Leica R Cameras New Appreciation Thread (Images, Repairs, Accessories, & More)

[John Wiegerink]

It worked!!!! Thank you!

Any tips how I could tighten the 135mm/2.8 Elmarit-R's lens hood?

Are you saying that it was dust on the bottom of the prism?

 

[RezaLoghme]

Yes, your tip worked!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, your tip worked!

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.

 

[Steve York]

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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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 York]

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?

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.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I am now going to order a Micro Tools touchup pen, as I could not find any useful camera forum post about a successful (!) lens barrel restauration. Let's start with the 135mm Elmarit-R.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

Steve,
I won't disagree with you about the useability of the SL and it was the reason I kept it as long as I did. One thing I always wondered was why Leica SL's never had "mirror lockup" on them. Yes, I did use the "flic-a-pea" mirror lockup method on my SL, but you would have thought Leica SL cameras would have come equipped with mirror lockup.

 

[RezaLoghme]

The SLs differed quite a bit from the subsequent R series, maybe it is more helpful for SL owners to create a new thread similar to this one?

 

[RezaLoghme]

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.

Well done!

 

[RezaLoghme]

I recently bought a Micro-Tools black touch-up pen to cover the scratches and dings on my lens barrels. I’ve read about this in many forums over the years, but rarely come across any real-life follow-up or results—so here's mine.

I went the lazy route and just touched over the scratches without degreasing or properly cleaning them first. It works okay, but naturally, some lenses have both shiny and matte surfaces, and that’s where things get a bit tricky.

One tip: it’s important to wipe the excess paint a few seconds after applying it—don’t let it pool or dry unevenly. I forgot to take proper “before” pics (my bad), but I can say that the pen does its job. It doesn’t do miracles, but it makes a scruffed-up lens look at least presentable again.

Not perfect, but for a quick fix, it's a handy tool to have.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

It works okay, but naturally, some lenses have both shiny and matte surfaces, and that’s where things get a bit tricky.

I have two versions of it, matte and glossy. But it never fits

 

[Steve York]

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. R mount lenses used to be relatively affordable, but now they've gotten pricey.

I did like the optics; other than possibly the first generation 35mm elmarit there wasn't a bad lens among them. If you took a lousy shot it wasn't because of the lens. Ironically, of the three lenses that have broken on me in the field, two were separate 60 macros (same focusing issue). In fixing the lens, the well known tech has to fashion a part, because spares were not available.

 

[RezaLoghme]

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:

Leica R – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

 

[dokko]

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:

Leica R – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

This wiki also has a list and detailed specs for most of the lenses:

R Lenses x Focal Length - Leica Wiki (English)

wiki.l-camera-forum.com

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Repairs/service can be expensive, and I wouldn't call them the most reliable 35mm SLR.

The original 'flex and the SL were so engineered and precision manufactured. What were the problems that reduced reliability?

 

[Steve York]

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:

Leica R – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

You are limited to about two generations of R lenses. And the more exotic Leitz glass was rare and expensive, even back in the day when the R stuff wasn't in great demand. It's not like M mount where we have five or six generation of M mount lenses, plus all the third party stuff. It's not like Nikons, where there's a Nikkor on every corner. I'm talking about the States, Europe may have been different.

Watch out on the zooms. Some of them made by Minolta and the early zoom lenses not all the great.

 

[Steve York]

The original 'flex and the SL were so engineered and precision manufactured. What were the problems that reduced reliability?

I used several Leicaflex SL for the better part of a decade. One of my favorite cameras, the braking system on the shutter is amazing, but after reviewing the repair records following a catastrophic shutter failure on one of them, I came away a bit disappointed. All of them needed an initial CLA to get them up and running. Then on one a viewfinder fell out because of plastics failure. Another had a film spindle break; plastics have a finite life I suppose. Then you had various meter failures. Back then I still used a meter; I'm pretty much Sunny 16 now. The aforementioned shutter failure which I was advised by Sherry Krauter was uneconomical to repair. Possibly some other things; I would have to look at the records. It seemed that each had been into the repair shop once or twice in the 6-8 years that I used them; probably representing 700 rolls of film. Maybe I was just working the kinks out of these old cameras -- materials fail over time. Ha, ha, no need for foam replacement like a Nikon because they had no foam light seals!! They are wonderfully made.

In comparison, I've now used several Leica M2's constantly over the last 6-7 years w/o any issues. Probably about the same amount of film. I've shot Nikon SLR's but haven't used them over a long enough period to have any first hand experience on reliability. Most old cameras I've used need an initial service, but then you expect a period of reliability where they function w/o issue.

 

[RezaLoghme]

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?

 

[Steve York]

I have the 3.5 35-70mm. What should I watch out on?

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.

 

[summicron1]

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:

Service (English) – Paepke Fototechnik

paepke-fototechnik.de

Well, you are getting an insanely well-made and technologically amazing camera for a cupla hundred dollars with the added advantage that it uses Leica R (all cams plus only third cam) lenses. My R4 cost the equivalent of about $5,000 new, more or less.

You are getting a camera that really feels nicer to use than the similar Olympus OM1. I like to think quality of build counts for something.

And if it breaks it's cheaper to just find another. My R4 actually caps the shutter at 1/1000 of a second but it's not worth the price to fix/service and I never use that speed anywho.

 

[RezaLoghme]

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.

Since I own that zoom lens already, there is nothing much I can do about its quality.

 

[grain elevator]

I didn't like the shutter lag on the R6.2/7 that I owned and used in the past.

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.

 

[Steve York]

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.

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.

 

[RezaLoghme]

The Leicaflex SL and SL2 are fully mechanical cameras without automatic exposure features. Their shutter mechanisms are straightforward, resulting in an almost instantaneous shutter release when the button is pressed.

In contrast, the R-series cameras, starting from the R3, introduced electronic components to facilitate automatic exposure modes. When you press the shutter button on these models, the camera performs a sequence of actions: metering the exposure, flipping the mirror, and then releasing the shutter. This sequence, managed by electronic systems, can introduce a slight delay between pressing the shutter and the actual exposure. Some users have reported this delay to be around 1/15 to 1/8 of a second, particularly in models like the R4 and R7 .

Additionally, the R-series cameras employ an air-damped piston mechanism to control the mirror's movement, aiming to reduce vibrations. Over time, this damper can accumulate dust or the lubricant can become sticky, leading to sluggish mirror movement and exacerbating the shutter delay . Regular maintenance, including cleaning and lubricating the damper, can help mitigate these issues.