Is the Leica R a "real Leica" and more questions

[RezaLoghme]

The film transport lever is one of my pet let-downs in their design, but you could say the same then Leica launched the M4.

 

[xkaes]

I am interested in Leica's R range because of its "stepchild" nature. From what I read, and from what my own R5 delivered, the R series was good, but not "good-good" when compared against the top of the range SLRs from Japan.

Are talking about the camera or the lenses? And who knows what "good-good" means? The R3 was a Minolta XE-7 which people still love. The R4 (and later) were the Minolta XD-11, again, which people still admire. The glass was often the same -- despite where it was "assembled".

 

[Mark J]

This is just misinformation. Anyone who's handled and/or used both cameras knows that they are not the same. And just because the glass is the same doesn't mean the assembled lens in a different housing with different tolerances is the same. The R3 and the XE-7 are probably the closest to being the same.

 

[blee1996]

I have both Leica R5 and Minolta XD-11, and I definitely prefer the R5 due to its higher quality fit and finish. And the R5 was not that much more expensive either.

I can only afford the "cheaper" R-lenses: 60/2.8 Makro and 135/2.8. Both are stellar performers.

I cannot really tell if the Leica R-system is "better" or "worse" than Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Minolta of the same vintage, but I'm quite happy with the modest system I have and really enjoy using them in real life. Leica R5 + 60/2.8 is my joint top pick for everyday use (the other is Nikon FA + 50/1.2).

 

[Mark J]

Yes, I agree - & yes, lens prices are a real problem.
I just took a good look at the XD7(11) and an R4s here. The only external parts that are the same are the strap lugs. The baseplate is almost the same, but it's a bit deeper on the R4, and has a couple of differences on the drillings.
Internally from the back you can see that the main body is probably the same - and the take-up spool. The pressure plate is slightly different.
The camera back is the same part, but finished differently on the outside.
The shutter looks to be the same on these cameras with 1/1000th.
From the front, the mirror box has some similarities, but the R4 has a slightly different mirror, and a completely different metering method with a sort of dimpled fresnel mirror behind the main one, which fires light down into a sensor on the 'floor'.
The bayonet on the R is a bigger diameter.

But just to be clear - I love Minolta and their design team, and what they did in the 70's and 80's.

 

[xkaes]

Whatever. They look the same to me. I've never seen any comparison between a Rokkor 24mm vs a "Leica" 24mm (or whatever) with any difference in results. Prove me wrong. It's the lens that makes the image. Leica didn't buy Minolta glass because it was inferior.

 

[Arthurwg]

My question: Can R cameras be repaired?

 

[beemermark]

So tired of this thread. Just because Leica and Minolta shared material and maybe designs doesn't make a Minolta a Leica. I been with Leicaflex and Leica R systems for more than 30 years. Sl, SL2, R3, R4, R5, and R7. I still have (and use) an SL2 from way back when and picked up an R7 camera a few years ago. I have the 24, 35 Elmarit, 50 Summicron, 60 Macro, 90 Elmarit, and the not so good early 70~200 zoom. I also picked up a an XE-7 (nice camera) and numerous XD lenses 3 or 4 years ago. The XE-7 is internally a better constructed camera than the R3. I have two dead R3 in the junk drawer. It took a long time for Leitz to learn how to solder. But the Minolta lenses aren't even equal to the 1st generation Leica R lenses, and the later R lenses are far away better. I did try a Minolta 24mm, and while a good lens, not as good as the R 24mm. But then the Minolta 24mm went through various design chances so maybe I didn't try the best one. None of the XD lenses had a front element as big as the R 24mm either. Guess that doesn't matter.

If Minolta lenses are so great why are all the film makers paying thousand the R glass (driving the prices up) instead of buying Minolta lenses for $100 or less?

 

[250swb]

I have a couple of R bodies, the most recent being an R-E (based on the R5 and made in Germany) is in mint condition and cost less than a good Nikon F. And they feel and sound and handle far far more like a Leica than they do a Minolta. To say it is 'only a Minolta' is like saying a Mercedes is just like a Volkswagen because they both have four wheels. And it's also true that Leica's tie up with Minolta to speed up development of the R system led to borrowing a couple of lens designs to get things going, but as Erwin Puts has said there were only so many ways to design a good 24mm lens so Leica took it off Minolta's shelf and used there own glass, own barrel, own mount and hey presto it's a 'true' Leica lens. There is a certain amount of hypocrisy involved in calling out Leica's versions of a Minolta design when the entire history of photography is littered with borrowed designs with people drooling over a Hasselblad Sonnar based lens as much as a Jupiter Sonnar design.

 

[xkaes]

I did try a Minolta 24mm, and while a good lens, not as good as the R 24mm. But then the Minolta 24mm went through various design chances so maybe I didn't try the best one. None of the XD lenses had a front element as big as the R 24mm either. Guess that doesn't matter.

Considering that Minolta made SIX version of the 24mm f2.8, you might be comparing apples to oranges -- but I doubt it. The final version of the Minolta was 8/8 vs 9/7, so that might make a difference.

Leica chose the Minolta 24mm because it was so good. I decided on a Kiron 24mm because it was just as good -- and was an f2.0.

Care to share results?

Hey, if you want a Leica, more power to you, but i doubt you will get better results with a Leica R3 and a Leica 24mm than a Seagull Df-99 and a Seagull 24mm.

 

[Mark J]

A quick visual comparison here :

 

[xkaes]

And what does that have to do with the lenses?

 

[MattKing]

Moderator hat on.
Tone it down.
Comments such as "prove me wrong" don't belong here - they belong here:

 

[Mark J]

Whatever. They look the same to me. I've never seen any comparison between a Rokkor 24mm vs a "Leica" 24mm (or whatever) with any difference in results. Prove me wrong. It's the lens that makes the image. Leica didn't buy Minolta glass because it was inferior.

