Leica SLRs - why no love?

[Kodachromeguy]

Flavio, that Knippsen site is really interesting. This is the first time I ever saw it. Some comments:

1. The Minolta XK, only 51,000 total. No wonder I have never seen one in use in the field, and maybe have seen 1 or 2 in stores ever.
2. Pentax sold really well in the late-1960s and early-1970s: https://knippsen.blogspot.com/2014/06/japanese-slr-production-numbers-part-3.html
My wife bought her Spotmatic in 1971 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We still use it.
3. I looked at the German SLR production plots. The West German companies just never reached the volumes that the Japanese companies were able to achieve. The Contarex and Rollei 2000/3000 lines are such narrow blips, you hardly see them in the chart. As the author noted, "I think the graphics speak for themselves. After its heyday in the early 60ies the West German camera industry more or less collectively slipped into bankruptcy in the beginning of the 70ies,". It is sad.
4. I wonder when we will see a similar shake-up in the digital world over next few years as the DSLR market appears to be collapsing. Who will survive?

 

[flavio81]

My Leica Rs are fantastic to hold and use. They feel much nicer made than something like a Nikon FE,

On the other hand, the Nikon FE is one Nikon that is rather poorly made, compared to a Nikon F2 or F3.

Addittionally, last time I had a Leica R4 in the hand to examine, the fit and finish was very good but not superior to the one in the Canon F-1.

The 50mm f2 on my Pentax slrs cost about $25... sure it is not as nicely made, but it still makes excellent pics and was only $25!!

I guess this is in the eye (or hand) of the beholder, i'm an avid Takumar fan because of the build quality. And I have toyed a bit with a Summicron-R 50/2 of the mid 70s, and I can't really say it was better built than the nicer Takumars like the 28/3.5. At least not on the outside (fit, finish, helicoid smoothness). I'd say the S-M-C Takumars are probably the best built japanese lenses!

Regarding the Knippsen site, yes, very interesting! Another very good is this one:

http://www.klassik-cameras.de/

This guy (Frank) has a whole article explaining his view on the demise of the German camera business. Very, very good article.

 

[Mackinaw]

........Canon F-1/F-1N combined, about 500K.........

Your numbers for the F-1 are low. Total F-1 production, all three models (F-1, F-1n, F-1N) is about 615,000 units.

Jim B.

 

[flavio81]

Your numbers for the F-1 are low. Total F-1 production, all three models (F-1, F-1n, F-1N) is about 615,000 units.

Jim B.

Thanks for this!! Source?

I was quoting the figures on the source URL i quoted.

It's very interesting to compare, as fair as I can see, if we combine sales of F2+F3 and compare with sales of F1+F1n+F1N, you get Canon selling 1/3rd of the Nikon cameras. I think this is pretty decent considering that

(1) all through the 60s Nikon had a 10-year advantage to establish itself as the #1 professional SLR maker, and at 1971 (release of the F-1), the great majority of the pro 35mm users already were into a big Nikon system,

and

(2) that the Nikon F3 was discontinued much later (2001/2) than the New F-1 (1992/3).

Considering the Pentax LX got only 200K units according to the source I cited, this shows that the F-1 system was really the only competitor to the Nikon F2 and F3.

Unless you consider the Spotmatic SP a professional camera, that is. One could argue it was one, too. At least it had a lot of usage by professionals.

 

[Dan Fromm]

After its heyday in the early 60ies the West German camera industry more or less collectively slipped into bankruptcy in the beginning of the 70ies,". It is sad.

Kguy, the collapse wasn't limited to Germany. All of the European countries' 35 mm and roll film camera manufacturers suffered badly from Japanese competition. The UK, France and Italy all had significant camera and lens makers, well, maybe not Italy so much, who mostly died between '65 and '75 or so. Some tried to compete hard, e.g., King, whose Regula Reflex 2000 CTL was a nice idea badly realized.

The Europeans killed the US industry in the '50s. Lower cost producers who can match higher cost producers' quality are deadly.

 

[Paul Howell]

One of the difference between Leica SLRs and Nikon, Canon, and other Japanese 35mm makers, the Japanese made a range of bodies, consumer to pro level. Leica did not make an entry level body, no room a shooter to buy a starter camera then add a pro level body when she, he could afford it. Nikkormat, F, Topcon RE, D, Canon FTB, F1 (1971) Konica A, T3, Miranda RE, EE, and list goes on. I think the same was true for Contex, Swiss Alpa, just a pro level bodies, it was come big or go home.

