Leica M to Leica R

[rossawilson1]

I'm looking at buying into the Leica R system, I already have a small M system.

The R system would be for landscapes and more studied shots. What I'm curious about is, does the Leica R glass have the same kind of characteristics as the M system?

I'm not really worried about resolution etc, just whether they have that same Leica quality (sorry for being vague).

I get tired of seeing a particular magnification in the viewfinder with my M6 and then seeing a different magnification in the negative, hence the addition of SLR. However if the R glass isn't as "special" I'd consider sticking with M or buying into Nikon.

Anyone out there have experience of both systems, M & R?

 

[Lee L]

I've been using R's since 1979. Got a CL in '82 and have used some M glass since then, although not as great a number of M lenses. I'd say you'll see definite family resemblances in the overall character of the lenses for both systems.

Lee

 

[nemo999]

I'm looking at buying into the Leica R system, I already have a small M system.

The R system would be for landscapes and more studied shots. What I'm curious about is, does the Leica R glass have the same kind of characteristics as the M system?

I'm not really worried about resolution etc, just whether they have that same Leica quality (sorry for being vague).

I get tired of seeing a particular magnification in the viewfinder with my M6 and then seeing a different magnification in the negative, hence the addition of SLR. However if the R glass isn't as "special" I'd consider sticking with M or buying into Nikon.

Anyone out there have experience of both systems, M & R?

Yes, I have experience of both. Technically there is of course the difference that R wide-angle lenses need to be of retrofocus design, in practice R lens performance will be very close to M lenses of similar vintage. One thing worth considering is to use R lenses with a Canon EOS, you need an adapter for £10 or so and you have to stop the lens down manually but this is easier than it sounds. However, if the only problem with Leica M is that y0u see several frames at the same time and find this distracting, why not get a separate viewfinder and keep your M outfit?

 

[Sean]

You can do a search in the gallery to see some examples, scan quality could be an issue but you may find some good examples: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I went from M to R but haven't shot enough to post my views. I have an r8 with a 35-70f4 and so far I find it superb. I also find I enjoy SLRs more than rangefinders.

 

[Lee L]

With all due respect to Sean, I'd judge by negatives or transparency film, not by posted scans, at least for some of the characteristics most important to me. I haven't used any R zooms. I do recall Sean's post in reaction to seeing his first negatives from a Leica.

Lee

 

[rossawilson1]

Good news then!

Now I'm just being picky but.. do I need 100% finder coverage which the R's do not have (F6 does).. I can't decide.. I don't shoot slide, only neg, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.

Also I like printing with the black neg boarder and a jagged edge (in my darkroom, I don't so the computer thing) and practically never crop.. do you see this being an issue.. ever seen more on a neg that you didn't want because you didn't have full viewfinder coverage?

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

If you choose your lenses well (same hold for the M system), you should be very satisfied.

 

[Lee L]

I can only comment on the R3 in this regard, as I've shot mostly slide and color negative that gets lab printed in the R4s. IIRC the R3 has about 1mm extra over the finder on each side. If you do the math on the 92% finder in the R3 (designed to match slide mounts), it's got 1.175 mm extra on each side. That's not enough to bother me for full frame with black border printing.

I've been using a Manfrotto 410 gear head for very careful compositions lately with the R3 and a 180 Elmar, and I don't find the discrepancy in finder coverage bothersome at all. Of course, that will be for you do decide for yourself.

Lee

 

[loman]

If you hadn't had problems with the 85-90% percent coverage of the leica m finder (depending on model), I would doubt that you'd have issues with a 92% coverage finder. I've used nikons (two f3's an f4 and three f's) a lot and I find the 100 % coverage quite overrated.
But, of course, it all depends on what kind of photography you do.
Regards
Mads

 

[rossawilson1]

Thanks guys, hadn't looked at it like that, fears allayed.. good to get some perspective.. no pun intended!

 

[marsbars]

I have found that the 100% coverage of the Nikon cameras a nice thing to have but not necessary. But it does shine in my eyes when you aren't taking a lot of time to compose. Shooting from the hip so to speak, it prevents the occasional out of place subject or errant tree limb etc. But if you do the tripod, careful composure routine the extra coverage isn't at all necessary.

 

[tbm]

I used to belong to a camera club, for a total of three years, and most of the slides I entered in the competitions were exposed with my Leica R8 and numerous R lenses, all of which vastly pleased the other members and produced repeated wows and geezes. Additionally, the R lenses produced more of a 3-D appearance in all the images compared to the other members' Nikon and Canon lenses. Ten years after buying my R8, I still use it a lot more than my M6 TTL because of its easier focusing and no limitations on focal lengths (the M cameras can only be used with lenses up to 135mm).

 

[rossawilson1]

I wish you hadn't have said that tbm, I've just been swinging over to a Contax 645.. on the basis that the camera is for my more considered shots and I should get less grain.. but now you've gone and made me doubt myself again!!

 

[Tom Duffy]

I wish you hadn't have said that tbm, I've just been swinging over to a Contax 645.. on the basis that the camera is for my more considered shots and I should get less grain.. but now you've gone and made me doubt myself again!!

I use both an R8 and a Contax 645. All other things being equal, there will be no comparison between the two in terms of image quality; the Contax will be better because of the negative size. However, if you are handholding, the Leica will get you very close, in that you can use a finer-grained film and get the equivalent depth of field.

Medium format is much more difficult to handhold, especially if you need to stop down for depth of field or use a faster shutter speed to stop action. The Leica will also focus much faster. When using the a Contax for candid photography I must use Delta 3200 rated at 800. Tri-x 320 isn't fast enough.

For "considered" pictures a medium format would be a better choice, but you should consider other factors, such as an enlarger/lens for medium format and potentially carrying two film sizes with you.

Take care,
Tom

 

[rossawilson1]

Thanks Tom. I wish I had both. I do have a Leica M6 though so I think in that sense it makes more sense to add a different format to the system. I will want to hand hold the Contax for casual landscapes, so you're saying I'm going to need something like Fuji Pro 800 to stop down and get rid of mirror slap.. or can I just compose, keep still and use mirror lock, then take the picture.. good to hear your views.. I have to make my mind up in time for xmas!

 

[DanielOB]

The best lens Leica ever made is probably Apo-Macro Elmarit F2.8/100mm, for Leica-R. That lens is used to test films.

R8+Leica lens is now more funny thing. The best you can get is R8 (or R9)+2.8/100. Also 2.8/180 (new one) is nothing worst than 2.8/100. For portrait F1.4/80.
But look other side:

Nikon
F6+F2/100ZF
is at least equal, by photographical qualities, to
R8(R9)+2/100Leica

Find out the prices for both combos yourself, you will be left droped mouth open.
You can get Leica to support them. But your money is not going on foto-cameras (or film cameras, if you like) and lenses development, but rather toward consumer digital gizmoses.

Also Nikon make 1.4/85D autofocus lens which is photographical icon already. You have also whole range of ZF (Carl Zeiss) lenses for F6.

Battery for R8 (R9), if you do not use it like machinegun, will last 2-3 years. For Nikon F6 9mo-1year. But since that batteries are small and light, it should not be an issue.

Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com