Leica R series cameras? Worth it or just for aficionados?

[hoffy]

So, the Leica R series has recently piqued my interest. I've done a small bit of reading and can see that bodies are (relatively, in Leica terms) cheap

But they are not what everyone immediately thinks when it comes to Leica.

So, apart from the name plate, is a R series camera worth having in the bag?

Cheers

 

[Horatio]

I got lots of good replies and comments in this thread last year: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/leica-slrs-why-no-love.177221/

Check it out: There's info on the R-series in there. Oh, and prices are going up, BTW. If you find a good one, jump on it.

 

[Alan9940]

I've never owned any Leica R camera (I do own Leica M), but I can tell you that I have a really fine 16x20 print shot through Leica R glass by a local photographer, Personally, I always found the lens/body choices a bit confusing. I'm probably wrong, but it seems that some lenses don't work on some bodies?

 

[beemermark]

So, the Leica R series has recently piqued my interest. I've done a small bit of reading and can see that bodies are (relatively, in Leica terms) cheap
Cheers

In the distant past I think I've owned every body from the original SL to the R5. Finally settled on the SL2. Yes the bodies are relatively cheap.
The lenses are not.

 

[Radost]

In my humble opinion an SLR without the modern bells and whistles is more feeling than a common sense.
Feeling is important. How you feel while you shoot is very important. But for me I rather have a modern autofocus SLR.

 

[hoffy]

In the distant past I think I've owned every body from the original SL to the R5. Finally settled on the SL2. Yes the bodies are relatively cheap.
The lenses are not.

Yeah, I've noticed the lenses are getting there

In my humble opinion an SLR without the modern bells and whistles is more feeling than a common sense.
Feeling is important. How you feel while you shoot is very important. But for me I rather have a modern autofocus SLR.

Here's the thing. I have modern AF film cameras (Minolta 7). I also have MF cameras. I find myself reaching for the MF cameras probably 7 times out of 10. I suppose it's what I prefer.

 

[Radost]

Yeah, I've noticed the lenses are getting there


Here's the thing. I have modern AF film cameras (Minolta 7). I also have MF cameras. I find myself reaching for the MF cameras probably 7 times out of 10. I suppose it's what I prefer.

As I said nothing wrong with that. DIfferent people diferent tastes.

 

[film_man]

I owned a couple of R8 bodies with the 35/50/90 Crons. I think they are vastly underrated cameras, they do feel extremely refined and are really nice to use. I also think that the R8 looks amazing in black. The finder is excellent, the shutter damping sublime, the operation overall is really smooth, the only annoying niggle being that AE lock is only available with spot metering. For a cool £200 extra on the R8 price, the R9 fixes that. The motor winder (the small thin one) is also great, it hardly adds anything to the camera, I just don't know why Leica didn't have that built in. Maybe to save people £150-200 on the used market.

As for the lenses, I only had the Crons, they are excellent lenses and I'd love to try the 35/50/80 Luxes and even the 180/2. But for those prices I'd rather get the M lenses for my M4. The 50/2 (I had the latest ROM version) was an excellent lens. Eventually I sold them as for me 35mm SRL is basically AF territory, if I want manual focus I might as well use my M.

If you want a manual focus SLR with auto everything else though the R8/9 are great cameras. The lenses too. Saying that, an R8 with a late 50/2 will probably set you back just under £1k. That's £1k for a very nice manual focus camera with a f/2 lens. For that kind of money you can get a F5/F100 with a 58/1.4G, which is a unique lens. Or maybe a Canon 3/1V with the 50/1.2L. Or maybe the F3/FM3a with the 50/1.2 AIS? You see where this is going.

 

[gone]

The R3 I owned was a good camera, but big and heavy, especially after you put a lens on it. The viewfinder wasn't the brightest either. The R4 and R5 suffer from shutter lag and poor mirror damping. Once you get beyond the R5 to the newer models you get a decent camera, but you won't find a deal on these, they're pretty pricey.

What you want is a Leicaflex, those are wonderful cameras. Seeing the whole frame in the viewfinder (biggest and brightest of any SLR) wasn't possible w/ my glasses on, so I use my Leicaflex 90 Elmarit on a Nikon N8008s and N70 w/ adapters. These cameras are better tools, and very fast to use even w/ stopped down metering due to the AE, AE-Lock and motorized film advance. By the way, I feel that there are no better SLR lenses made than the Leicaflex and R series lenses. Incredible build quality and optical performance. If you buy one, ask lots of questions as many suffer from haze and/or fungus. These are old lenses after all.

 

[Huss]

Currently I have the R-E (an R5 w/o shutter or program modes), an R7, just sold an R8, still have an R9.

They are such solid, confidence inspiring cameras to use with by far the best haptics out there. With one finger, and camera to the eye, you can change between the meter modes and meter patterns, completely intuitively.
None of my Nikons etc are like that. The design of these R Leicas really is superb.

Kinda crazy thing is right now the R-E is getting close to value of the R7. Not sure why, because the R7 is newer and more fully featured/specced.