 

[NB23]

The problem was everything was a little off. Size, weight, features, feel...

And there was Nikon, a system that came right out of Heaven.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

One of the difference between Leica SLRs and Nikon, Canon, and other Japanese 35mm makers, the Japanese made a range of bodies, consumer to pro level. Leica did not make an entry level body, no room a shooter to buy a starter camera then add a pro level body when she, he could afford it. Nikkormat, F, Topcon RE, D, Canon FTB, F1 (1971) Konica A, T3, Miranda RE, EE, and list goes on. I think the same was true for Contex, Swiss Alpa, just a pro level bodies, it was come big or go home.

True at release time, not longer true today as all Leica SLR bodies are at least price competitive with everything out there at respective levels.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The problem was everything was a little off. Size, weight, features, feel...

And there was Nikon, a system that came right out of Heaven.

All quite exaggeration. R bodies are of a rather small and belong in best handling of all ever made. Weight? Certainly not R bodies, but even SL weight is sort of a myth as they are not outside of Canon F1 of Nikon F2 in that sense. And features? Those who need fancy electronic complexity can go with R8 or 9, no other film camera can win in this department. What kind of features in others are missing? It's either about taking photographs or salivating over what it can do even if it is never used. To me all R bodies have enough automation and excellent metering.

 

[miha]

If one wants to use longer Leica lenses, there is no way around. Below are some print scans from a carbon print workshop I participated back in 2018. Leica R8, 90mm summicron.

 

[Ian Grant]

Kguy, the collapse wasn't limited to Germany. All of the European countries' 35 mm and roll film camera manufacturers suffered badly from Japanese competition. The UK, France and Italy all had significant camera and lens makers, well, maybe not Italy so much, who mostly died between '65 and '75 or so. Some tried to compete hard, e.g., King, whose Regula Reflex 2000 CTL was a nice idea badly realized.

The Europeans killed the US industry in the '50s. Lower cost producers who can match higher cost producers' quality are deadly.

In the late 1950's and early 60's Focal Press published this book, I think the first was 1957.

Essentially it's s guide to the most popular current cameras with 2 to 4 pages on various models, it's really taking extracts from the very popular Focal Press Camera Guides. The Guides started in WWII when the British Government was requisitioning cameras etc for military use and needed manuals, What's striking is how the 1964 copy has swung towards Japanese cameras compared to the 1957 and 1960 copies I have.

In HS Newcombe's "The Miniature Camera" the list of European manufacturers of 35mm and 120 cameras is an eye opener, so many companies offering full system cameras nearly all very short lived. It would be worth scanning and putting the list and camera features in a separate thread at some stage.

Personally I'd never considered Leica for an SLR, unlike others I don't find them ergonomically attractive, but then I didn't like Nikons either and opted for Spotmatics,, but that's personal choice.

It's easy now in retrospect when we are buying cameras and lenses no longer manufactured at prices a fraction of what they were when new, so we can build up a dream system of choice quite cheaply if we want to.

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, when I was starting out in 1970 one of my friends was a Leica nut who urged me to get a Leicaflex. I was then an enlisted swine in the US Army, anything Leica except old screwmount RF cameras as then sold by dealers in New York was far out of reach. I could just afford a Nikon (F Photomic or Nikkormat FTN). I didn't like the F with meter head's ergonomics so got a Nikkormat and didn't look back. It served me well and my Nikkors were (still are) better than good enough.

The Germans were still making infernal leaf shutter 35 mm SLRs then. Not good for my purposes (closeup work). I'm glad I didn't cheap out and get a Regula Reflex 2000 CTL. Lovely specification, F mount, but much too fragile.

 

[flavio81]

Ian, when I was starting out in 1970 one of my friends was a Leica nut who urged me to get a Leicaflex. I was then an enlisted swine in the US Army, anything Leica except old screwmount RF cameras as then sold by dealers in New York was far out of reach. I could just afford a Nikon (F Photomic or Nikkormat FTN). I didn't like the F with meter head's ergonomics so got a Nikkormat and didn't look back. It served me well and my Nikkors were (still are) better than good enough.

Sounds like an excellent choice for the army. Lighter than the F photomic, smaller, and as reliable. Or maybe even more reliable!

