicaflex. I rarely shoot with anything longer than a 90mm and, when I do, I use a Leicaflex SL. I've never used a lens longer than 400mm on a 35mm camera.<br>

Given the great increase in the price of Leica-R lenses over the past few years, you might well want to consider a Japanese match needle SLR. I have, and use, a Nikon F2 (massive bit of gear) and the Nikkor optics are, of course, superb (most of them).<br>

That being said, why not look at a Pentax Spotmatic? You can but a clean body in working condition for under USD50 with a 50mm lens. The M42 Takumars are fine lenses. Hendrickson (at Pentaxs on the web) offers really economical CLA service if you want to tne up a new acquisition before taking it to the field.</p>

 

[christopher_junker1]

<p>With reference to Wendell Kelly's comments, here is a bit more depth. The Leicaflex has external metering that takes size 625 batteries for which you'll need a Cris Adapter so silver oxide batteries @1.5 volts will be dropped down to 1.35 v for accurate metering. Although the Leicaflex has just a ground glass focusing screen, it is very bright with good eye relief. I use it with a 50 Summicron R and have had outstanding results. In very bright sunlight on snow, the 1/2000 shutter speed is useful. My purpose for keeping it is that it has a mirror lockup that I use when I mount a 21mm f3.5 Super Angulon R lens. However I have to use an auxiliary finder. The shutter release is one of the nicest I've used. Build quality? Like an "M" inside a SLR body. I still keep my two Honeywell Spotmatics in good shape as the spot meter is dead accurate and the 50 1.4 Takumar first version lens is outstanding. On a tripod the Pentax balances well with telephoto lenses. Well built camera, just not as smooth and quiet as a Leica.</p>

[SCL]

<p>+1 what CJ said.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I have used and liked Leicaflex original, SL, Leica R6 and R6.2. The Leicaflexes are beautifully made and wonderful in the hand and still work very well. The SL's meter is less sensitive to light so you may need to be wary about overexposure when the light gets low - an issue solved by the SL2.</p>

<p>The Leica R6s are nice small SLRs (only a little larger than the OM series) and I found completely reliable. I used to particularly like the switchable spot and center weighted metering. Mirror lockup too. Changeable focusing screens. Excellent manual cameras - but not <em>exciting</em>. Pretty well a good 1970s SLR that continued to be made through the 1990s. Loved the R lenses, particularly in the days when they were relatively affordable. Still good value in Leica terms, but not such good buys as the mirrorless crowd are driving their prices up. I have had no experience of the electronic R cameras (R3,4,5,7,8) and these are quite cheap these days. The manual Leica Rs are more expensive possibly because they are still working. </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>10 years from now, there will be more manual focus film SLR's from the 1970's in use than digital cameras being sold new in 2016.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

My prediction is slightly different: there will eventually be more 35mm SLRs in use than DSLRs (because by then more people will be using mirrorless systems - film use will always be in the minority).<br>

<br>

I'm also a Contax fan, FWIW. It's the 'cheaper Leica', sort of!<br>

<br>

Nikon bodies are terrific (i.e. the F, F2, F3, F4), but not so much the lenses. But Leica SLR bodies are cheap enough now anyway.</p>

[kin_yu1]

<p>For Leica SLs, the legendary SL2 with all analogue dials and huge view finder is the one to get for use, and collecting.<br>

The relatively rare Nikon FM3A is also great for use and collecting.<br>

I used both and still have them. I don't believe they would depreciate as fast as other SLs.</p>

[wendell_kelly]

 

<p>"For Leica SLs, the legendary SL2 with all analogue dials and huge view finder is the one to get for use"<br>

I really can't agree with this. I own, and use, regularly, the original Leicaflex (version II), the Leicaflex SL, and a particularly nice SL2. For years now.<br>

Other than being compatible with some less common (and, I suggest, perhaps less useful) Leica R glass (for example, the Elmarit R 24mm) the SL2 offers very little advantage beyond the Leicaflex SL.<br>

One might suppose be nice to have all of the bells and whistles of a (last in the series) Leicaflex SL2, but to buy one would be to purchase a less common and considerably overpriced Leica SLR with a flaky shutter.</p>

<p> </p>

 

[Robin Smith]

<p>I think the SL2 has the same shutter as the SL and Leicaflex standard(?)</p>

[wendell_kelly]

<p>No, the SL2 shutter is different from that in the Leicaflex and the Leicaflex SL.</p>

<p>It has a reputation for misbehavior at the higher shutter speeds. Plenty of discussion of this on the web.</p>

[apostolos_tournas]

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>In order to "feel" the Leica R experience, go for R6.2 (purely mechanical) or R7 (reasonable automation). R8 and R9 are superb but closer to Japanese SLR. The R lenses do not enjoy as much fame as the M series, but too many to be ignored Internet sites claim they are a league ahead of Nikon and Canon glass.</p>

<p>Many Leica M users wouldn't have shot with R, if it wasn't for the three types of lenses where R excels: tele, zoom and macro. I'm sure you can dig a lot of info in the Internet or the Leica Forum pages, as a member here already pointed out to you.</p>

<p>Another plus with the Leica R lenses is that, through adapters, they can be used on Canon and Sony digital bodies without modification.</p>

<p>I have been shooting with Leica R (along with M) since mid 90s. Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Paul</p>