Leica R4/R4s Viewfinder Question

I have a Leica R4s and 50/2 Summicron on the way, but have been reading things that seem to indicate that this otherwise nice body has one of my most dreaded features: a viewfinder that is obstructed by an information "bulge" (in this case, I believe it is the shutter speed readings). Is this correct? If so, I will be disapointed, as I was hoping to make use of Leica lenses (without having to spend a small fortune on a Leica body). I will never understand why camera manufacturers put these obstructions in the viewfinder. I suppose some folks like to be reminded in this manner, but not having a 100% viewinder display is bad enough--let alone adding another blackout area with a bulge.

I upgraded my R4s first to an R4 and now very recently to an R5.

Yes, the R4s (& R4) do have a bulge, but that never bothered me.

The upgrade from the R4s to the R4 was because that the R4s was awkward to use in manual mode.

The upgrade to the R5 was mainly because of the 1/2000 (useful when using long telephotos).

I've had experience with 100% viewfinders (Nikon F & F2), but I don't find that such an important argument anymore.
As I said, I upgraded the R4 because of the top shutter speed, not because I was in any way bothered by the viewfinder....

I appreciate the comments...I will have to make a decision about my R4s. I agree that a 100% viewfinder is not essential; however, for me, an unobstructed viewfinder tends to be essential. My Canon F-1Ns have 97% finders, and I have never had a problem with this. The F-1N, though, has a beautiful, unobstructed finder--with the exposure information off to the side and along the bottom...where it should be, in my opinion.

With regard to the R4s being awkward to use, I gather you mean the fact that the shutter speeds do not always add up, so to speak, when in manual mode. This has never bothered me, as I have always been in the habit of checking the shutter speed knob (and pretty much ignoring the camera's suggested shutter speed, as I use a hand-held light meter).

A hint: Get a focussing screen from a later R model (they are brighter).

The R4 screens are marked "R4", while the later, brighter, screens are simply marked "R".

In practice, no exposure compensation is necessary (unlike Nikon Fs).

Enjoy, though if you really want the top of Leica viewfinders and feel, go for a Leicaflex SL or SL2.

Thanks for the advice...

I am considering the later SL, the SL2. It is much more expensive--more than double the price--and so I must discern if it is worth it. Thus, does it:

a) have an unobstructed (and bright) viewfinder?
b) use a non-mercury battery (if any battery at all)?
c) offer a winder or motor?

I have all of these features on my Nikon and Canon bodies, and they amount to a minimum feature set for me, especially when spending a few hundred dollars or more on a used camera body.

PS: an eyecup is also a nice feature. Thus far, I have found it impossible to locate a Leica R-series eyecup. There is not even a hint of one out there.

FilmOnly said:

I am considering the later SL, the SL2. It is much more expensive--more than double the price--and so I must discern if it is worth it. Thus, does it:

a) have an unobstructed (and bright) viewfinder?
b) use a non-mercury battery (if any battery at all)?
c) offer a winder or motor?

Click to expand...

For me the advantage of the SL2 over the SL is mainly that it can mount some lenses the SL can't (Namely the 19mm (version II), 15mm, 24mm and a few others). It also has a more sensitive light meter, but the SL covers what can be done without a tripod.

I actually prefer the SL's focussing screen and (banana) shape. If you don't need to use the incompatible lenses, I'd really stick with the SL (though many SL prisms are now desilvering, a thing to check/ask about when buying one. Mine has several desilvering spots, but still puts a Nikon F or F2 with an H screen to shame!).

Answers:
a) The best viewfinder ever! A reason alone to get one. The SL is the camera I grab if I use long teles.
b) While designed for mercury batteries (for the light meter), there are many ways to get around that - really not a problem.
c) The "mot" versions of the SL & SL2 (even more expensive) can mount some huge motors. You're better off getting a motor drive for your R4s (I got mine very cheaply).

Thanks again...

I already have a winder for the R4 on the way. I never buy a camera unless I can obtain a motor or winder, too. I am not interested in paying yet another premium for a Leica body, and so an SL "Mot" is out of the question. Thus, it looks like the R4s is my only reasonable choice...which is what I had thought in the beginning...and now, knowing of its viewfinder bulge, I am regretting my purchase. Not having an eyecup is yet another annoyance.

PS: I also have no interest in a camera that takes mercury batteries. I had gotten away from these bodies years ago. I do not want to have to send out the body for modification, and, personally, I have not always had the best experiences with camera repairmen. There is only one repairman I truly trust. His prices are reasonable, and his work is excellent.

RE Mercury cells:
The simplest solution is a hollowed-out PX625 shell with a resistance which will take a PX13 silver cell.
I have 2 which live in my SL & SL2. Will move them to my Nikon F if & whenever I ever use it again...

Wein cells and hearing aid batteries (with spacers) are also easy substitutes.