Leica

[ColColt]

I'm looking at the prospects of buying a Leica R6. I've always thought they were beautiful cameras and had great optics. A former co-worker bought a then new R5 along with a 35 and 50mm Summicron lens and he thought they were the best thing since sliced bread. Anyone own one of these? If so, what's your feelings?

I had a Lecia M2 many years ago and it was about as good as it gets. Super quite of course being a rangefinder sans a mirror and the optics were superb but, I never had the R series SLR Leica and thought of giving it a try.

 

[cuthbert]

The Leica R4,5,6 and 7 were all based on the Minolta XD7, they are good cameras, not deadly special and surely not in the league of the real pro cameras of the 80s, the Nikon F3, the Pentax LX and the Canon F-1N, but they are well made and they give you access to the excellent Leitz R lenses, beware that also some zooms were Minoltas.

In short it's the same thing we can say about the Contax made Yashica cameras.

 

[ColColt]

Contax is another camera you never read or head much about in comparison to Nikon or Canon and I often wondered why since they use the fabulous Zeiss lens.

 

[Dali]

Maybe because being "fabulous" is not enough to catch the attention of professional photographers. Well made cameras which could not compete with modular SLR.

 

[NB23]

I own a beautiful R6.2 that I rarely use. Sent it to DAG for a full cla last year them shot a single roll.
If you want to buy mine, pm me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Contax is another camera you never read or head much about in comparison to Nikon or Canon and I often wondered why since they use the fabulous Zeiss lens.

Some of what is hear about them is parenthetical but most of it is out of context.



























My bad! :devil:

 

[locutus]

I recently did the GAS attack of buying a R8 + 35mm Summicron E55 2nd series both in EX+ state, i do hope it lives up to its fame (and price...)

Tomorrow it drops in the mail, lets see.....

 

[cuthbert]

Contax is another camera you never read or head much about in comparison to Nikon or Canon and I often wondered why since they use the fabulous Zeiss lens.

Maybe because being "fabulous" is not enough to catch the attention of professional photographers. Well made cameras which could not compete with modular SLR.

Correct: a Contax simply disappears in front of a "real" professional camera of the 70s and the 80s like Canon F-1s, the Nikon F2, F3, the LX but also the Minolta XK. Having fabulous glass is not enough: my Prakticas have fabolous Zeiss Jena glass but still the B series is a camera in the range of a Pentax ME Super or a Chinon CE-5.

At least Leica Rs were somehow assembled in Portugal and later Germany: Contaxes are simply poshy Yashicas, even the lenses were made in Japan.

 

[rthollenbeck]

I had several Minolta XG-7 first, I thought the in view finder display and control were the same as the R4. Later I had a pair of Leica R4, they were good to me. Having had the Minoltas I really liked the R4. If you can't find Leitz glass you that's to your liking, I suggest you have issues. The body's were lite and slim. The controls were simple and easy to use. On the rate occasion that I depended on the in camera meter, I found it acurate even for slides.
I never owned an R6 but it is my understanding that internally it was quite a fine machine, I don't recall that being the reputation of the R4 (although you couldn't prove that by my experience with the R4) On the exterior the R6 was much the same camera.

With all that said, if I were to buy a 35mm system: I would prefer nothing over an M. Probably an M6 for me. To even consider any R camera: first I would need a leg up into the system to justify the expense of the lens....otherwise I would just spend my money and know I would be happy with an M. Another consideration for me would be how available and inexpence other great SLRs are... Let's say contax and then you would have Zeiss lenses(that don't seem to demand the ultra premium that Leitz lenses do).

Also if I were to buy into Rs again, you may want to look at the Leicaflex SL AND SL2 as a second camera. To my eye they seemed to have an unusually bright viewfinder in comparison to other SLRs.

 

[cuthbert]

I had several Minolta XG-7 first, I thought the in view finder display and control were the same as the R4. Later I had a pair of Leica R4, they were good to me. Having had the Minoltas I really liked the R4. If you can't find Leitz glass you that's to your liking, I suggest you have issues. The body's were lite and slim. The controls were simple and easy to use. On the rate occasion that I depended on the in camera meter, I found it acurate even for slides.
I never owned an R6 but it is my understanding that internally it was quite a fine machine, I don't recall that being the reputation of the R4 (although you couldn't prove that by my experience with the R4) On the exterior the R6 was much the same camera.

With all that said, if I were to buy a 35mm system: I would prefer nothing over an M. Probably an M6 for me. To even consider any R camera: first I would need a leg up into the system to justify the expense of the lens....otherwise I would just spend my money and know I would be happy with an M. Another consideration for me would be how available and inexpence other great SLRs are... Let's say contax and then you would have Zeiss lenses(that don't seem to demand the ultra premium that Leitz lenses do).

