Leica SLRs - why no love?

[Horatio]

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?

 

[Alan9940]

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 M user here. Never owned a Leica SLR, but I can't imagine that they're not as well built as the rangefinder models. IMO, perhaps they're aren't as popular because

1) Lots of other less expensive and highly regarded options in the 35mm SLR arena, and

2) Personally, I find the entire lineup to be terribly confusing...2-cam, 3-cam, which lenses work with which body, etc. I looked at a Leica R8 several times, but couldn't come up with a plan for a rounded out system. But, hey, I'm sure that's just me!

 

[etn]

Maybe because Leica SLR are just "yet another SLR", not too differentiated on a market flooded with dozens of various models?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I recommend to OP to check R lenses prices. OP's measure of love by money is well present with R lenses.

 

[darkosaric]

In the rangefinder days Leica LTM and later M were the best by far, but when SLR days came - Nikon was the king.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I think Alan above is correct. I will add three more factors:

3) Most R lenses are pricey, even after you have figured out the number of cams.

4) The cost of body overhaul and repair is very expensive. The original Leicaflex, SL, and SL2 were very complex internally. But there is no question that these bodies were superb mechanical devices.

5) Heavy (for the 'flex, SL, SL2, R8, and R9)

 

[Dan Fromm]

OP, there were really three series of Leica SLRs. The original Leicaflex more-or-less failed in the marketplace because it was much more expensive than the Nikon F, didn't have the immense system behind it that the Nikon (Exakta, too) did and offered no advantages over the F to the user. The Leica badged Minolta SLRs made in Portugal were, again, much overpriced for what they did and offered users no advantages over pro-grade Nikons and Canons. I can't speak to the last Leica designed SLRs except to point out, again, that they were priced far above the competition. So that's why I think they didn't sell well.

I have no idea why they don't appeal as strongly to collectors as RF Leicas.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I was a working PJ I saw many Leica RF, had a IIIG myself, only a few shot Leica SLRs, price was too steep, could not easily rent lens or spare bodies, and most of the newspapers, magazines, and the wires had adopted Nikon meaning I could meno out a lens or second body. By the time the R8 and 9 were released the shift to AF was well underway. Leica rangefinders are still repairable, don't know if a SLR can be services or repaired. If I was collector I would focus on the SL and later R8 and 9. .

 

[rpsawin]

Maybe you're looking for love in all the wrong places...try:
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/forum/157-leica-r-system/

bob

 

[guangong]

I have used SLs since they were new. Wonderful machines. Smooth, silky shutter release. Feels well in the hands. Cameras going strong after c50 years. But Leitz waited too long to introduce a reflex camera, perhaps because the M3 conquered and obliterated the RF market. Zeiss produced the over-engineered SLR Contarex. The Contarex seems closer to Nikon as far as multiple photographic applications (an accessory for every conceivable need), which produced a handier, less complicated, more reliable camera that could do all that a Contarex could do in a more ergonomic and much, much more economical package. I always got the feeling that the Contarex was designed by engineers who never used cameras. Nikon gave good value for the buck. The SL and SL2, and even the Standard are a pleasure to use. I will say that a Nikon F with standard prism and a pancake lens makes a nice pocket-able package. You hang an SL around your neck.

 

[Horatio]

Maybe you're looking for love in all the wrong places...try:
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/forum/157-leica-r-system/

bob

Thanks. I should have guessed there was a Leica forum!

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I think Alan above is correct. I will add three more factors:

3) Most R lenses are pricey, even after you have figured out the number of cams.

4) The cost of body overhaul and repair is very expensive. The original Leicaflex, SL, and SL2 were very complex internally. But there is no question that these bodies were superb mechanical devices.

5) Heavy (for the 'flex, SL, SL2, R8, and R9)

Most R lenses are hardly pricey with exception of ROM lenses (which are of technical benefit only to R8&9 bodies and only for those who by the last two R bodies to use their complete built-in electronic complexities or (especially) want to get into digital module.

R lenses are actually cheap compared to optically same M lenses, even if not so cheap compared to some alternatives. With patience some lenses can be had under $200, but $400 + is mostly a starting point.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

OP, there were really three series of Leica SLRs. The original Leicaflex more-or-less failed in the marketplace because it was much more expensive than the Nikon F, didn't have the immense system behind it that the Nikon (Exakta, too) did and offered no advantages over the F to the user. The Leica badged Minolta SLRs made in Portugal were, again, much overpriced for what they did and offered users no advantages over pro-grade Nikons and Canons. I can't speak to the last Leica designed SLRs except to point out, again, that they were priced far above the competition. So that's why I think they didn't sell well.