The only issue with the R series before the 8/9 is the perceived shutter lag, because the shutter button has a very deep throw. I 'fixed' that by using a screw in soft shutter release button. It really improves the feel.

 

[Radost]

Cheaper alternative: Minolta XD11. Prety much the same and has some great glass. Shoots 100 if the battery dies.

 

[Radost]

Leica R lenses are way too expansive because of Video people value them,

 

[Huss]

Cheaper alternative: Minolta XD11. Prety much the same and has some great glass. Shoots 100 if the battery dies.

It's not the same. Only has one metering pattern. Shutter only goes to 1/1000. VF info is not as comprehensive. Build quality is not close to the same.
Leica R-E etc also have mechanical speed of 1/100.

 

[Huss]

Leica R lenses are way too expansive because of Video people value them,

Why do video people value them? Because they are awesome.

 

[hoffy]

Why do video people value them? Because they are awesome.

What systems to video people use them on?

 

[Down Under]

They seem to last. At least everyone I know who has them and uses them, all say so.

If used with care they go on and on. As do my film Nikkormats and my Contax G1s. So the camera jury yet sits on this.

Here in Australia they seem to be a cheaper (tho not exactly budget) way to get into Leica photography.

In my wayward dreams I sometimes fantasise of owning only one R4 body and two lenses, 35 and 90 Elmarits.

I would be dropping about A$3000 or even a little more from a reliable retailer, but then what does that money buy now anyway in the digital market?

This is a mind-game of mine and I know it will never happen, but hey, we need dreams to go on photographing in this increasingly insane world.

Leitz produced two-cam and three-cam lenses for the early R series. I believe the R4 uses the latter. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.)

 

[4season]

The main reason to buy a Leicaflex or R-series Leica is because you want to own a Leica. Not really competitive with the better Japanese cameras, but they're nice enough. Film wind levers are non-ratcheted for some reason, an odd omission considering original price of these cameras, and the fact that it's a beloved feature of the M-cameras.

Were I to buy one today, maybe it would be a silver chrome Leicaflex SL: A distinctive-looking Wetzlar original design which is nicely finished and can still be had at okay prices. Collectors have tended to overlook it in favor of the SL2 but SL2 is also a larger camera.

 

[btaylor]

One of these days I want to get an R8. I love the look of these things, black with the slim auto winder. 3 lenses? 28/35, 50, 90? Or the zoom?

 

[NB23]

R6, R6.2. Totally worth it.

 

[NB23]

One of these days I want to get an R8. I love the look of these things, black with the slim auto winder. 3 lenses? 28/35, 50, 90? Or the zoom?

Quickly I got fed up lugging around a camera as big as a hasselblad for such a miniature film (35’mm). The R8 had to go.

 

[Huss]

One of these days I want to get an R8. I love the look of these things, black with the slim auto winder. 3 lenses? 28/35, 50, 90? Or the zoom?

I use the 28, 50 and 35-70 f4 ROM with my R9. I also have the motor drive for it, which makes for a chunky monkey of a package, but it is so nicely balanced it's worth it.
The R8 and R9 (which really should have been called R8.2 as the differences are minimal) do appear large but they way they fit in your hand makes you realize that is all intentional for the haptics.
They are just wonderful to use.

R9 w/ 35-70 f4 ROM, Fuji C200

"The Stare Down"

 

[Steve York]

In the past I've owned an R6/6.2, R7 and all of the Leicaflex series. For weight reasons I mostly shot the 35/90 Elmarit's (f/2.8) and the 50 Summicron (f/2). The R3-R7 are pretty much like their Japanese counterparts. The R8/9 is unique; an ergonomic masterpiece with a very good viewfinder. The Leicaflex series are great mechanical cameras, albeit large and heavy. The Leicaflex SL (which I preferred) has a big, bold, beautiful viewfinder, where things just pop into focus in a magical way, and an incredible braking system which allows hand held, slow shutter speeds. Wide open, hand held, 1/15 is very useable. I put a lot of film through a pair of these, but maybe not quite reliable as say a Nikon. As far as optics, I suppose Leica lenses are a bit better, especially at wider apertures, nicer bokeh in some cases, ect., but over the years, especially since I shot only B&W film, knowing too that light and composition are primary, I've jumped off the Leica bandwagon. I can get just as good a picture with an old $50 Nikkor then I can get with an expensive Leitz. Maybe a bit sharper, definitely heavier, but frankly, for me, sharpness is way overrated, and the Nikkor, ect. are all sharp enough, at least for B&W film. I liked all the Leica lenses I used, but there are some Nikkors I just don't like how they paint, so there's that too. Try them out; make your own decision. In sum, maybe Leica's are "better" in some objective sense, but not sure it's worth all that extra money. You can take good pics with any camera.

 

[dave olson]

Like most professional photographers I have had, and presently own a number of different cameras by various manufacturers. In my stable, there are Leica M rangefinders, and now one Leica R body, the R7. I started using R bodies and lenses back in the nineties. I found them to be well made, solid, and enduring. I recently sold an R 6.2 with a couple of lenses, only because I need space. Opinions on R bodies vary, the R lens glass is exquisite. In the field I never experience a problem.