You can't assume that there was ever a magazine test that had the Rokkor MC 24mm and the Leica R 24mm together. This was the 1970's - lens testing was haphazard and usually rather limited. I have a massive folder of tests from Per Nordlund at Hasselblad, but I don't believe that much dates back to the 1970's.

I can't add tests to my own documented ( above ) experience right now ( not 'opinion', thanks ) , because I don't own a Minolta 24mm MC now , I sold it in approx 1988 .

 

[Mark J]

But then the Minolta 24mm went through various design chances so maybe I didn't try the best one. None of the XD lenses had a front element as big as the R 24mm either. Guess that doesn't matter.

The front element diameter is a bit of a red herring, but it's not so obvious why. In the early days of wide-angles, it was assumed that a negative element would be necessary at the front, because it would reduce the angle of the ray bundles coming into the lens. Plus, the whole front section of a retrofocus lens has to be of overall negative power....
However , from the early 1970's with more speed of computing, people were experimenting with different designs, and found that - contrary to expectations - lenses in the range 17 to 28mm were actually better with a positive at the front - usually followed by a couple of strong negative elements. This is because two major problems are caused by an initial negative lens - distortion and higher-order astigmatism. It turns out to be better to counter these two aberrations right at the start - rather than trying to deal with them later.

Now, one side-effect of going to the 'positive front' wide angle designs is that the front element is a bit smaller.
The MD 24/2.8 was an example of the trend to positive front. So, it's not a sign of an inferior lens.

The MC/Leica R 24 was one of the best examples and longest-lasting lenses with a negative front. It does have distortion around 2%, and a bit of a dip in the MTF at 2/3rds field, which could be improved.

However like all lenses, its as-built performance does depend strongly on how well it is put together. In a lens like this there are about 90 optical tolerances, caused by the optical manufacture, cell machining and assembly.

 

[xkaes]

And that's that!!!

 

[RezaLoghme]

I cannot not admit that might be somewhat tempted to buy a R7.

 

[Mark J]

Don't fight too hard. They are much cheaper than they used to be !

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

R bodies (except 6 or 9) can be bought for small money, compared to the RF models. [...] Personally, I find the R7 charming and quite timeless, but [...] Some people only see the M as a "real Leica".

I must admit that I have not yet tried a Leica R (and as for RF Leicas, I have only seen a friend's IIIf and M2) but I just find a 40 year-old test area of the R4s in a German magazine (Fotomagazin, April 1984).
I know that such test areas are often a bit glossed over. You also have to read between the lines.

Anyway - just a few quotes:

• "The Leica R4s is a camera for people who want to work in a professional way. [...] It's a piece of pure precision." [German engineer Barnim A. Schultze]
• "As with everything that comes from Leitz, absolute quality is guaranteed with the Leica R4s. That means precision down to the last detail." [German photographer Chris Nowotny]
• "Vibration and noise are, as I am used to from the Leica, extremely low. The excellent mirror damping is noticeable. The shutter noise is actually more of a soft 'hiss'." [Barnim A. Schultze]

However, the article makes it clear that the flash sync time was only 1/80 sec. instead of the alleged 1/100 sec. and that the light meter exposed 3 to 5 per cent too much in the middle range. The authors were very lenient with this. Perhaps they too succumbed a little to the Leica myth .

Perhaps the Leica R system is undervalued on the second-hand market today. Just as the Leica M system is possibly a bit overvalued.
They would both be too expensive for me, especially as I already have far too many good cameras (Canon New F-1, Contax RTS II, Contax RF). I would probably be most interested in a Leicaflex SL with its matching lenses.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Looking at the current (asking) prices of R cameras, the not-so-dodgy-ones of younger age (R5, 6, 7) are somewhere in the 400-500 EUR/US$ range. Which is a good price for some outdated technology from a respectable manufacturer with some emotions/myth attached to the brand.

Personally, I see nothing special in the R series compared to other upmarket SLRs of the same era. Rs were never "starter" cameras, unlike some of the Japanese manufacturers' models. So some sort of legend does exist, and people with a rose-tinted view like me "feel" that a R is "special", although it is not.

Reviews from German magazines of that era were probably not very objective, as they had to defend their remaining domestic brand from its competitors from the Far East. Fully understandable.

But in general, the world has moved on. Products which were the top of the range 40 years ago, are merely collectors items today but could not really compete with middle-of-the-road products of today. Lets go to 1984 - Mercedes S-Class 126, Hasselblad 500C/M, Bang & Olufsen Audio, Fairlight CMI/Synclavier....what else? Phones?

ADDENDUM: I find the Leica R7 totally cool and, yes, in a few years down the line people will regret not having bought one (Rolleiflex GX/2.8F anyone, if you remember?). R7 is black, has the cool half-way contemporary Leica look (if only the leatherette had a finer grain) and is cheap as chips, compared to their other models (M etc). With a proper 50mm lens, we are still talking sub-1000 EUR/US$ here, maybe some CLA, and off you go. SO TEMPTING.

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

Reviews from German magazines of that era were probably not very objective, as they had to defend their remaining domestic brand from its competitors from the Far East.

Hmmm , I'm not completely sure if this was still the case in the mid-80s. 10 or 15 years earlier: yes.
But by the 80s, the Germans had long since lost the competition, and every German journalist knew about it.

Perhaps Leitz - as a major exception - was still a brand that the commentators treated more leniently.

But I remember many articles with comparisons between lenses from (for example) Zeiss C/Y, Nikon Ai, Canon FD, Pentax, Olympus etc.: It was ruthlessly pointed out when a Zeiss lens performed worse than a competitor.