I have no idea why they don't appeal as strongly to collectors as RF Leicas.

Leica R3-7 were partially Minoltas. There are differences quite evident even between R3 and Minolta XE (and I think XE was best Minolta built and far more reliable than XD). Then the R4 started out with electronic problems, eventually addressed by Leica, and from R5 they became Leica through and through. R6 was one and only R with all mechanical shutter. R8&9 are totaly different beasts.

True though, they were Leicas and priced as one for their time, while hardly offering corresponding benefit (which, to be fair, no Leica does)

There is only one thing that annoys me a bit between R4-R7 and that is shutter lag after release. It is so noticeable, there is no way not to notice and indeed fast snapping "in the moment" is a no go. No idea whether this had to do with trying to minimize mirror induced vibrations, but it's clearly part of design. However, they are all smooth machines otherwise.

 

[craigclu]

I built an R6 kit this past year with a 50 Summicron, 90 and 180 Elmarits. I happened to have an SCA module for a Metz 54-MZ4 flash so have ttl abilities that work well. I also added a winder and a motordrive as I stumbled into a set for cheap and impulse bought them (not very important after having them). I can't say I've gained anything optically (I like the spot metering mode, though) from my old Japanese gear and I need to use it more for it to be intuitive but it's well made and serves good "fondle" duties. I've got rf bodies with good lenses for wider needs so haven't really needed to add any more glass. If I sold it off, I wouldn't regret it too much and I picked things up right so don't have much invested. At these prices, it's fun to play with things that I wouldn't have pursued in their heyday....

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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?

R are no comparison to RF with exception of optical lens design. Totally different handling, size and features. Only "collectors" of Rs are those who want it all Leica branded. R lenses are far cheaper then their M counterparts with sole exception being ROM equipped ones (of no benefit before R8/9 bodies)

For shooters Rs are great cameras, with some quirks and surprising (in a way) benefits. SL and especially SL2 offer a finder with 4K experience, one needs to see it to believe it, it's just a vast large screen of unreal brightness. It's almost too big of a view, at times like sitting in a cinema in lower rows.

While SL/SL2 are large, quite heavy and quite different from almost any SLR ever built, they are mechanical wonders and in that sense are at least as famous as any M's ever built.

R's are a different breed altogether and with exception of lens mount have nothing to share with SL. While they started out in collaboration with Minolta, they were never exactly same rebranded bunch and one feels the difference right away.

To sum it up, Leicaflex/SL/SL2 and then R's are a cheap way to get some Leica optics and enjoy the ride. They are no guarantee for better photographs, but may give one a new reason to shoot film.

 

[guangong]

Aesthetically, no other SLR camera comes close to the clean uncluttered look of an SL ot SL2. In fifty years of use I have never had one fail me in the field. From what I understand, cameras cost more to build than they could be sold for. The idea was to make up the shortfall on lens sales. From what some Leitz repairman told me, the original Standard was best built of all...a merging of M3, Visoflex and MR meter.
Of course, all this is a matter of personal taste, otherwise there would be only one camera design available.

 

[beemermark]

