Jump to content

Leica R3


thrid

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone out there have experience with the R3 and would like to share their thoughts?

 

I've come across a black R3 MOT for an extremely good price. It feels nice in hand and the shutter release is very crisp, unlike the later R models (R4/5/6/6.2/7).

 

I'm aware that it is based on a Minolta, but there are a few things to keep in mind.

Minolta made some pretty good cameras. They may not be as durable as a Nikon F (not much is...), but their build quality is a heck of a lot better than most of the cameras we've seen in recent years... I had a Minolta 700-something when I started out in high school and I'm still amazed that it took the abuse I heaped on it and kept on going...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent camera, but it not highly respected.

 

First Leica to require lenses with the "3rd cam," the rotary one. Doesn't need the "1st and 2nd cams," the shiny 'ramps.'

 

Looks like a Minolta XE-7, but if you look into the mirror cavity you'll see that the working part is completely Leica: No bumper at front of the groundglass to stop the mirror; that's done inertially as on the previous three models.

 

Meter: Completely Leica. The first Leica that offered center-weighted meter alongside Leica's standard selective meter. Uses the Minolta "CLC (Contrast Light Compensation)" cells that read the top and bottom of the screen separately, but adds the on-the-floor Leica selective metering cell. IMHO, Leica's best SLR meter with the possible exception of the R8/R9 meter. As contrast changes, the weighting of the R3 averaging meter changes. In flat light, it's 40% top, 40% bottom, 20% center weighted. In high contrast, it's 55% bottom, 35% top, 10% center.

 

Main downside: dimmest viewfinder of any Leica SLR. It was typical of SLRs of the day, while all Leicaflexes had had far brighter screens than anything else on the market.

 

Main thing to check: the camera inherited foam seals from Minolta. The foam ages, flakes, can get into the mechanism, loses its light-tightness. This was the first Leica with a window to look at the ISO printed on the cassette, and that window is surrounded with foam. (If that rots, you can cover the window with duct tape.) Just as important is the seal between the body and the back of the camera. There is foam almost all the way around the narrow slot that the edges of the hinged back drop into. The foam helps keep the body light-tight.

 

Excellent, reliable body. Deserves more respect. The later R bodies were also made with direct Minolta input, but unlike R3, they didn't look like Minoltas. Buy it as a user. In terms of capability, the market hasn't seen its worth increase as much as it should have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got one free with the purchase of a used lens a couple of years ago. I was amazed that everything worked, and used the camera for a year before selling it. The viewfinder was a little darker than I was used to from the Leicaflexes, but all said and done, the camera delivered every time I used it. I admit to being very pleasantly surprised, given the number of negative comments I had heard about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent camera, but it not highly respected.

 

First Leica to require lenses with the "3rd cam," the rotary one. Doesn't need the "1st and 2nd cams," the shiny 'ramps.'

 

Looks like a Minolta XE-7, but if you look into the mirror cavity you'll see that the working part is completely Leica: No bumper at front of the groundglass to stop the mirror; that's done inertially as on the previous three models.

 

Meter: Completely Leica. The first Leica that offered center-weighted meter alongside Leica's standard selective meter. Uses the Minolta "CLC (Contrast Light Compensation)" cells that read the top and bottom of the screen separately, but adds the on-the-floor Leica selective metering cell. IMHO, Leica's best SLR meter with the possible exception of the R8/R9 meter. As contrast changes, the weighting of the R3 averaging meter changes. In flat light, it's 40% top, 40% bottom, 20% center weighted. In high contrast, it's 55% bottom, 35% top, 10% center.

 

Main downside: dimmest viewfinder of any Leica SLR. It was typical of SLRs of the day, while all Leicaflexes had had far brighter screens than anything else on the market.

 

Main thing to check: the camera inherited foam seals from Minolta. The foam ages, flakes, can get into the mechanism, loses its light-tightness. This was the first Leica with a window to look at the ISO printed on the cassette, and that window is surrounded with foam. (If that rots, you can cover the window with duct tape.) Just as important is the seal between the body and the back of the camera. There is foam almost all the way around the narrow slot that the edges of the hinged back drop into. The foam helps keep the body light-tight.

 

Excellent, reliable body. Deserves more respect. The later R bodies were also made with direct Minolta input, but unlike R3, they didn't look like Minoltas. Buy it as a user. In terms of capability, the market hasn't seen its worth increase as much as it should have.

 

I full agree whit you.

Just for remeber the R3 was the first Leica camera to use the vertical shutter(CLS Shutter) and the first SLR in the world whit two types of metering(Selective and integral).

I have one from 1977 and only nead one CLA in this 31 years.Very reliable camera!!

I use whit my R8 and love her.

 

Best

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've had my R3MOT from new. Its an excellent camera with a very nice feel (as mentioned the shutter release is very nice and the shutter itself is quiet for an SLR).

 

Yes its based on a Minolta but most of the internal parts are unique to Leica. I also think the viewfinder is fine, better that the Canons/Nikons I'd had before.

 

I have sometimes considered a later model R but to be honest I have always decided that the R3 does everything I need (OK dedicated flash could be useful at times).

 

The downside is that its a solid camera therefore heavy. But thats a good thing too. I have replaced the foam seals on mine, simple DIY job.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had my R3 MOT since 79, when I traded an M-5 for it and the 100mm Macro. Picked up a 35mm lens a few months later and they've served me well since. I recently purchased an R8 on ebay, but still use the R3 for a different film than what's in the R8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I´ve got to agree with most opinions that the R3 is a very good SLR. And it´s true, perhaps it´s the most unrespected Leica SLR of all time.

