XD-7 and XD-11 are the same camera under different names.
Leica R - Taking the Plunge
-
A
- Thread starter KeithM
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zenza Bronica S2 Outfit - S2 Body, 75mm lens, 135mm lens, 120 film back
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500 C Outfit - Body, 3 Finders, A24 Film Back, More!
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Toyo-View D45M LF Camera, Symmar 150mm/f5.6 Lens, 45R Binocular Finder
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Guess what I found! 6 packs of Polaroid 665!!!
- Started by Early Riser
Forum statistics
XD-7 and XD-11 are the same camera under different names.
The Minolta XD-7 and XD-11 are one and the same camera (XD-11 is what they called it in the US). As far as I can see the R5 is very similar. The Leica uses a different method to meter (gold foil on shutter), 1/2000 second and contacts for a true motor drive. Both are excellent cameras. The R6 looks the same but Leica went all mechanical with match needle (lights) type metering. You can't kill that camera. The battery is only used for the meter and the camera works at all speeds without it. It is truly underrated.
Like the Minolta XD7/XD11 is! And so are some very excellent Minolta lenses!
Nice to see copies of books by my favourite photographer, James Ravilious, he was also a Leica man, all the best, Charles.
The Minolta XE (1974 Japan = XE5 1975 in Europe = XE7 1975 in USA / Canada) with the CLS = Copal Leitz Shutter is one of my all time favorites -
the sister model, the Leica R3 (1976 - with spot metering !) was my favorite R-series model (even though it was the 'unloved child' of the R-series for many others).
the sister model, the Leica R3 (1976 - with spot metering !) was my favorite R-series model (even though it was the 'unloved child' of the R-series for many others).
The R3 has possible the nicest shutter actuation of all the cameras I have ever tried (thanks to the CLS shutter as mentioned by macfred and the mirror dampening system). Even the winder for the R3 MOT sounds really nice (Minolta offered no winder for the XE-1). What's perhaps more important to some is the fact that it operates with one of the shortest shutter lags among SLR cameras: 38 ms(!) See under Minolta XE-1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_lag
Hehe... this was my first camera for years, and I am still shooting with it!
You should cherish it !
--
I'm looking -from time to time- for a minty R3(Mot) for a moderate price. Someday I'll get one again.
The on/off switch was really a nice to have, but it is the only thing that was broken on my XE. The small nipple on the switch was broken, so it's hard to still use it.
A pretty old one (mid - eighties) with the R3 on HP5 - those were the days ...
Those Canaan days we used to know. Where have they gone, where did they go? - no.2 by Andreas, on Flickr
Those Canaan days we used to know. Where have they gone, where did they go? - no.2 by Andreas, on Flickr
Late 70ies at its best ... Pink Floyd, Procul Harum, Iron Butterfly.... 
(mid 80ies... doesn't matter!)
(mid 80ies... doesn't matter!)
The R3 Safari with olive green body and lenses was something I always wanted. I found one for sale in the late 1980's, but by then I'd heard tales of it having dodgy electronics, so I didn't buy it.
OP
OP
Yes, the lack of an on/off switch on the R5 is a potential disadvantage. How prone are they to being activated when carried about in a snug-fitting bag, I wonder?
Not prone at all. I dislike the switch on my R3 MOT (or any other camera for that matter).
I'm affraid this is not true. The R3's VF is bright enough (more so than on the sister Minolta camera) but my R4s Mod2 / R4P has a brighter VF, my R8 brighter still.
That's funny...many of us pros shooting with a SLR felt switching to a rangefinder as a step backwards. We were all using Hasselblads or 4x5. Rangefinders were great for photojournalists who wanted to stay low key.
I only can judge the viewfinder of my R3(Mot) and those of my R4 and R4s : The viewfinder of my R3Mot was -for my eyes- definitely brighter than the viewfinder of my R4 and R4s.
But who really cares about ... - no need to argue.
To be fair - my R4s was a nice camera too ... Lots of memories (San Francisco-1995)
Elmar - Jack Kerouac Alley (formerly Adler Alley or Adler Place) Chinatown, San Francisco, California - 1995 by Andreas, on Flickr
Elmar - Jack Kerouac Alley (formerly Adler Alley or Adler Place) Chinatown, San Francisco, California - 1995 by Andreas, on Flickr
The original focusing screen in the R4 is quite dark compared to the screens in later cameras, that's why I fitted the R5-7 screen into to R4, making it much brighter.
I own a R5 & XD-11. I removed the bottom plate and other than the motor drive connection they look almost identical. The black finish is identical as well. I love them both. IMO that was the last of the great Minolta bodies, while Leica went on to refine their SLR's though the R9 (which I thought was ugly), Minolta went downhill adding more and more plastic until they dumped the SR mount for the Maxxum. That is when I switched to Nikon. I couldn't afford my first Leica until 2004 when digital caused the prices to drop.
A pretty old one (mid - eighties) with the R3 on HP5 - those were the days ...
Thats a quality shot. Should have been the back cover to a german oak or amon duul record. Love it
I'm curious as to why you say this,Clive.I use an M4 and my SLR of choice is Canon FD-usually T90-but I don't consider it a step backward.Is there something in particular that you don't like about Leica SLR's?
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,540
- Format
- 35mm RF
I have nothing against SLR's, but the OP was comparing it as a step up from rangefinders.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |