Leica R6

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

Thinking about an R-camera. Like to have an all mechanical SLR that I can use with Leica's great glass. I have a couple of their rangefinders (M3 and M2), and impressed with the lenses (and the cameras). Are the R lenses just as good? Any issues with the R6?

 

[Vincent Peri]

Decades ago, I had a couple of Leica R3 cameras and a host of R lenses from 21mm to 180mm. The R lenses are superb. I've never seen better, although Nikon's lenses (manual focus) come close. The 2 brands have different strong points, so saying one brand is "better" than the other doesn't take personal opinions into consideration.

For a while last year, I was toying at buying another R3 and a few R lenses, but I decided against it because of the cost per R lens compared to Nikkor manual focus lenses. Also, any repair costs are astronomical for Leica equipment based on what I've heard.

One final comment. I've also heard that the R lenses are more prone to having internal haze now that they're decades old. Don't know how true that is, just mentioning something to check out first.

Best of luck, whatever you decide.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've been thinking about a R camera as well, setting aside some money for a body and couple of lens. My thinking is that unlike the electronic bodies which until the R8 were based on Minolta Tech the R6 is likely more serviceable. Looking at the reviews from the time seems that Leica R glass is very good. But would some first hand opinions as well.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

I have lots of Nikon stuff and it's hard to change systems when I already have most of what I need. The Nikon stuff is okay, but it would be nice to simplify and go with just one body and a few really good lenses. I'm impressed with the Leica rangefinder stuff, and was curious to see if the R lineup is up to the same standards. The shorter R lenses have to be retro-focus to make room for a mirror box. Does that diminish their performance in any way?

 

[Kodachromeguy]

...The shorter R lenses have to be retro-focus to make room for a mirror box. Does that diminish their performance in any way?

Oh, Axel, this has been hashed out for decades. This is a 50-year-old argument. The simple answer: not that you are likely to see on film. If you like a certain focal length but it is a retrofocus design, just go get it.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Of all the R series, the R6 or R6.2 should theoretically be the most reliable because all it has is mechanical shutter speed and aperture; the only electronics are the meter and self timer. No program, aperture, or shutter priority electronics of the R4, R5, R7, R8, or R9 cameras.

The R3, of which I owned an olive drab Safari kit briefly, lived up to its reputation of electronic unreliability.

As net legend has it, R4's up to a certain serial number share similar foibles as the R3.

For full aperture metering, you will need 3-cam lenses for an R6 - not a bad thing, just more expensive.

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/LeicaR6.html

My only reflex Leicas are the R8 and two SL's.

 

[AgX]

Also, any repair costs are astronomical for Leica equipment based on what I've heard.

At least for the body the repair costs should be that of the respective Minolta body, leaving aside Leica proprietary spares.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

The earlier threads on the R6/R6.2 are worth a look.

I have been running an R6.2 since March, when I got the body on eBay. I bought a 60mm Macro-Elmarit-R to get me going, along with yellow-green, orange and circ. polariser Serie VIII filters (no red was made and I don't really use a skylight). That lens is happiest with the orange filter; and the light needs to be good. A dealer listed the 35mm PA-Curtagon-R on their website and, reading it up, I decided that I'd look out for one (a plus being that it also takes Serie VIII filters). I found one with another dealer and bought it a month ago. It's a real plus, as its rise etc. make photographing buildings a lot simpler. That lens is happy with the yellow-green. Metering is straightforward either at full aperture or stopped down (the Curtagon isn't a 3-cam lens). The 60mm handles macro work with no nonsense.

The camera body is grand. There was an issue with a damaged rewind knob - it sat askew on the body - but fortunately a repairer I know happened to have a spare and we did a swap.

I have put 13 assorted rolls through it, ranging in speed from PanF+ to 400TX and Pancro 400. My best results have been with bulk loaded FP4+ and PanF+, along with XP2 Super rated at 100 and processed in black & white chemistry. A standard lens would be a sensible addition and I'd love a 24mm.

In all significant respects the R6.2 seems to be the same as the R6; and my experience, after a short spell getting used to an SLR again, has been entirely positive. The equipment is so sound and easy to use that I've no hesitation in recommending an R6 or 6.2.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

Thanks all for the recommendations.