Also if I were to buy into Rs again, you may want to look at the Leicaflex SL AND SL2 as a second camera. To my eye they seemed to have an unusually bright viewfinder in comparison to other SLRs.

The Sad Truth about the R6:

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00a9rc

Let's not talk about the R6.2 that is probably the most overpriced camera on ebay at the moment: on the other side the humble R5 is probably the best bang in the bunch...the R4 had its reputation tarnished by some rumours of unreliability spread at the beginning of its production, rumours I find hard to believe because the XD had already been in production for many years.

Still, we are talking about electronic cameras of the 80s so if something goes bad you have to throw away the body.

 

[NB23]

The Sad Truth about the R6:

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00a9rc

Let's not talk about the R6.2 that is probably the most overpriced camera on ebay at the moment: on the other side the humble R5 is probably the best bang in the bunch...the R4 had its reputation tarnished by some rumours of unreliability spread at the beginning of its production, rumours I find hard to believe because the XD had already been in production for many years.

Still, we are talking about electronic cameras of the 80s so if something goes bad you have to throw away the body.

You obviously never used a R6/R6.2.
No electronics whatsoever.

Also, you don't know who designed the R6, you're just guessing. And try to fit a R lens on the Minolta.
The R6 prices are justified, it's simply that you value them falsely, comparing them to incomparable cameras. A R6/R6.2will remain serviceable, probably forever, due to its nature.

 

[Alan Gales]

Correct: a Contax simply disappears in front of a "real" professional camera of the 70s and the 80s like Canon F-1s, the Nikon F2, F3, the LX but also the Minolta XK. Having fabulous glass is not enough: my Prakticas have fabolous Zeiss Jena glass but still the B series is a camera in the range of a Pentax ME Super or a Chinon CE-5.

At least Leica Rs were somehow assembled in Portugal and later Germany: Contaxes are simply poshy Yashicas, even the lenses were made in Japan.

What about the RTS series? They were considered every bit as professional as the Nikon F3, Canon F1 and Minolta XK.

Some of the Zeiss lenses were made in Germany and some in Japan. The faster versions were made in Germany and also the 25mm and 180mm. The glass was said to all be made in Germany. They shipped some of the glass to Japan which were assembled in the Japanese barrels. I owned lenses made in Germany and Japan. I couldn't tell a difference in quality at all.

To me the Contax was way ahead of Nikon, Canon and Minolta in ergonomics. I sold new Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Pentaxs and Olympus cameras. They all felt a bit clunky compared to my Contax. The Leica R series also felt nice in my hands.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

At least Leica Rs were somehow assembled in Portugal and later Germany: Contaxes are simply poshy Yashicas, even the lenses were made in Japan.

Yet somehow are pretty amazing cameras and glass.

 

[ColColt]

I've always likened the Leica R6/R6.2 cameras along with the Nikon F2A-purely mechanical work horses with great optics. The R series cameras are far and away cheaper then the M-series cameras and lens which are out of sight for the most part for many. A Leica M7 TTL will set you back more than $4K and it's a film camera. But, it's made in Germany.

 

[gone]

I owned an R2, R2s, R3, and an R5. Although it was the largest and the heaviest I would go for the R3 if I were buying one again. They have a rock solid feel like a Nikon and can be bought very reasonably. My R5 was certainly an attractive camera and had enough features for me, but it seemed overpriced and under made for that sort of money. The shutters made an unsatisfying ka-thump sound too, and there seemed to be a wee bit of shutter lag. Are you interested in an R6 or an R6.2? They're a little different. Some people love the R8 and R9, but to me they seemed as big as a medium format camera. The Leicaflex is a sweet camera too, but again, very large and heavy.

Top notch lenses though. Some of the best in photography. I found it a lot more satisfying shooting them on a Nikon body in stop down mode w/ an adapter. Once owned a wonderful R 90 Elmarit that lived on my Nikkormat and N8008s. The N8008s was the camera that Leica SHOULD have made, and $20 would get you one today. W/ the AE and motorized film advance, big, bright viewfinder w/ focus confirmation light, user replaceable screens, a top shutter speed of 1/8000 and three kinds of metering including spot, you had everything you needed at a finger's touch.

 

[ColColt]

I've read several places about the shutter lag on the R4 and R5...maybe some others suffered from the same malady, I'm not certain about that. I wouldn't mind lugging around an R9 as it doesn't even compare in weight to the Pentax 6x7 I use to carry...probably no worse than the Nikon F2 cameras.

 

[summicron1]

I actually find myself looking at an R3 at times -- just tonight, for example, for $127 postage paid -- to replace the R4 I got that seems to consistently underexpose although I suppose I should just try a roll on full manual and see what happens then with it. My old R3 was a workhorse, always delivered, but the lens automation link was busted by a bad repairperson and, well there we are.

