albertwang Posted July 10, 2006 Share #1 Posted July 10, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Now that we have a DMR, I was wondering whether there was any reason to go back on pre-R8 models. I love the R8 a lot (been using it forever) but I think that sometimes I would like to keep things simple and carry something very lightweight and durable like a R5 or R6? Just wondering since I really still have to admit shooting film quite a bit... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Hi albertwang, Take a look here Any reason to go with pre-R8 models?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pilot Posted July 10, 2006 Share #2 Posted July 10, 2006 I'm quite happy with my Leicaflex and SL. Don't see any need to upgrade. I would think that the SL is a lot more rugged than the R5 or R6. And it's the lenses that are heavy. Bryan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macos Posted July 10, 2006 Share #3 Posted July 10, 2006 The other R's might have the advantage that they are more compact. However, I usually have the SL2 in parallel use with the R8 (the SL2 for BW, the R8 for color slides). Both make a very good couple because the viewfinders are similar bright. The R-E rests somewhere, somehow it can't compete with both, and for real lightweight missions I prefer a ... (other brand) However, I would not like to miss the SL2. Sometimes it is more fun to use than the R8. BR Marcus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlancasterd Posted July 10, 2006 Share #4 Posted July 10, 2006 The only possible reason for going back to an R earlier than the R8 is for greater reliability in extreme conditions. Any electronic camera is more susceptible to reliability problems in very high humidity conditions unless it is very thoroughly vapour-proofed. There are tales of cameras such as early motorised Nikons going berserk and shooting off a whole roll of film at once when taken into the steamier parts of the Borneo jungle. In the 1990s, the Leica R6 and R6.2 were much prized in Sarawak as being immune to this problem - even if the meter on one of these cameras packs up the mechanical shutter still works. They are also very solidly built. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlancasterd Posted July 10, 2006 Share #5 Posted July 10, 2006 The only possible reason for going back to an R earlier than the R8 is for greater reliability in extreme conditions. Any electronic camera is more susceptible to reliability problems in very high humidity conditions unless it is very thoroughly vapour-proofed. There are tales of cameras such as early motorised Nikons going berserk and shooting off a whole roll of film at once when taken into the steamier parts of the Borneo jungle. In the 1990s, the Leica R6 and R6.2 were much prized in Sarawak as being immune to this problem - even if the meter on one of these cameras packs up the mechanical shutter still works. They are also very solidly built. See 'Playing in Waterfalls' on the Photo Forum! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyp Posted July 10, 2006 Share #6 Posted July 10, 2006 The only pre R8/R9 models to go back to would be the SL/SL2. In my experience, the R4's were as reliable as the R6's. They can have mechanical problems as well as electrical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted July 10, 2006 Share #7 Posted July 10, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leicaflex SL would be the one offering simplicity. I mostly use an R8 and a SL (or SL mot) when shooting people. The R8 produces a lot of pictures while the SL is the thoughtfull camera that has the feel of an M4. R4 as I also have is a nice camera, but on any day I would prefer the R8 over the R4 as they are offering the same. But the R8 is offering it much better and has extremely familiar ergonomics. R6.x I have no personal experience with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilyum Posted July 10, 2006 Share #8 Posted July 10, 2006 I find it odd that nobody mentions that all other considerations aside, the older models should be much cheaper to buy. To me, cost is also a consideration Best regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest maddin Posted July 11, 2006 Share #9 Posted July 11, 2006 Another issue is the compatability of your lenses on the SL's. If you have got ROM they will not work on the SL. So your idea going for the R6 (or R6.2) does make sense to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steed Posted July 11, 2006 Share #10 Posted July 11, 2006 Once you have tried the SL or SL2, you will find the feel irreplaceable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_dufour Posted July 11, 2006 Share #11 Posted July 11, 2006 Who saw some pictures from my R 6.2, knows she has supported really cold mountains, rainy tropical forests, dry and hot deserts... without any problem (less a little cleaning for some lens, in Solms, because of the sand). I can't betray so much loyalty... well, perhaps with a twin sister :-) Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rubidium Posted July 11, 2006 Share #12 Posted July 11, 2006 ... I can't betray so much loyalty... well, perhaps with a twin sister :-) Marc Well said. I must echo these words when it comes to my R4. It has traveled throughout the world with me since 1984, showing no problem over the course of more than 1000 rolls - other than a dried-out seal on the back. When I bought the R9 and DMR, there was no doubt that I would retain this "faithful companion" of 22 years. jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 11, 2006 Share #13 Posted July 11, 2006 Well apart from the obvious point that pre R8 cameras wont take the DMR, if you need another (film) body then there are lots of reasons to choose one of the other SLR's, cost being a factor as has already been pointed out. I have an R3MOT which I've owned from new. It's never let me down and I really don't see any need to upgrade to one of the newer models. It's simple to use, has spot and average metering (and is very accurate). I'm also rather attached to it now so wouldn't sell. The all mechanical R (was it the 6 or 7?) is another option, benefits of fully mechanical back up to your R8. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted July 11, 2006 Share #14 Posted July 11, 2006 no reason except you want it for collection purposes. R8 and R9 are much better! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 12, 2006 Share #15 Posted July 12, 2006 silly answer. I use my R3 as much as my lllf. Just because there is a newer model doesn't make the older stuff redundant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns_ng Posted July 12, 2006 Share #16 Posted July 12, 2006 Hi, I have a R8+DMR, but I still use my R6.2 and R3. If you still shoot film, there is no reason not to use an earlier R. If you have an M8, will you still use the earlier Ms? Going digital does not mean abandoning film. In fact, when I travel with my R8+DMR, I will always carry an extra R or M to shoot film. N.S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted July 12, 2006 Share #17 Posted July 12, 2006 The R3-MOT was my first Leica back in 1981. Years later I got a used R4 that I sold a few months later. In 1996, I got my first R8, the second one in 1997 and the third in 2003. Along the years, I also acquired a few Ms like the M4-2, M4-P and the M6 only to successively sell them off after a while. Today, I still retain my last two R8s and the R3-MOT. I keep the latter for purely sentimental reasons. Today, I seldom if ever use it, the R8 and the R8/DMR are my workhorses, I don't think I'll ever give it up though. All this to say, there are as many reasons to pick-up pre-R8 Rs as there are people using them. BTW, I just about kicked myself, I was recently offered a R6.2 for CDA$1200 by my usual stockist, and it was in superb condition. I was travelling the next day and was too busy with my preps. Needless to say that it was no longer there when I went back this weekend... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatboy Posted July 12, 2006 Share #18 Posted July 12, 2006 I had an R4s with 35mm cron and 90mm for some years and it was faultless. Not sure why I sold it, too many cameras I guess. The images from it were brilliant. Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted July 12, 2006 Share #19 Posted July 12, 2006 The SL and SL2 viewfinders are pure joy. As one who has used Leicaflex, SL, SL2, R3, R4, R-E, R6 and R8 along with several other brands of SLR cameras, the SL/SL2 viewfinder is the quickest and easiest to focus. My R8 is a digital-only camera; for film I use the SL or SL2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyp Posted July 12, 2006 Share #20 Posted July 12, 2006 My SL just returned a few minutes ago from Kindermann Canada. I wish you guys could see this thing, they did an incredible job. The viewfinder is cleaner/clearer than it's ever been. Wow !! GaryP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.