Micheal, are you saying that the R lenses don't work with standard threaded filters? They only work with series filters? Also, you mention that certain lenses work well with this or that color filter. I use colored filters not based on the lens, but on the effect that it gives; for example a yellow or red filter to darken a blue sky or a green filter to lighten foliage.

 

[locutus]

It depends on the specific lenses.

The older lenses (and some of the super teles) use Series filters, later (1980s and on) use normal modern filters.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

Thanks all for the recommendations.

Micheal, are you saying that the R lenses don't work with standard threaded filters? They only work with series filters? Also, you mention that certain lenses work well with this or that color filter. I use colored filters not based on the lens, but on the effect that it gives; for example a yellow or red filter to darken a blue sky or a green filter to lighten foliage.

Marco - Second point first: like you, I use coloured filters for effect. One of the effects, apart from tonal separation, is an apparent increase in contrast. My two lenses both look nice and clear to me; but they are both getting on a bit and are unlikely to be in factory-fresh condition, optically. The Curtagon actually gets the effects I want with all three filters, while I suspect that the Elmarit is now a bit less contrasty and needs the orange filter, at least, to give me what I want. I could of course process the films to try to get round that; but so far I have gone by the book in that respect, except for XP2 Super.

On your first point: Leica filters are complex. I have a copy of Dennis Laney's 1984 title, Leica camera and lens accessory guide, which has a section on "Filters, hoods, adaptors etc.". It is clear from that that you need to check carefully, for any Leica lens you want to buy, what specific accessories are required and what is available. The four lenses in my elderly screw-mount kit all fortunately take the same A36 push-on filters and hoods; but a quick look at the guide and its companion title, Leica pocket book by Brian Tompkins (I have the 1980 first edition) shows the situation for R lenses is very much case-by-case. For example, the 50mm Summicron shows Serie VI for early and E55 for later models, while the 50mm Summilux starts with Serie VII and moves to E55. I hope that maybe someone else who knows more than I do will post to this thread. In any case, don't let my remarks put you off, as I had no trouble sourcing the filters I wanted.

The sun is now shining here in the north of Ireland: your president is playing golf at his course a long way off at Doonbeg and I'm away to find something interesting to point the R6.2 at. Best wishes to yourself for now.

[After posting this I saw locutus's post. Apologies for not acknowledging it. I'm sure it's correct, as it refers to the situation after my handbooks came out]

 

[Huss]

.. Are the R lenses just as good?..

Yes. Taken with an R7 and Summicron 50 R on Fuji C200, with 100% crop from the foreground:





Unless you are stuck on getting an R6/.2 you may be surprised how affordable other R cameras R....
I have R8, 9, 7 and two R-Es. The R-Es are in great shape and only cost about $200, work perfectly, are just as nice to fondle and use as the others and give the exact same results. The R-E is the R5 but with 'only' AE and Manual modes. (who needs more?!)
May be a good way to get into the R system, and could be a back up , or vice versa, to an R6.

 

[film_man]

I used to own a couple of R8 bodies with the 35/2, 50/2 and 90/2. The lenses are great but to be honest I can't say that they were any better than the "good stuff", say a Nikon 50/1.2 or a Zeiss 50/1.4 or a Canon 50/1.2L (which I've personally owned as well at various times), especially when you consider the prices. I got a brand new in the box Nikon 50/1.2 for what a 50/2R costs. The old 50/1.4R is what I paid for the Canon 50/1.2 (the new 50/1.4R is just silly money). In the UK it is £700 for a 60mm macro. And so on.

The silly prices make sense for M bodies as you get a lot of tangibles vs SLRs but for the R...I'm not so sure. You can't use the M lenses on them anyway so if you have a comprehensive 35mm SLR system I would say maybe it is better to fill the gaps with the top end lenses for that system vs doing a very expensive switch.

You could also try before you switch, buy an R lens you want and try it on your camera with an adapter. If you like it enough and you notice the difference you can make the switch, otherwise you loose a few dollars on the adapter and whatever you loose on the sale.