If it is full mechanical you want, why not get an SL2? I own two of those and they are amazingly good to shoot with, solid like bricks, wonderful metering range, consistent good results. The only reason I even think of getting a working R3-4-5? is because I have a lens doubler and extension that only work on the R, not the SL2.

 

[Xmas]

Neither the Zeiss or Leica optics justified a premium for practical photographers they could not compete with the Ja manufacturing or management techniques.

Today there are iPhone advertisement posters everywhere?

 

[cuthbert]

You obviously never used a R6/R6.2.
No electronics whatsoever.

Also, you don't know who designed the R6, you're just guessing. And try to fit a R lens on the Minolta.
The R6 prices are justified, it's simply that you value them falsely, comparing them to incomparable cameras. A R6/R6.2will remain serviceable, probably forever, due to its nature.

I'm guessing nothing the R6 is a Leicolta like the others with a Copal shutter modified to work without batteries...still it's a Leicolta and the pics inside don't lie. The R series (at least until the R7) was discountinued when Copal stopped supplying Leica because that shutter design had been obsolete in Japan since the demise of the XD.

Then if you think you have the Holy Grail of made in Weitlar SLR feel free to spend a lot of money for less than what a R5 offers , i's not my business!!!

What about the RTS series? They were considered every bit as professional as the Nikon F3, Canon F1 and Minolta XK.

Some of the Zeiss lenses were made in Germany and some in Japan. The faster versions were made in Germany and also the 25mm and 180mm. The glass was said to all be made in Germany. They shipped some of the glass to Japan which were assembled in the Japanese barrels. I owned lenses made in Germany and Japan. I couldn't tell a difference in quality at all.

To me the Contax was way ahead of Nikon, Canon and Minolta in ergonomics. I sold new Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Pentaxs and Olympus cameras. They all felt a bit clunky compared to my Contax. The Leica R series also felt nice in my hands.

I am aware that some Zeiss lenses were still made in Germany, but we are talking about the 85 mm f1.2 and the 55 f1.2 if memory serves me correctly, they are uberexpensive even today.

For the RTS, it's probably a great camera but not a system camera like the others we cited, of course a pro can get pro pics with a K1000 if he doesn't the flexibility of a system, not to deny it. I agree that Leicoltas and Minolta XDs are nice cameras too but I don't consider a R body better than a XD one, sorry about that.

 

[blockend]

A number of manufacturers made great lenses but never produced SLR bodies to compete with the best. Include Leica, Contax and Konica in that group.

 

[Xmas]

A number of manufacturers made great lenses but never produced SLR bodies to compete with the best. Include Leica, Contax and Konica in that group.

In the UK the Fleet Street pros and stringers used eg

Victor Blackmann F 5cm /1.4 & M4 3.5cm /1.4
Hoppy Hopkins F & Canon P 3.5cm /2

Hoppy's was probable a better choice...

 

[jjphoto]

Both Contax and Leica R have excellent optics and this is the reason to use either one, not their cameras, although these can certainly be excellent too.

Of the R bodies I still have R4, RE, R8/9. I really like the R4 (which is fitted with a later focusing screen which is brighter than the original screen) for wide angle lenses because it has a larger viewfinder magnification but I prefer the R8/9 over the R4 overall.

The RE, a simplified R5, does nothing special but is still a nice camera. I used the RE to hold a Polaroid back.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm looking at the prospects of buying a Leica R6. I've always thought they were beautiful cameras and had great optics. A former co-worker bought a then new R5 along with a 35 and 50mm Summicron lens and he thought they were the best thing since sliced bread. Anyone own one of these? If so, what's your feelings?

I had a Lecia M2 many years ago and it was about as good as it gets. Super quite of course being a rangefinder sans a mirror and the optics were superb but, I never had the R series SLR Leica and thought of giving it a try.

a Leica is something to brag with not something to take photographs with.Owning one will not make you another HCB.More money will not make better pictures;that said,Leica is top-notch equipment,reliablemechanics and brilliant opticsbut other name-brand products are not far behind.You don't need a Leica to make first-class photographs;all you need is dedication and lots of it

 

[ohnewton35]

a Leica is something to brag with not something to take photographs with.Owning one will not make you another HCB.More money will not make better pictures;that said,Leica is top-notch equipment,reliablemechanics and brilliant opticsbut other name-brand products are not far behind.You don't need a Leica to make first-class photographs;all you need is dedication and lots of it

I'm so glad you said that. Honestly it eased my GAS attack on leica gear. As a beginner in photography it's good to hear that and I'll keep that in mind for my next paycheck and refrain from spending so much on new gear.

 

[NB23]

There is a Mezuzah into each and every Leica camera, which preserves HCB's soul and helps with seeing in a legendary way.