 

[Paul Howell]

As I understand it Dan was in the Army and could afford a Nikkormat but not an F. The Air Force used Nikon Fs, the standard and the motor version, M2 and 3, the Navy Topcon Super D, Army photographers have reported that the Army used both Topcon and NIkon, I only saw Army folks with Nikons. I've seem photos of Horst Faas in the 60s covering Vietnam with both Leica Rangefinders and Flex.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Paul, I could have afforded either body. In the spring of '70 I went to the 4 Wing RCAF photofair where Nikon AG was selling lenses and bodies at extremely low prices. I hefted both -- my base's PX didn't carry Nikon so I couldn't do that in advance -- and went for the Nik'mat. IIRC the Nik'mat was $75 and the F with TTL metering prism was $125. In those days the Spotmatic was probably the most common GI's personal camera where I was. After that, probably Minolta SRTs. That's what the PX had.

 

[NB23]

I really liked my R6.2, but traded it for a M7 black paint a la carte. So there’s that.

The R8 with winder I owned was nice, too, but after a few outings something didn’t feel right: I was lugging around this huge and heavy camera but I was shooting 35mm film. And it never occured to me to lug around my Hasselblad 500c exactly because of its size.

I can understand Leica’s move to make the R8/9 so big. It appears that all the marketing data was pointing at the knowledge that photographers tended to compensate by using/liking big gear, big lenses. But that was true for other manufacturers, not for Leica.

The problem with the R series is that the cameras weren’t mechanical. People snobbed that.

If they had started the R3 being the R6 as we know it, and then refining it from there on (R4 being a refined R6, the R5 being even more refined, and the R6 being even more refined...), the R line would have been TREMENDOUS abd we’d still be all over it. Leica would have made an easy jump into the DSLR world. Remember, back then when the DSLRs began, Leica was going into bankruptcy.

So this is the error: the R3 abd R4 started as amateur offerings. They could never pick up the BAD START.

 

[macfred]

I bought my first R in the mid eighties - R3 with a 50mm Summicron R and an Elmarit R 135mm. Traded ihe R3 against the R4s.
Unfortunately this one had electronic issues and I sold my kit two years later. Nice cameras - great lenses.

R3 - HP5 - Summicron R 50mm

R4s - Kodak Ektar 125 - Summicron R 50mm

 

[beemermark]

Another reason Leica R isn't more popular. No independent lens maker ever introduced an R lens. Tamron did make an adapter for their Adaptall lenses but they are uncommon and it's hit or miss if they will work. I have two, one works with my SL2 and one doesn't,

 

[macfred]

Another reason Leica R isn't more popular. No independent lens maker ever introduced an R lens. Tamron did make an adapter for their Adaptall lenses but they are uncommon and it's hit or miss if they will work. I have two, one works with my SL2 and one doesn't,

There were a few https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.de/index.php/Fremd-Objektive_für_Leica_R (German language)

 

[Paul Howell]

[

Paul, I could have afforded either body. In the spring of '70 I went to the 4 Wing RCAF photofair where Nikon AG was selling lenses and bodies at extremely low prices. I hefted both -- my base's PX didn't carry Nikon so I couldn't do that in advance -- and went for the Nik'mat. IIRC the Nik'mat was $75 and the F with TTL metering prism was $125. In those days the Spotmatic was probably the most common GI's personal camera where I was. After that, probably Minolta SRTs. That's what the PX had.

I was living on $64.00 a month plus hazardous duty pay when I was in County. I had a Spotmatic and Konic when I enlisted. As I recall the Army Air Force PX BX could not offer the deep discounts the Navy did in the Navy Exchange, different laws governed both systems. The Air Force Exchange at my base had Mintola, Miranda, Petri, and Yashica. I had managed to save up a good portion of my pay, got my income tax refund and was able to trade my Konica T3 and lens set including a 57 1.2 for a used F factory modified for the motor drive and a 50 1.4, 28 2.8 and later added the 100 2.8, I shot with that system until 1977 when I was trade it in a new F2. I bought the F at a camera shop in Santa Barbara, the owner told me it had been owned by a dentist who lost his license and need money in a hurry. My Spomatic and lens were with my parents, didnt have time to drive down to LA to get it, still have it today.

 

[Dan Fromm]

[


I was living on $64.00 a month plus hazardous duty pay when I was in County. I had a Spotmatic and Konic when I enlisted. As I recall the Army Air Force PX BX could not offer the deep discounts the Navy did in the Navy Exchange, different laws governed both systems. The Air Force Exchange at my base had Mintola, Miranda, Petri, and Yashica. I had managed to save up a good portion of my pay, got my income tax refund and was able to trade my Konica T3 and lens set including a 57 1.2 for a used F factory modified for the motor drive and a 50 1.4, 28 2.8 and later added the 100 2.8, I shot with that system until 1977 when I was trade it in a new F2. I bought the F at a camera shop in Santa Barbara, the owner told me it had been owned by a dentist who lost his license and need money in a hurry. My Spomatic and lens were with my parents, didnt have time to drive down to LA to get it, still have it today.