 

[Chan Tran]

Of all the R series, the R6 or R6.2 should theoretically be the most reliable because all it has is mechanical shutter speed and aperture; the only electronics are the meter and self timer. No program, aperture, or shutter priority electronics of the R4, R5, R7, R8, or R9 cameras.

The R3, of which I owned an olive drab Safari kit briefly, lived up to its reputation of electronic unreliability.

As net legend has it, R4's up to a certain serial number share similar foibles as the R3.

For full aperture metering, you will need 3-cam lenses for an R6 - not a bad thing, just more expensive.

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/LeicaR6.html

My only reflex Leicas are the R8 and two SL's.

Is the R6 self timer electronic? I would be rather surprised if that is the case.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

In the UK it is £700 for a 60mm macro

Mine cost me under £300. Just a 3-cam, though, not a ROM.

Is the R6 self timer electronic? I would be rather surprised if that is the case.

According to the camera manual, it's electromagnetic. At any rate it won't work without switching on the camera.

 

[jjphoto]

TBH, the debate about Leica R lenses has gone on for decades and it seems pointless to re-prosecute the case either way. I've owned quite a few leica R lenses and bodies over the years, and still do, although I use the leica lenses on mirrorless digital bodies rather than film these days. The most notable mistake that I think people make when starting to consider leica R lenses is failing to study them. The R lenses span from the 1960s to 1990s and the differences between them are dramatic yet they tend to be grouped together and discussed as though all R lenses are equally good or equally bad. Study the lenses and you will understand why some are mediocre (and cheap) and some are still considered about as good as they get (and are expensive). But don't assume they are all the same standard, they are not. Some people buy a relatively cheap Leica R lens (typically early lenses) and complain about the performance, usually with high expectations, but they often don't appreciate that they may have purchased an early lens which may not have a good reputation anyway. Leica wasn't great at wide angle lenses in the early days but this changed in the 80s-90s.

My experience is with the following lenses ;

2.8/24, great colour and stopped down sharpness but an old design so not up to modern standards for edge sharpness, but still a wonderful lens and one I love to use. The lens hood is superb!

2.8/28E55, still considered one of the sharpest 28 mm lenses

1.4/35, a great lens, I love the rendering and wide open sharpness, it's actually worth the money IMHO

2/50E55, I dislike this lens because of its significant wide open purple fringing which prevents it's wide open use in the first place. It has harsh bokeh too. Others love it, it's very sharp across the frame so is a great 'landscape' lens. It's one of my sharpest lenses when stopped down but apart from that I don't see any point in having it. I prefer fast lenses so don't use an F2 50mm lens at all.

1.4/50E60, I'm not sure this one is worth the exorbitant money asked for it today, although it is an excellent lens, but in high demand by video people which seems to have driven up the price

1.4/80, this is my favourite people lens, it's worth the money and I would certainly replace it (even at todays prices) if I had to. Wide open sharpness is excellent in central area.

3.4/180, sharp, but too slow IMHO. Not sure why I still have it TBH.

2/180, this is a stunning performer, it's sharper wide open than many lenses stopped down, worth the money and the 2.5kg you have to lug around.

2.8/70-200 (a loaner I had for a few months) I remember it being very sharp but so are most modern zooms

I recently sold an R8 and kept an R4 and RE. The R4 has a bad reputation because of early electronic problems but if it's working now then you can be sure the electronics have already been repaired. I happen to prefer the R4 over other bodies because it has a larger viewfinder magnification which makes it easier to focus wide angle lenses more accurately. The original focusing screen needs to be replaced with one from later models which is much brighter. I love my R4 and the RE is certainly a decent camera too.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

Wow, great information from all. Thank you. I'm going to have to think about wether I want to upgrade my current Nikon setup with a few select lenses, or go for an R system.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I had the R5 and R4M2 years ago when I worked at a paper. I had six lenses 24, 28, 35, 50, 90, 180 f3.4.
I used it professionally for years and never needed service.
I always thought the R6M2 was a great camera and wish I had bought one when I was shooting so much. It would be my choice still.
I think you can get away with four lenses, although it depends what you like 135mm, 90mm, 50mm 28mm. (Maybe you don't need the 90mm if you just want three lenses.)
Lenses longer than the 180mm are a bit of a pain to use and the 180 f3.4 APO that I had was tough to focus.
Maybe this info is useful to you.
-rob

