steed Posted July 12, 2006 Share #21 Posted July 12, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you don't mind, how much was the Kindermann spa treatment for the 'flex? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Hi steed, Take a look here Any reason to go with pre-R8 models?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
garyp Posted July 12, 2006 Share #22 Posted July 12, 2006 Hi John $352.12 US including parts, labor, and postage. Looks to be worh it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikau Posted July 13, 2006 Share #23 Posted July 13, 2006 Coincidentally, I just sold my R8 which I'd owned since the camera first appeared. I liked it very much, but finally found it to be too big and clunky for most of my needs, especially with the motor drive. I also have an R6.2 and an SL2 and am happily using them. Lack of automated features isn't a problem for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruiespanhol Posted July 13, 2006 Share #24 Posted July 13, 2006 I still use my R3 along my R8 in some ocasions. However I prefer the R8 because they have better viewfinder and much more features then R3 like flash TTL. I can´t see any reason for you not to go whit one pre-R8 camera body but if I can choose I prefer the robust SL2 and the R6.2. Regards, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_dufour Posted July 13, 2006 Share #25 Posted July 13, 2006 Rui, About flash TTL, there is a flash adapter and connecting cable for each model pre-R 8. I just buyed, this morning, the references SCA 351 and SCA 3000, to work with my R 6.2 and a Metz 45 CL. It seems it works fine ! Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dentkimterry Posted July 14, 2006 Share #26 Posted July 14, 2006 I have an R6.2 and R7 in addition to my R8. Don't use them much but like to drag them out every once in a while. I know I would regret it if I sold them. Beautiful machines! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uulrich Posted July 14, 2006 Share #27 Posted July 14, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I second what James said. AFAIK the R3 can be fired in X, B and 1/100 w/out batteries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruiespanhol Posted July 14, 2006 Share #28 Posted July 14, 2006 Marc, Remeber the R3 don´t have any TTL meter for flash. The series R4-R7 was this type of meter for flash and the adapter are SCA 351 for Metz flash. Regards, Rui Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted July 14, 2006 Share #29 Posted July 14, 2006 The series R4-R7 was this type of meter for flash and the adapter are SCA 351 for Metz flash. The R4 does not have any TTL flash metering capability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruiespanhol Posted July 15, 2006 Share #30 Posted July 15, 2006 Telyt, You are right about R4 TTL flash metering only when theR5 comes to market this features is avaliable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_dufour Posted July 15, 2006 Share #31 Posted July 15, 2006 Marc, Remeber the R3 don´t have any TTL meter for flash. The series R4-R7 was this type of meter for flash and the adapter are SCA 351 for Metz flash. Regards, Rui Rui Correcting my first response: For the R 6.2 and Metz 45 CL, besides the SCA 351, you will need the SCA 300-A connecting cable. Both are still existing in the Metz catalogue. And the set work fine ! Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrisfoto Posted September 22, 2007 Share #32 Posted September 22, 2007 I just got (via e-bay) an R3 for about $100. I use the R8 w/ Digital back, but it is heavy, and expensive to carry around. It also would be a huge loss if stolen, even though I have it insured. So, I have been shooting more film, and using the R8, DMR, and a bellows and enlarging lens, with a Bowens Slide Copier to make digital copies of the negatives. It goes much quicker than scanning. I just reverse the curve, in bridge, and then I can use a digital work flow to process and print the photos. This allows me to use my M3, R6, R3, or my $10 Praktica, in adverse situations. In NYC the film Delta FP4 Plus, only costs about $5.50 and $8.00 to process. I still the R8 and DMR in the studio, or secure locations like theaters. If I shoot 2 rolls per week, it only costs about $100 per month. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted September 22, 2007 Share #33 Posted September 22, 2007 I have been away for a few days up in the hunter valley New South Wales. Took my R8 and R9 with me and both were a pleasure to use. The other camera I do like using is the... R7... on which it has also a very good view finder. Unfortunate could'nt take the SL as I wanted to take the 28-90 and 80-200 rom lenses. I know one thing, after using my M7 for a few months, it's terrific to return BACK TO THE R's. The M is great at available light, but for general use the Magnificent R's kill it. Leaving the Fabulous SL a-side, I have found the R7 is a wonderful camera. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvaliquette Posted September 22, 2007 Share #34 Posted September 22, 2007 I have an R9 (with DMR and Motor Drive) and an R6.2. The R9 goes back and forth between the DMR and the motor drive with film. I love that both have the same ergonomics and feel! Sometimes, I have to double check to decide which frame lines to use;) . I do not use the R9 without either. I also love the R6.2. It's small, light and discreet. I use it mostly with the wider lenses, to get the full advantage of their coverage. Some of my lenses are ROM or 3rd cam only, so I cannot use a Leicaflex. Older bodies are not obsolete, they are just ... older. And, with the Leica quality build, that is essentially irrelevant! Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted September 23, 2007 Share #35 Posted September 23, 2007 Some of my lenses are ROM or 3rd cam only, so I cannot use a Leicaflex. With minor and reversible modifications to the lens and body, many ROM and 3rd-cam lenses can be used on the Leicaflex SL without removing the ROM contacts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted September 23, 2007 Share #36 Posted September 23, 2007 I use my SL2 much more than my R8, and when I owned an R3 I used it more than my R8. Although I think the R8 is an outstanding camera, I really don't like its ergonomics, specifically how it doesn't fit in my hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted September 23, 2007 Share #37 Posted September 23, 2007 Now that we have a DMR, Is that the Royal use of the first-person-plural in reference to oneself, or is that a generalisation? The DMR are no longer available new, and only occasionally surface on the second-hand market, so whoever doesn't presently own one will not find the acquisition all that easy. That in turn makes it unlikely that an R8 or R9 will hold its value because of the DMR. So if one is of a mind to buy any R body today, from a practical stand-point it should once more be with the intent of shooting film. In which case the volumes of endless circular arguments as to which is preferable, that exist in archives of internet forums, would provide as much (or as little) guidance as ever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 23, 2007 Share #38 Posted September 23, 2007 Is that the Royal use of the first-person-plural in reference to oneself, or is that a generalisation? The DMR are no longer available new, and only occasionally surface on the second-hand market, so whoever doesn't presently own one will not find the acquisition all that easy. Indeed it isn't Vinay, but since Alfie's comment was made in July 2006 perhaps you should cut him a bit of slack. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted September 23, 2007 Share #39 Posted September 23, 2007 Augh! Indeed, you are correct. Slack hereby officially cut. I noticed the original entries were in July, but not that it was 2006. As an admirer of all things Leica, I must subconciously have been blocking out evidence of how sporadic is the interest in the R system and/or how quickly Leica abandoned the DMR:( Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.