Are you saying that it was dust on the bottom of the prism?
Are you saying that it was dust on the bottom of the prism?It worked!!!! Thank you!
Any tips how I could tighten the 135mm/2.8 Elmarit-R's lens hood?
I've had other cameras that I've repair with the same problem. I had one lady bring her Pentax late model SLR to me and it had a little dead mite or a creature looking just like one, in the lower right corner of her view finder. She was all upset and in fear of that mite getting into the pictures she took. I assured her that that couldn't happen and then gave her an estimate on what it would cost to remove the little bugger. The cost was high since the view finder screen wasn't removable and a whole top disassembly was required. When she came out of cost-induced shock I explained to her why the cost was so high and that maybe she had ought to just enjoy the company of her new little friend whenever she ventured out to take pictures. I talked to her husband about a year later and he thanked me for not taking advantage of her and that she and her little bugger friend were enjoying time well spent together.Yes, your tip worked!
I have, at one time or the other, owned every Leicaflex up to the R5 and they were all really good cameras when they worked. I sold most of after a while and kept just a user SL and the original Leicaflex with the external meter window. About two years ago I sold the SL and now only have the original Leicaflex. Now, we come to viewfinders on the Leicaflex cameras? All the cameras have very good viewfinder brightness, but of all the ones I have used there is just one standout in the brightness department. Guess which one it is? I'll give you a hint, why do you think I would keep the oldest Leicaflex SLR?For me the Leicaflex SL has the greatest viewfinder of any 35mm SLR. It's two grades of micro prisms and things just pop into focus in a very dramatic way. Taking the picture is almost as much fun as getting the shot. Surprisingly ergonomic too. Repairs/service can be expensive, and I wouldn't call them the most reliable 35mm SLR. I used them for the better part of a decade.
I have, at one time or the other, owned every Leicaflex up to the R5 and they were all really good cameras when they worked. I sold most of after a while and kept just a user SL and the original Leicaflex with the external meter window. About two years ago I sold the SL and now only have the original Leicaflex. Now, we come to viewfinders on the Leicaflex cameras? All the cameras have very good viewfinder brightness, but of all the ones I have used there is just one standout in the brightness department. Guess which one it is? I'll give you a hint, why do you think I would keep the oldest Leicaflex SLR?
Steve,Yes, the original Leicaflex is a brighter screen, but more difficult to focus, because only the central dot is micro prisms, especially with wide angles. The original Leicaflex did exude quality though. So smooth in operation. I too used them all at one time, and favored the SL over the other two. To each their own I suppose. I still have a pair of SL's with some macro lenses, but I haven't shot them in years.
I've had other cameras that I've repair with the same problem. I had one lady bring her Pentax late model SLR to me and it had a little dead mite or a creature looking just like one, in the lower right corner of her view finder. She was all upset and in fear of that mite getting into the pictures she took. I assured her that that couldn't happen and then gave her an estimate on what it would cost to remove the little bugger. The cost was high since the view finder screen wasn't removable and a whole top disassembly was required. When she came out of cost-induced shock I explained to her why the cost was so high and that maybe she had ought to just enjoy the company of her new little friend whenever she ventured out to take pictures. I talked to her husband about a year later and he thanked me for not taking advantage of her and that she and her little bugger friend were enjoying time well spent together.
It works okay, but naturally, some lenses have both shiny and matte surfaces, and that’s where things get a bit tricky.
I didn't like the shutter lag on the R6.2/7 that I owned and used in the past. Coming from M mount rangefinders, I missed the near instantaneous shutter. The Leicaflex series is much better in this regard.
I tended to use the basic, smaller prime lenses, 28 elmarit, 35 summicron, 60 macro, and 90 elmarit, though I did own a version one 90 summicron too. The faster, more exotic lenses were too big, too heavy and too expensive. Overall a somewhat limited catalog of lenses -- maybe three generations with no third party -- at least when compared to M and F mount lens availability.
I believe there were over 60 different lenses for R mount between 1964 and 2009. The German version of Wikipedia has a quite comprehensive list:
Repairs/service can be expensive, and I wouldn't call them the most reliable 35mm SLR.
I believe there were over 60 different lenses for R mount between 1964 and 2009. The German version of Wikipedia has a quite comprehensive list:
The original 'flex and the SL were so engineered and precision manufactured. What were the problems that reduced reliability?
Watch out on the zooms. Some of them made by Minolta and the early zoom lenses not all the great.
I have the 3.5 35-70mm. What should I watch out on?
I remember when the Leica R4 and R5 were new in the shop windows, along with the lenses. The prices were insane compared to those of their Japanese competitors. Today, I wonder what added value they offered.
The R cameras— some of which I own and value—are not miracles, but SLRs that occasionally need repair.
Paepke, located in Düsseldorf/Germany, still repairs R:
In my voluminous records accumulated over the many years, I have a summary lens test reviews for M & R lenses. It just gives the results from 4-5 magazine reviewers -- not the actual review. That zoom you mentioned was reviewed by Aktuell Fotografi and received a rating of 3.8 out of 5.1. Chasseur d'Images gave that zoom 4 stars out of 5 for optical quality; 2 stars out of 5 for value and two stars out 5 for love factor or subjective opinion. I don't know much about zooms, just stuff I heard, but thought you might be interested.
Some of the best values with great optical qualities were the 28mm, 35mm (2nd and 3rd version), 60mm and 90mm Elmarits. All these lenses are 5 star optics and didn't cost an arm and a leg. The 50mm Summicron was another affordable gem as well as the 180mm 3.4 APO. These are the lenses I shot; relatively light weight, affordable and great optics. At least they were affordable when I shot them. I understand R optics have gotten a bit pricey.
One of those experts, the guy who tested all the Leica lenses, I forget his name. He did a series of articles on R glass and Leica SLR's in circa 2007-08 or so in Leica Fotographie. I have a copy somewhere, but everything's in a jumble from a house move.
I didn't like the shutter lag on the R6.2/7 that I owned and used in the past.
As I recall it is the amount of travel the shutter button has to move after it is depressed before the shutter is tripped. For a Leica M rangefinder it is near instantaneous. Also very quick for a Leicaflex. Much longer for an R6/7.Is the Minolta heritage of these cameras such that they use the same sort of pneumatic damper as the XD-7? If so, excessive shutter lag is due to sticky oil on it, which can be cleaned, with reasonable effort on the Minoltas. Plus the delay can be adjusted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?