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

I had the R5 and R4M2 years ago when I worked at a paper. I had six lenses 24, 28, 35, 50, 90, 180 f3.4.
I used it professionally for years and never needed service.
I always thought the R6M2 was a great camera and wish I had bought one when I was shooting so much. It would be my choice still.
I think you can get away with four lenses, although it depends what you like 135mm, 90mm, 50mm 28mm. (Maybe you don't need the 90mm if you just want three lenses.)
Lenses longer than the 180mm are a bit of a pain to use and the 180 f3.4 APO that I had was tough to focus.
Maybe this info is useful to you.
-rob

Thanks Rob. Still mulling it over.

 

[Ste_S]

I used to own a couple of R8 bodies with the 35/2, 50/2 and 90/2. The lenses are great but to be honest I can't say that they were any better than the "good stuff", say a Nikon 50/1.2 or a Zeiss 50/1.4 or a Canon 50/1.2L (which I've personally owned as well at various times), especially when you consider the prices. I got a brand new in the box Nikon 50/1.2 for what a 50/2R costs. The old 50/1.4R is what I paid for the Canon 50/1.2 (the new 50/1.4R is just silly money). In the UK it is £700 for a 60mm macro. And so on.

The silly prices make sense for M bodies as you get a lot of tangibles vs SLRs but for the R...I'm not so sure. You can't use the M lenses on them anyway so if you have a comprehensive 35mm SLR system I would say maybe it is better to fill the gaps with the top end lenses for that system vs doing a very expensive switch.

You could also try before you switch, buy an R lens you want and try it on your camera with an adapter. If you like it enough and you notice the difference you can make the switch, otherwise you loose a few dollars on the adapter and whatever you loose on the sale.

It's the same with the Contax SLR stuff.... it's just brand fetishism. If you want a mechanical SLR you can buy a Nikon F/F2/FM/Nikkormat (or similar from others) with lenses for a fraction of the price of a Leica R6 kit. Image quality across all of them is going to be very similar.

 

[NB23]

I owned a beautiful R6.2, and it was awesome. I had plans of shooting it like crazy, but I ended up shooting my M caneras like crazy.

I learned a lesson; no matter how big your house can be, you can only be in one room at a time.

If You like SLRs, then the R6 is a fine, fine choice.

 

[Huss]

It's the same with the Contax SLR stuff.... it's just brand fetishism. If you want a mechanical SLR you can buy a Nikon F/F2/FM/Nikkormat (or similar from others) with lenses for a fraction of the price of a Leica R6 kit. Image quality across all of them is going to be very similar.

Yes and no. I have plenty of Nikon gear including an FM2n, and the Leicas 'feel' better, have a much better haptic design (the switch around the shutter speed dial to change the mode settings as well as meter patterns is just genius) and smoother controls.
Image quality will be very similar, but the lenses I have are incredibly sharp - look at the enlarged detail on the image I posted above. They are luxury items but now affordable.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

All the cameras use great lenses that could take great photos. It's all about the user experience. I had a Nikon FM, FE, F3, F4,F5,F6 and they all took quality pictures, but none of them have the users experience of the R6. It's not really a better experience, it's just the R6 experience. Some cameras are just great to shoot with, most cameras take great pictures, but it's not the same thing.

 

[Huss]

Excellent point Rob. Since I acquired R kameras the only F I used was my F6 and that was a while back. Been years since I used my fm2n and a long time for my Fs, F2s, F3.Ps etc.
Interestingly I recently enjoyed using an $8 N75 because it is so light weight u forget its there. With the 50 1.8g it is a super high quality P&S!

 

[GarageBoy]

Meanwhile, I wish I could get a full set of Leica r lenses Nikon mounted. Between the dying early electronics, the shutter lag, or the bulk of r8/r9 - I'm not a Leica r body fan. Love the lenses, though - maybe the r6 is better