Witold says Leica R3-7 were partially Minoltas. There are differences quite evident even between R3 and Minolta XE (and I think XE was best Minolta built and far more reliable than XD). Then the R4 started out with electronic problems, eventually addressed by Leica, and from R5 they became Leica through and through. R6 was one and only R with all mechanical shutter. R8&9 are totaly different beasts.
For the R3 Leica did the electronics their way and the electronics (unlike the Minolta cameras) were failure prone The first R4's (about 50,000 I think) were so plagued by electronic failures that even Leica wouldn't touch them. So as others have stated Leica got into the SLR market very late with the under whelming Leicaflex, which was at least twice as expensive as the Nikon F. The SL and SL2 were great cameras (I have theSL2), The R3 and R4 were cameras made to compete with the features offered by other manufacturers but were a big failure. So, including the reasons others have mention, Leica SLR didn't sell well. Back in the day I had quite an extensive Leica R collection (up to the R5). I still have the SL2 and a few lenses (and two non-working R3's). Contrary to some posts. Leica lenses are not cheap. Most Leica lenses are on a par with Nikon lenses from the same period at a much higher cost. Those lenses that are really outstanding are pretty expensive in my book. Late 3 cam 35 & 50 summicrons in nice condition sell north of $1500. How much is a Nikon 50mm/1,8?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Witold says Leica R3-7 were partially Minoltas. There are differences quite evident even between R3 and Minolta XE (and I think XE was best Minolta built and far more reliable than XD). Then the R4 started out with electronic problems, eventually addressed by Leica, and from R5 they became Leica through and through. R6 was one and only R with all mechanical shutter. R8&9 are totaly different beasts.
For the R3 Leica did the electronics their way and the electronics (unlike the Minolta cameras) were failure prone The first R4's (about 50,000 I think) were so plagued by electronic failures that even Leica wouldn't touch them. So as others have stated Leica got into the SLR market very late with the under whelming Leicaflex, which was at least twice as expensive as the Nikon F. The SL and SL2 were great cameras (I have theSL2), The R3 and R4 were cameras made to compete with the features offered by other manufacturers but were a big failure. So, including the reasons others have mention, Leica SLR didn't sell well. Back in the day I had quite an extensive Leica R collection (up to the R5). I still have the SL2 and a few lenses (and two non-working R3's). Contrary to some posts. Leica lenses are not cheap. Most Leica lenses are on a par with Nikon lenses from the same period at a much higher cost. Those lenses that are really outstanding are pretty expensive in my book. Late 3 cam 35 & 50 summicrons in nice condition sell north of $1500. How much is a Nikon 50mm/1,8?

Your post is al over the place. check the net for some updates and lens prices as well.

Summicorns go for around 350-400 regularly, with patience for less, 3 cam or not (I've been buying these for a year now, don't look at what some crazy sellers are asking for, those prices are worthless for what market actually is). Buy a body with a Summicron 50 and you will find a kit for under 500 no problem. Plus, I specifically stated that R lenses are cheap compared to M lenses of same optical design. If you like "cheap" instead, that's OK. But price differential is huge.

R4 had problems early on, fixed at around SN 160XXX and all (or most) cameras that made to Leica service were fixed. To be safe, look for later SN bodies. Problems stopped after that.

As much as Minolta was involved, and I've been a hard core Minolta fan and supporter, own most of their MF film cameras except the XM, using/handling a Leica counterpart does show a difference, be it XE - R3 or XD-R4. Not just electronics were different, screens look and feel different too, mechanics also appear not a copy either.

I will never knock down Minolta, except for the XD line which had a load of issues and leatherette goes ugly unlike that on Leica. While SL/SL2 are a totally different animal, R line is worth a look. The fact that all Leica SLRs were a financial flop does not change their value as a great photographic tool.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I used the R5 and R4(Model2) professionally at the newspaper I worked at.
They were great. Never needed service.
I switched to digital but have moved back to film and started looking for a system. I looked at the market and thought the R6 (Model2) was the best bet for me. Then I priced out lenses. Lenses like the 35mm f1.4 or even the 50mm f1.4 are out of reach for me. The cameras are not too costly, but the lenses I want, would be. So I'm still deciding what I want to shoot with, and using the rangefinders until then.

 

[abruzzi]

The cameras are not too costly, but the lenses I want, would be.

This. I'm sure they're nice, but my favorite 35mm SLR can be had for $25 (Nikkormat FT2) and a 50mm ƒ2 for another $50. If I want to upgrade to a 50mm ƒ1.4, they're still under $100. In fact none of my Nikkor pre-AI lenses cost me more than $150. (24/2.8, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/2.0, 5.8/1.4, 55/1.2, 85/1.8, 105/2.5, 135/2.8). The funny thing, is I initially thought Nikon lenses were expensive because a number of my Pentax lenses were much cheaper than the Nikkor equivalent.

 

[JPD]

When you hear the name Rolleiflex you think of the TLR cameras first, and then remember their like of medium format SLRs, Very few think of the Rolleiflex SL35 series of cameras. Some were made in Germany, but most were made in Singapore, and they had good lenses. There are so many 35mm SLR cameras from different brands, that the Rolleiflex one became just one of many. They feel less authentic than a Rollei TLR, and even less so with the Singapore made ones.

