Best performer of Leica R series??

[SteveYork]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If memory serves me correctly, the R8/9 viewfinder is high eye point.

 

I can compare the viewfinder in the Leicaflex series to the R6/6.2, having owned both at the same time. The eye relief was about the same, and the brightness was similar, but the viewfinder in the R was very grainy. The Leicaflex viewfinder, in contrast, are just so smooth -- like looking through a pair of untinted eyeglasses -- but you're correct, the cameras themselves are big and heavy.

 

I have a pair of Ms for small and light, and if I ever got rid of them, I would probably pick up an R6 or 6.2 for that portable camera. I love the Leicaflex, in some ways they are the pinnacle of the Leica SLRs, but sometimes the stenosis in my back doesn't like them.

 

Anything you get you'll probably like. And sometimes you just need to get it, use it, and see if it works for you.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

from memory - it is some time ago I had these cameras - the R7 viewfinder is the same as the R5 - the whole system is fairly identical, including the matte screens. The main differences are in the LEDs. They became more modern over time. Why differentiate between R 8 and R 9 ? They are virtually the same camera.

[stunsworth]

Why differentiate between R 8 and R 9 ? They are virtually the same camera.

 

The R9 is only 160 gms or so heavier than the R6, the R8 is 260 gms heavier, which may be of importance to the person who revived this thread

[dave.gt]

The R4 is working great for me. I would love to get the R8 or R9. There is a significant price difference between the two...here in the U.S., the R8 is in the $600USD range but the R9 is almost double at $1100.

 

Hopefully, one day soon....one of them will be in my bag with the R4.

[bull40]

I can't comment on the R7 but the viewfinder of the R6 and R-E I used was easier to use than the R4 because the later R bodies have a built-in viewfinder diopter adjustment.

 

Yes, the diopter adjustment is now pretty much a requirement for me. I do prefer one built in like the last RE I owned.

 

Not as dramatic as the difference between SL/SL2 and the R bodies.

 

That's what I'm hearing.

 

If memory serves me correctly, the R8/9 viewfinder is high eye point.

 

I can compare the viewfinder in the Leicaflex series to the R6/6.2, having owned both at the same time. The eye relief was about the same, and the brightness was similar, but the viewfinder in the R was very grainy. The Leicaflex viewfinder, in contrast, are just so smooth -- like looking through a pair of untinted eyeglasses -- but you're correct, the cameras themselves are big and heavy.

 

Yes, I've heard wonderful things about the Leicaflex viewfinder. I have shot probably thousands of rolls in my R4s/R4sP/REs over the years and never thought them bad or a problem. So I'm trying to see if there is a worthwhile improvement available that I hadn't yet shot with.

 

I have a pair of Ms for small and light, and if I ever got rid of them, I would probably pick up an R6 or 6.2 for that portable camera. I love the Leicaflex, in some ways they are the pinnacle of the Leica SLRs, but sometimes the stenosis in my back doesn't like them.

 

That's close to my problem, my C5 and C6 vertebrae are pressed together, so the less weight I have to carry on my neck and shoulders, the better for me. If I could just get on well the M rangefinder, I'd go that route. I'm thinking maybe I should do a test drive on an M7 for a week and give them one last chance.

 

Anything you get you'll probably like. And sometimes you just need to get it, use it, and see if it works for you.

 

As I'm pretty well versed with the Rs, I'm sure that's true and I would know immediately if I didn't like one so I could always return to the dealer in the first week.

 

from memory - it is some time ago I had these cameras - the R7 viewfinder is the same as the R5 - the whole system is fairly identical, including the matte screens. The main differences are in the LEDs. They became more modern over time. Why differentiate between R 8 and R 9 ? They are virtually the same camera.

 

I was thinking when others were describing the R7 viewfinder as being better that they were referring to brightness or clarity, not the info displays. I think now that all of the R4-R7 finders are probably the same, save for the info displays.

 

The R9 is only 160 gms or so heavier than the R6, the R8 is 260 gms heavier, which may be of importance to the person who revived this thread

 

Yes! For half the price of the R9, the feature set of the R8 is not overwhelmingly lacking to me. I'd be happy with either except for my needs of lower weight.

 

The R4 is working great for me. I would love to get the R8 or R9. There is a significant price difference between the two...here in the U.S., the R8 is in the $600USD range but the R9 is almost double at $1100.

 

Hopefully, one day soon....one of them will be in my bag with the R4.

 

Yes, I've loved shooting with my R4 variants since 1985!

 

Thank you all so much for you feedback and input. Time to go shopping now, fortunately I'm set on the lens decisions.