Oh, my, your Konicas were outstanding and so were the lenses. One of my friends had a T (not sure which vintage/version) with a 57/1.2. What a wonderful lens. Much better at the same aperture than my 50/1.4 Nikkor.

I wasn't in the far east, I was in Germany. The 4 Wing RCAF had a photofair just once a year. The other good -- often better -- place for deals was the Bitburg Air Base Photo Club, which was open year 'round.

When I was pondering Leicas I looked into the German market for them. If I'd been braver I think, in retrospect, that I could have coined money by buying LTM bodies and lenses in New York and selling them to German camera stores.

 

[jjphoto]

Why no love for the Leica SLRs? Not sure, I quite like some of them. I've used Leica R since the early 1990s and still have most of the gear, however I find the lenses perform far better on digital bodies than on film (mainly due to focusing accuracy with narrow dof where a few millimetres makes all the difference).

There are certainly plenty of superb R lenses (mainly from the early 1980s and later) but their prices these days are being driven by the cine people who think 5K is cheap for a 50mm F1.4 lens (ie. R 1.4/50 E60) and similar for other Summilux like the 35 and 80 (I have both but not a 1.4/50). So the 'affordable' lenses that are left for the Leica R SLR bodies are not always the most desirable lenses and maybe this kind of drives the SLR body prices down a little. If you still have to pay a premium for a mediocre lens, ie many of the Summicrons and slower or older lenses, then why not just use a different brand altogether where you ,ight get more bang for your dollar?

The M bodies have an iconic value about them and anyone with money, or just the passion for one, will buy one, regardless of their suitability. Rangefinders suck for many kinds of photography so are not even an option for me. Having said that, I do appreciate their workmanship and consider some M bodies to be a jewel like an Omega or IWC watch rather than a tool. I wouldn't pay 5k for a watch just to tell the time when a Seiko will (in fact) be more accurate and infinitely cheaper. I almost bought an M4-P many years ago, such a perfect machine, but it simply didn't do what I want from a camera and fondling it and turning its silky controls wasn't enough enjoyment for me.

I really like the Leica R4 with wideangle lenses (I have the R24 and R28E55) because it has a larger viewfinder magnification than most bodies, giving a larger image which is easier to focus. The R4 works great, I still have it. I sold my R8 and kept an R4 and RE although i don't really expect to ever use them tbh. On the other hand I use a R 1.4/80 on a Sony FF body regularly (and Summilux-R 1.4/35 and a APO-Summicron-R 2/180 less so).

So I suppose Leica SLR bodies are simply cheap because there is relatively little demand for them.

 

[jjphoto]

Oh, my, your Konicas were outstanding and so were the lenses. One of my friends had a T (not sure which vintage/version) with a 57/1.2. What a wonderful lens. Much better at the same aperture than my 50/1.4 Nikkor....

The Hexanon 1.2/57 is the fast lens I use most these days, on a Sony FF body, a superb lens even compared to most of its rivals from the era and even some of today's.

 

[Paul Howell]

Yeah, the 1.2 was likely the best normal lens I have ever had, at the time I was planning on a post AF career and thought I really needed a motor drive. Konica didn't make a motor drive, they felt that with shutter speed auto exposure the metering system could not keep up with film rate of a motor drive. The T4 had a winder, it's really slow, then the first integrated motor winder I think was the FS. Still, the F motor drive was not very fast at all, but having it got me in door as a freelancer before getting hired by the wires. But to this day I regret having traded it in, but not so regretful that I've bought another. I had two 50s the 1.2 and the 1.7, the 1.2 was optimized for low light, 1.2 1.4 and 2 were great, but at F8 the 1.7 was sharper. Right now I have a T3, loaded with Foma 200, a 50 1.7, 28 3.t and 100 2.8 in my bag ready for my next walk. Over all Konica made great glass, I don't think they ever sold a bad lens. The only 50mm lens I have that is as sharp or sharper than the Konica is the Kowa 50 1.9.

 

[Dali]

Leica rangefinders hold their value well over time, and even appreciate(!) but I see Leica SLRs for low prices, comparable to other brand SLRs. Are there valid reasons? Quality, parts availability? Inferior to RF models in some way?

Leica RFcameras set the standard for this kind of camera. Leica SLR cameras don't have any outstanding features to support higher prices than Nikon F series or other first class cameras.