Do Leica SLRs feel like real Leicas?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

When you hear the name Rolleiflex you think of the TLR cameras first, and then remember their like of medium format SLRs, Very few think of the Rolleiflex SL35 series of cameras. Some were made in Germany, but most were made in Singapore, and they had good lenses. There are so many 35mm SLR cameras from different brands, that the Rolleiflex one became just one of many. They feel less authentic than a Rollei TLR, and even less so with the Singapore made ones.

Do Leica SLRs feel like real Leicas?

SL and especially SL2 surely does, it is Leica written all over it, from unique looks, precision feel and feedback it gives. I don't know if there is another SLR that gives back same kind of experience. But this is not to say that SLs are best handling or best overall SLRs as there is no objectivity to such a question.

 

[Paul Howell]

I used the R5 and R4(Model2) professionally at the newspaper I worked at.
They were great. Never needed service.
I switched to digital but have moved back to film and started looking for a system. I looked at the market and thought the R6 (Model2) was the best bet for me. Then I priced out lenses. Lenses like the 35mm f1.4 or even the 50mm f1.4 are out of reach for me. The cameras are not too costly, but the lenses I want, would be. So I'm still deciding what I want to shoot with, and using the rangefinders until then.

Your's was the only North America newspaper I have ever heard that used Leica SLRs, a few in Germany, but really rare at least in the US. In the 60s a few JPs used Leica and Context SLR in the 60s covering Southwest Asia.

 

[flavio81]

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?

The Leicaflex, SL and SL2 were horrifyingly expensive, even when compared with the Nikon F or F2 which were already the most expensive japanese 35mm SLRs (well, the Minolta XK was a bit more expensive but didn't sell). So it wasn't a sales success. And they remained less popular than the M system, even today. Really the only successful "system" 35mm were the Exakta, the Nikon F series, and the Canon F-1 series.

For a quick comparation (see * ), the Nikon F/F2/F3 sales, combined, got about 2.2M cameras; Canon F-1/F-1N combined, about 500K, Exakta (9 models combined) 638K,
...and Leicaflex + R cameras (models 1964 up to 1979 combined) 154K cameras.
Minolta X-1/XK: 51K cameras.

The reason for the low prices are that those are complex machines that are not easy to repair. Leicaflex, SL and SL2, can be had for cheap if they require service. Few technicians will want to work on them and I bet also few of them are really up to the task of giving them the service they deserve.

As for the R machines, I wouldn't dismiss them as "minoltas". First of all the R3 was based on what's IMO the most awesome Minolta body, the XE. The R4 is based on the second most awesome minoltas, the XD series. But, as pointed out, they were:

- assembled by leitz
- with leitz optics
- with leitz electronics
- and I think the shutter was slightly different as well.

In any case i think that whenever you see a Leica reflex camera at a low price, some repair is pending inside...


* source:

https://knippsen.blogspot.com/2014/06/japanese-slr-production-numbers-part-4.html

https://knippsen.blogspot.com/search/label/Statistik?updated-max=2014-05-25T21:46:00+02:00&max-results=20&start=11&by-date=false

https://knippsen.blogspot.com/2014/04/deutsche-kb-spiegelreflex-die-komplette_7.html

 

[Huss]

I have the Leica R-E (x2!), R7, R8, R9 as well as Leica Ms.
Leica Ms are more popular because they are iconic. There are very few, if any, rangefinders that match up to them. I also shoot with Nikon rangefinders just because I am a camera hussy, and frankly they are cheap compared to Leicas. But there is a reason Nikon (and everyone else) gave up. The Leica Ms are so much better, so the Japanese moved on to develop SLRs.
My Leica Rs are fantastic to hold and use. They feel much nicer made than something like a Nikon FE, the ergonomics are perfect. Genius design being able to change meter pattern with the camera to eye, as well as meter mode by using one dial. Downside is that the lenses ARE expensive. Not as expensive as Leica M lenses, but waaaay more than Japanese equivalents. So while the bodies are cheap-ish - both my perfect condition R-Es were under $200, which is why I got 2!, a 50mm f2 lens starts at about $350.
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!!

So I think that is why Leica SLRs are not as heralded. People who are looking at Ms know the cost involved. People who look at SLRs tend to expect everything to be much cheaper. With Leica R series equipment, that is true relative to the M series.