[BobbyR]

Gentlemen:

I am new here and probably will not post often, but as I have an R8 & R9 plus others makes I would like to give an opinion.

 

I had an R6.2 that the day I recieved it used from an Asian gentleman, jammed the mirror the first time I cycled it.

I sent it to Wisc. and had it repaired, the seller apologized and paid for that.

I ran one roll of film through it on an apprx. zero degree day, reloaded and it jammed again the next first shot.

I had it fixed (he said all it was, was that it had bunched up the film rather than feeding it properly. He said he had never seen that before and did not know how it could happen)

So I sold it and bought the R8 & R9.

 

For me the R8/9 feel perfect. The R6.2 reminded me too much of my old Olyp. OM2 that when used without a motor drive I actually rammed it into my forehead once. Too small and too light.

 

I rarely shoot without a motor-drive (usually because something forces me to.)

For me if the camera functions properly, how well it handles determines what I consider best. In this case the R8/9 win hands down.

[bull40]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Welcome to the Forum, Bobby and thanks for sharing your experiences. Even though I've been here for nine years now, I've only put up about 45 posts. I do enjoy reading them though, there are quite a few interesting personalities here! Thanks again, and happy shooting.

[SteveYork]

off topic -- Another option for back and neck problems is to use a belt or 'bum bag.' It works exceedingly well. When the camera is not in use in the hands, all the weight is carried on the hip.

[wildlightphoto]

I think now that all of the R4-R7 finders are probably the same, save for the info displays..

 

The R4-series viewfinders have higher magnification. One consequence of this is they're not quite as bright.

[nobbylon]

I just started another thread before I saw this. The Leicaflex SL and SL2 have enabled me to carry on using manual focus lenses due to their superior viewfinders compaired to my Nikon F and F2. I've had R8 and a few R4 in the past but the Leicaflex's feel nicer to use and the viewfinders are nicer.

[ganzosrevenge]

I had the chance to try an R5 and an R8, and something about both of them did not sit right with me when I compared it to my SL. It's almost as if, at least to me, light and semi-electronic / fully-electronic doesnn't mesh with me and Leicas (I will admit that I'm still new to Leicaphilia, as I only have SLs and haven't had the chance to own other R-series Leicas). There was something a bit disconcerting about the later R's that I've tried, particularly the R5.

 

Having a nikon and then going to a Leicaflex SL, I realized just what the fuss was about; how an SLR could be built with the quality and the performance of an M3 while avoiding the rangefinder quirks us SLR users tend to go "ack!" over. The R5 felt - perhaps because it was co-designed under the R3-R7 era as a re-engineered Minolta, a bit lightweight, a bit of a move away from the SL. The viewfinder was smaller, grainier, less bright (it is true the SL has an INSANELY bright screen), and it felt as though it wasn't built in the way the M3 / M4 / M5s were. At the same time, if I needed a small, semi-automatic Leica to carry about, an R5 wouldn't be x'd off my list. Even though it felt less robust and it was smaller than my SL, it was a bit quieter, a bit less imposing sizewise (i never knew how big my SL was until I saw it shoulders were about 1/4" higher than my F3HP), and it doesn't feel so over-engineered that its noise causes people to go "did you just take a shot of me?!" (oh how I need an M2 or an M1 for streetwork.)

 

The R8 on the other hand, felt MASSIVE. Not in the "small bank vault" way of the SL, but in the "i have all this space and really by 1997 or so you'd think that Leica would have put in the handgrip a motor" way (yes, I have heard that there was originally to be a motor in there but Leica's management nixed the idea). It's a great performer ergonomically for me, nice bright viewfinder, modern amenities (albeit no AF, but it's a Leica), and it felt like it deserved to be called the SL3 (with the R9 the SL4) in the way that it was built. My *one* problem with it was that even as someone who loves techie stuff and gizmos, there were so many mode dials, buttons, etc., that it felt like it detracted from the joy of shooting, in the same way that a digital camera left to its own resources will try to out-think you and make the "approved shot" rather than the "artistic shot". I don't like cameras that I have to fight or have a degree in computers to figure out.

 

So for me, the SL wins. Although I'd love it to have the SL2's more sensitive lightmeter, but avoid the SL2's 1/2000 shutter problem and extra battery. But then, I wonder what the standard was.... SL it is for greatest R.

 

Jason

[SteveYork]

Lots of people like yourself, based on similar trial and error, come to the same conclusion: The SL simply rocks. Very practical camera that's fun to use. I find the original Leicaflex appealing too -- talk about 'old world' feel -- but I come from rangefinders, so don't mind using the central dot to focus, and only use 35-90 focal lengths. Never much liked the SL2. If I want split image focusing, I'll pick up a rangefinder.

