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

[250swb]

For my R6 I paid "top dollar" and bought it from Leica Classic, with 12 months warranty. If there is an issue with the camera, I will take it back to them and have it sorted.

Life is too short to fiddle with toys which should bring pleasure. Unless fiddling with toys brings you pleasure. You can see that sometimes in photo forums. People are fiddling with this folder and that box camera and this Cosina or Praktiker 1970s SLR, fretting about changing this and repairing that.

FWIW Leica Classic has a good handful of R bodies on their website, in case anyone is interested, including several R4 and R5 that cost less than Apple earplugs that most people consider being "Disposable". Just buy a body, a nice lens and off you go!

As an afterthought:

When reading discussions on photo forums, I'm always struck by the contrast in how people talk about spending money. On the one hand, it's perfectly normal to see photographers casually debating whether a new M-mount lens with APO or updated coatings is worth dropping four figures—often to replace something only marginally “worse.”

But shift the conversation to R-series cameras and lenses—often optically identical to their M counterparts from the same era—and suddenly a few hundred euros are considered “expensive” or not worth it.

It’s curious how perceived value shifts so drastically based on mount and hype, even when the glass is essentially the same.

This sort of post makes me wish this forum would allow 'Likes', so I have to post to say I like it.

 

[GregY]

Reza, as much as we love cameras, they're really only lens holders IMO. Yes the Leicaflex & R series are real camera.
Here's a period photo of an R3 etc. I'm sure the Apo-Telyt 180 was worth more than my car, and what's hanging around my neck was certainly my entire net worth. Leica glass is brilliant....whether it's '30s, '50s, '70s or todays....

 

[Radost]

anybody services leica R in the usa. i can fix my R7

 

[mshchem]

Reza, as much as we love cameras, they're really only lens holders IMO. Yes the Leicaflex & R series are real camera.
Here's a period photo of an R3 etc. I'm sure the Apo-Telyt 180 was worth more than my car, and what's hanging around my neck was certainly my entire net worth. Leica glass is brilliant....whether it's '30s, '50s, '70s or todays....
View attachment 398329

Where did you find those jeans? Fabulous

 

[RezaLoghme]

Reza, as much as we love cameras, they're really only lens holders IMO. Yes the Leicaflex & R series are real camera.
Here's a period photo of an R3 etc. I'm sure the Apo-Telyt 180 was worth more than my car, and what's hanging around my neck was certainly my entire net worth. Leica glass is brilliant....whether it's '30s, '50s, '70s or todays....
View attachment 398329

The photo is a masterpiece! Frank Serpico borrowed Jerry Seinfeld's pirate shirt and stole some mum jeans. Let me see if I can counter that with one from my own archives.

 

[RezaLoghme]

At Leica Classic, there are currently 2 R3s for less than 200 EUR each, and one nice-looking R8 in all its "If Glock made cameras" glory for 500. And a later version 50mm Summicron for another 500. Leica image quality for the price of an iphone.

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

Which lenses, are they different from the others?

Nothing special - Summicron 50 mm f/2.0, Elmarit 90 mm f/2.8 and 135 mm f/2.8.

But I have always liked solid heavy metal lenses like these (similar, but a bit less heavy: Zeiss C/Y and Zeiss pre-war brass lenses for my Contax RF, and Canon FD TS 35 mm f/2.8).

 

[John Wiegerink]

Nothing special - Summicron 50 mm f/2.0, Elmarit 90 mm f/2.8 and 135 mm f/2.8.

But I have always liked solid heavy metal lenses like these (similar, but a bit less heavy: Zeiss C/Y and Zeiss pre-war brass lenses for my Contax RF, and Canon FD TS 35 mm f/2.8).

I consider my 90mm f2.8 Elmarit pretty special. I like it with film and on my Sony A7RII 42mp it's a total knockout. I can't see how it could be any better. Of course I could have a outstanding example of a good lens.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Well the R lenses are all cased in metal. Even the worn ones, the "baseball bat" bargain special 75-200mm Vario Elmars you can pick up for the price of a modest steak dinner, have that special sturdiness, while the bodies from R4 onwards have that somewhat plastic-y prism casing which might be metal but feels less robust than the squared-off R3 one.

 

[dave olson]

Just using my R7 and R3 MOT, plus four lenses. 50 f1.4, 55 f2.8 macro, 35-70 f 4 and 80-200 f 4.

 

[Craig]

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?

Some filmmakers are paying silly money for a few particular Canon FD lenses too, like the FD 24 F1.4L. I have seen that lens sell for between $5-6,000 now.

 

[beemermark]

anybody services leica R in the usa. i can fix my R7

DAG

 

[summicron1]

One thing not mentioned is that R lenses made by Minolta were made to Leica specifications. Ditto cameras -- my CL was made -- yes -- by Minolta, but 50 years on and a couple trips to the shop and a cupla drops, hey it's still going strong. I was worried once it was wearing out so bought a second body and as soon as the first does, eventually, deign to wear out, I'll use the second but so far it just sits.

Meter still works too!

Some of the Leica lenses that started out in Japan ended up being upgraded by Leitz so much they could legally say they are made in Germany. The 24mm Elmarit R, for example. I saw one report by a Leica writer who saw a whole pallet of them sitting in Solms, being sent back to Japan because they didn't meet spec. They were probably sold as Minolta lenses.

So, yeah, they're real Leicas.

 

[RezaLoghme]

While some bodies and lenses had Minolta (and Kyocera and Seiko) DNA, many R products were thoroughbred Leica. From 1968 to 1990s many things changed.

 

[Radost]

While some bodies and lenses had Minolta (and Kyocera and Seiko) DNA, many R products were thoroughbred Leica. From 1968 to 1990s many things changed.

minolta bodies are more reliable by far compared to redesigns.

 

[RezaLoghme]

While some bodies and lenses had Minolta (and Kyocera and Seiko) DNA, many R products were thoroughbred Leica. From 1968 to 1990s many things changed.

Another reason I enjoyed my new book so much, as it outlines all these matters in detail, including the wider situation of the European camera market, the developments in Japan, Portugal and Canada.

 

[Steve York]

I've used an R6/7, as well as the Leicaflex series (all of them) in the past. In my mind, R3-R7 were just like any of the Japanese counterparts. As a practical matter, an R7 is pretty just an F3, ect. Not surprising since there was some Minolta involvement with these R cameras. The really "true" Leica SLR's, with unique DNA, are the Leicaflex series and the R8/9 -- pretty unique from what was out there. The original Leicaflex is an M3 in SLR form, overbuilt to the max, the SL/2 have big, bold and beautiful viewfinders, and the hunchbacks are ergonomic masterpieces.

 

[Radost]

I've used an R6/7, as well as the Leicaflex series (all of them) in the past. In my mind, R3-R7 were just like any of the Japanese counterparts. As a practical matter, an R7 is pretty just an F3, ect. Not surprising since there was some Minolta involvement with these R cameras. The really "true" Leica SLR's, with unique DNA, are the Leicaflex series and the R8/9 -- pretty unique from what was out there. The original Leicaflex is an M3 in SLR form, overbuilt to the max, the SL/2 have big, bold and beautiful viewfinders, and the hunchbacks are ergonomic masterpieces.

I enjoy shooting the Leicaflex CL. Great camera. After all those years speeds are pretty close. Even over 500 to 200.
But I am a sucker for 80-90s black cameras. The R7 paint is outstanding.