R8 purchase advice

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dino, I did not realize your preference to the longer glass.

 

Although I love to shoot the 90 Cron/ Elmarit or lately the 135 APO on the M8.2 (x1.33), I admit, a SLR is easier to use (and focus) for this.

 

I really love the RF around 35 − 50mm and shoot the M8.2 the most with the 35mm focal length.

 

Regarding weight, there are contrasting statements, whereas I think, that more weight stabilizes for more accurate focussing. It is just a matter of preferences and using the respective camera.

 

When I grab the D3 with 70-200 after shooting only Leica for a longer time, it really feels like a pig.

Shooting a whole weekend motor sports with the D3 though makes it feel natural and light.

 

I suppose, the same will be with the R.

 

The only thing, I hate about the heavy SLRs is to lug them around in bags - a torture!

At this years Le Mans I had as many bodies and lenses as last year - I had half the weight and double the fun ;-)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[italy74]

Dino, I did not realize your preference to the longer glass.

 

Although I love to shoot the 90 Cron/ Elmarit or lately the 135 APO on the M8.2 (x1.33), I admit, a SLR is easier to use (and focus) for this.

 

In fact that's why I'm NOT getting a RF but I'm interested in the R8, probably I exposed badly my interest.

 

 

I really love the RF around 35 − 50mm and shoot the M8.2 the most with the 35mm focal length.

 

In fact RFs shine below 50 mm, not only optically (wonderful glass is also in the 75 / 90 mm range and Leica and Zeiss especially proved that with their 75 / 85 / 90mm when not the 135) but it's where RF shows its advantages versus SLR due to the more effective lens design. This is also a part of the problem (for me): 1) the shooting philosophy is different, 2) you tend to use more wa lenses while I tend to prefer images from 50+ lenses whose use is better on SLRs. This is also why despite I like (technically) M-mount cameras a lot, I never got one, it would be "wasted" with me.

 

Regarding weight, there are contrasting statements, whereas I think, that more weight stabilizes for more accurate focussing. It is just a matter of preferences and using the respective camera.

 

When I grab the D3 with 70-200 after shooting only Leica for a longer time, it really feels like a pig.

Shooting a whole weekend motor sports with the D3 though makes it feel natural and light.

Yes, I can relate to that, and despite the initial lust for such lens I have, de facto it's the least used lens among mine, here excluded ceremonies when I have a prime on a body and the 70-200 on the other. Actually I tend to prefer primes or short and more compact zooms. It would be nice having (for R / SLR mount) a 28-42 F/2 and a 90-135 F/2 but too many people told me they would be too much expensive, while I have no idea here, to me it's both a 1.5x zoom...

[italy74]

Hi guys

 

today I casually had the lucky opportunity to handle and see both the FM3A I already own with the CV40 F/2 and the R8 with the 50 F/2 summicron ROM ( from the s/n I think it's a very recent lens, it was 3891xxx, i.e. done after 2006) and I could look through them and check my initial impression. Here's the result.

 

Side by side, FM3A viewfinder and R8 aren't THAT different in effective size, BUT there's a difference and this was probably the reason (that I had confirmed today) that I thought it was huge and very bright.

 

Letting aside the fact that FM3A has the side time indicator that in low light isn't visible and the R8 uses leds below the finder, here is what I found.

 

The difference between the two cameras lies in the different proportion between the microprism collar and its inner split-hair line. In FM3a the microprism collar is LARGER but less "defined", less "clear" to look through and so is the split hair line, thus giving the impression of an overall "smaller" viewfinder. In the R8 the collar is indeed littler but much better defined and crisp (and the split line too) and the more space around it (and the fact you can get everything at a glance even with spectacles) gives the impression of a much larger and bright viewfinder. Also the grip is definitely more comfortable on the R8, despite the heavier weight. With the 50, however, it balanced nicely in my hands, much better than with the 35 F/1.4.

 

Unfortunately, as I wrote earlier (and without indicating any price as Andy suggested), the shop proposed the body at a too high price to justify it (and the lens as well). I told them clearly that I'd be probably looking elsewhere, "maybe we could meet again for the Summicron" I closed. I explained him the desire I have to use a manual / hybrid body for low light work and he offered to come back and check a "mint Contax S2, titanium version" with 50 and 85 F/1.4. Now, to be honest, and after having looked over the internet for this rare beast, despite titanium and the tropicalized (?) body, I continue to prefer the R8, yet I want to go and see, although actually I don't think I'll accept. Not because of Contax / Zeiss (whose quality of course I know and respect) rather because I feel more attracted "by skin" (as we say) toward the R8.

 

However, next saturday, I'll go there again, this time bringing with me also the F6 and let's see. If you have any idea or experience about it, I'd like to know them. Although the F6 will still remain MY OWN camera, I'd be amazed to meet and challenge another myth like the R or the Contax if I'll check it without any prejudice. As usual, the only "cons" is the idea to start with a new lens system, but one thing at a time,right?