 

I've been cycling through a bunch of equipment lately, just for some new and different experiences, but I keep coming back to the Leicaflex.

[ganzosrevenge]

Lots of people like yourself, based on similar trial and error, come to the same conclusion: The SL simply rocks. Very practical camera that's fun to use. I find the original Leicaflex appealing too -- talk about 'old world' feel -- but I come from rangefinders, so don't mind using the central dot to focus, and only use 35-90 focal lengths. Never much liked the SL2. If I want split image focusing, I'll pick up a rangefinder.

 

I've been cycling through a bunch of equipment lately, just for some new and different experiences, but I keep coming back to the Leicaflex.

 

 

The original Leicaflex to me is an M3 stuck in an SLR body. I *REALLY* want to try one out to see just how "old-school" it is even in reference to the Leicaflex SL.

 

Jason

[biglou]

Hi Douglas,

We share a common liking for the Leicaflex SL.

I like it so much that i bought a " like new " black one a few months ago, must have been clad recently or for the sale and all moving parts feel more than perfect and smooth compared to others.

Only one problem, the add was in German and i did not notice the ground glass.

It has not the usual microprism glass but a perfect uniform ground glass.

Would you know if this is a big work to change ?

Regards

Joël

[wildlightphoto]

It has not the usual microprism glass but a perfect uniform ground glass.

Would you know if this is a big work to change ?

 

It's a job for a service technician.

[biglou]

Thank you,

I will keep it as it is, eventuelly for macro.

[asiafish]

Leaving aside "what for?" until we get clarification - I'd have to say that the only R bodies that even remotely appealed to me were the Leicaflexes and the R7. The R4-6s felt cramped, and the R8/9 felt like trying to wrap one's hand around a concrete block. The R3 is rather nice for feel, but was the camera that gave Leica a bad rep for electronics.

 

I'd say ALL the post-Leicaflex cameras have an unpleasant "slowness" to them - no doubt to reduce mirror shake. But the shutter release process feels rubbery and imprecise, and the stop-down levers feel sticky. At least the R7 was "right-sized" - and had a much brighter finder with less blue tint than its predecessors.

 

The only mechanical drawback to the Leicaflexes (IMHO) is the thumb-breakingly long film advance stroke required. The SL2 may have improved that over the earlier versions - as well as being compatable with later wide lenses (16, 19v.2, 24, 35 f/1.4).

 

Shutter release on the R3 is definitely NOT rubbery or imprecise. I would put it somewhat better than the Nikon F3, a camera know. For its fast and smooth shutter release. I also have an R6 and the R3 is vastly superior with regard to shutter release.

[Torquinian]

Leaving aside "what for?" until we get clarification - I'd have to say that the only R bodies that even remotely appealed to me were the Leicaflexes and the R7. The R4-6s felt cramped, and the R8/9 felt like trying to wrap one's hand around a concrete block. The R3 is rather nice for feel, but was the camera that gave Leica a bad rep for electronics.

 

 

An R7 was the only Leica that I have had that developed a fault [inaccurate shutter . I attended the Leica Society weekend near Bath recently and spoke to two other former R7 owners who had had problems. One had his replaced under warranty twice!

I have had an R 3 since 1980 and the only attention it has needed [this year] has been the replacement of the seals round the film window. My more recent R8 has been excellent, although it is easy to switch on inadvertantly. I think this problm was fixed on the R9

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Peter Bailer]

I have bought the R5 because of TTL-Flash metering for makro shots. It needed the sealing at the back to be replacd.

Afterwards I bought a R7 in order to shoot slide and negatives in parallel.

Both cameras have the advantage that there is a mechanical shutter 1/100, so you can shoot even the battery is empty.

However they are today used occasionally for analog shooting (eg. black and white)

 

Further I bought two R8. One attachet with a DMR, a superb combination, even in comparison with todays fullframe cameras.

One handycap might be, if there is a failure with the DMR, which cannot (most likely) be repaired. However, at least I have a standby R8 if needed.

The TTL flash measuring operates perfectly (only with the R8 not with R9) if you reduce 2 stops on the flash or at the camera. For example Flash Metz 40-MZ 2 with adapter SCA 3501.

It is a pity, that there was no further development on the R series

 

regards Peter from Winterthur Switzerland

[hamey]

Yes Peter I agree with you.

 

Personally I think it was a stupid blunder by Leica.

 

The reflex system will always be the king of photography.

Anything else are simply the jokers around the table.

 

Long live the King.

 

Ken.