 

Once I had the chance to compare it with it´s predecessor, the well beloved Leicaflex SL2.

And my impression was that it had the same solid feeling and nearly the same compact size, it´s only another style. It was quite a surprise for me to see how solid and good the R3 felt against the SL2. Sure the SL2 is a great camera but in the direct comparison the R3 is the same great camera.

 

The dials and film advance lever felt stronger and smoother than the SL2´s.

 

Some time later I studied one of my books of Emil G. Keller and there I read that the cooperation with Minolta started in 1971, the year of the introduction of the M5.

And Minolta had influence in the development of the SL2, it´s a fairy tale, that it was the last Leica, that Leitz developed alone. For example the shutter of the SL2 is part of the Minolta factory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time later I studied one of my books of Emil G. Keller and there I read that the cooperation with Minolta started in 1971. And Minolta had influence in the development of the SL2, it´s a fairy tale, that it was the last Leica, that Leitz developed alone. For example the shutter of the SL2 is part of the Minolta factory.

Sorry to continue OT here--

Very interesting. Herr Keller knows more about Leica than most people, and I don't doubt his word.

 

But isn't the SL2 shutter the same as in the SL and the original Leicaflex?

 

Can you cite a source (book name and page) that says otherwise?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Howard,

 

thanks for your comment. I found it very interesting and the point with the shutter from Minolta is something I never heard before.

 

The source/book is:

 

"Leica im Spiegel der Erinnerungen" from Emil G. Keller of the Lindemanns Verlag

 

Robert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest DuquesneG
Nope, the Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL was.

 

Ouch! Nothing hurts like ripping open an old wound :o Back in the day, I was set to buy a used Pentax Spotmatic because I thought it had a spot meter (no internet back then to take a manufacturer to task for that kind of deceptive nomenclature). Fortunately, also back in the day we had camera stores where the owner waited on customers, knew his product, and valued his reputation and customer goodwill. So I was informed that the Pentax in fact had a full-frame averaging meter. My options at the time were a Leicaflex SL and a Mamiya/Sekor DTL. There were 2 models, 1000DTL and 500DTL. The latter was cheaper, and the store owner informed me that even though 1/1000 wasn't marked, they were the same camera and if I turned the speed dial to the blank space ahead of 500, it was 1/1000. The Leicaflex SL was faaaaaaaaaaaar out of my budget, so M/S it was. Folks, that camera has to take the blue ribbon in the unreliability category. It was as if it were a stage prop designed to fly into pieces, so many things came unscrewed, unsprung and unhinged. Had I bought the SL, I could still get several hundred for it today, whereas a Mamiya/Sekor...even if you could find one in working order...would probably not cost more than $10. But sadly, as it is today, despite knowing a Leica will be the better value in the long run, if it's beyond one's budget, it's beyond one's budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... the point with the shutter from Minolta is something I never heard before.

 

The source/book is: "Leica im Spiegel der Erinnerungen" from Emil G. Keller of the Lindemanns Verlag

 

The SL2 shutter is not from Minolta. It's a cloth, continuously-variable mechanically-timed shutter just like the SL shutter. As far as I know it was made by Leitz Portugal. Minolta's influence on the SL2 was the mirror box clearance specs.

 

Whoa! This is all news to me.

 

Robert--Thanks for the info. Mr Keller should know. But I'm not convinced.

 

Doug--I'm partway with you. As I said above, I thought the shutters in Leicaflex Standard, SL and SL2 were all the same, i.e. German.

 

IIRC, Leica didn't set up a Portugal plant until just before the R4 came out. Just logically, since these were cloth shutters on rollers, it wouldn't make much sense to make them in Portugal and ship them to Germany for installation, would it?

 

I'm doubly fascinated to hear that there was *any* influence from Minolta on the SL2. I hadn't heard that before. Can you cite a source? Very curious!

 

Come to think of it: Will the SL2 accept the 24mm? That would answer the question. In other words, since Leica was buying the 24mm Elmarit-R from Minolta's production, they would have had to adjust the mirror box to fit the lens. I don't remember whether that happened with the SL2 or later with the R3.

 

Thanks to both of you for raising the question!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The factory in Portugal made most of the R cameras, which were only "finally assembled" in Germany, if that.

 

They do the same with M8s these days. There are about 6 women who put the finishing touches to Ms in Solms. Just enough to allow a "Made in Germany" statement on the back. At least that's the impression I got when we visited the factory in June this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The factory in Portugal made most of the R cameras, which were only "finally assembled" in Germany, if that.

 

They do the same with M8s these days. There are about 6 women who put the finishing touches to Ms in Solms. Just enough to allow a "Made in Germany" statement on the back. At least that's the impression I got when we visited the factory in June this year.

 

You can say the same about the MP and the M7. The M6 is mainly produced in Portugal at 1987.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The factory in Portugal made most of the R cameras, which were only "finally assembled" in Germany, if that.

 

Yes, beginning with R3s if I'm not mistaken.

 

Initial R3s were assembled in Germany and so marked. Later ones were labeled "Made in Portugal," though of course a part (I have no idea how much) of the production was Minolta's.

 

Trinovids moved to Portugal first, before cameras. First some models, then others. First just the initial production, leaving enough for Germany so they could get "Made in Germany," later the entire binocular.

 

Perhaps Portugal produced final versions of SL2 shutters? Leitz didn't talk about a Portuguese facility before the Trinovids started moving there, which was a short time before the arrival of the R3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...