Jump to content

R 9


Torquinian

Recommended Posts

I have both the Leica R9 and M7.

 

Believe me the R9 is a much better Camera in operation then the M7 or M series.

 

So why do I still use the M, just don't know, perhaps because I am just a fool....Lol.

 

Ken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me the R9 is a much better Camera in operation then the M7 or M series.

 

Ken.

Interesting comment - I've never heard any commentary to that effect before. Just the opposite, in fact. A photographer I know went as far as to refer to the R series Leicas as "just another SLR." Given that they mount Leica glass, I would beg to differ.

 

Different strokes, I suppose...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comment - I've never heard any commentary to that effect before. Just the opposite, in fact. A photographer I know went as far as to refer to the R series Leicas as "just another SLR." Given that they mount Leica glass, I would beg to differ.

 

Different strokes, I suppose...

 

He probably never used an R8/R9. For the rest of the R series -- yes, he's correct. The R9 is a great camera. It sort of reminds me of an M5 -- looks dumpy but built around use. It just came too late. By then, most SLR users were flocking to digital, and Leica never really had much of the market anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Follow the post about audio equipment. Audiophiles expound the joy of listening to analog records through tubed equipment. There are manufactures out there to serve this narrow segment of the market. They know what they want and are willing to pay for it. The fact there was still a market for an interchangeable lens rangefinder camera after the introduction of the SLR shows a well made fairly exclusive product still appeals to a segment of buyers. Walk in to any camera shop or look on Craigslist and there are numerous professional grade film SLRs for sale. If there was still a market for them there would have been and R10 (or a Nikon F7). Leica has managed to hold on to a thin edge of a narrow market. Logically the M7 would had been the end of the film M cameras, except for a segment of buyers who did not want a Leica with an electronic shutter. The MP appeared to satisfy that market segment. Digital life has changed everything from refrigerators to sports cars. Nothing has changed faster than how we listen to music and how we capture images Years ago I had an Akai reel to reel to listen to hours of music. I also had and M6. Today I listen to hours of music streamed digitally from all over the world and I sill have an M6. SLRs were always a small segment for Leica lost in both the transition to digital and the struggle to survive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comment - I've never heard any commentary to that effect before. Just the opposite, in fact. A photographer I know went as far as to refer to the R series Leicas as "just another SLR." Given that they mount Leica glass, I would beg to differ.

 

Different strokes, I suppose...

 

Better Viewfinder, better focusing, better Metering, and better film loading, to me that makes the R's superior

in operation to any film M camera.

 

However for compactness and low light shooting the M gets the 2nd prize.

 

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better Viewfinder, better focusing, better Metering, and better film loading, to me that makes the R's superior

in operation to any film M camera.

 

However for compactness and low light shooting the M gets the 2nd prize.

 

Ken

 

Ken, you are comparing 'apples' with 'oranges', as so many here do.:cool:

 

To me, the R8 (I still have one!) is a fabulous, ergonomic, beautiful, totally functional beast. It is everything you say, but it feels like '2 1/2 building bricks' in the hand (same as canon, Nikon). When I was paid to work with it, it did soooo many things the other couldn't, at the time.

 

The 'M's' OTOH, are quirky, very compact for what they deliver and very unobtrusive. I have six of them, 3 film & 3 digital. The quality, within their limitations is plain brilliant. Noting can equal tem at what they do best.

 

Comparing 'R' wit 'M' is just not reasonable. What you must do is decide 'what you want to do' and choose the appropriate tool for that job. In many caes, you will need or want both. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Erl.

 

Concerning your post I do agree with you, after all I also live in Melbourne.

 

I use both the M and R as they complement each other.

For me the Leica R is the most used as it fits most of my requirements, however under certain situations I choose the M7 especially in low light or inside buildings where I want to capture the ambience or the mood. In my opinion the Leica M is untouchable in this area.

 

My strong belief that the Leica R (operationally) is superior to the M especially the R8/9 as having both, is to view that wonderful viewfinder that anables me to focus quicker, I also find the lightmeter and film loading system to be better, nevertheless I still wouldn't part with the Leica M, and the tempations to add the M9 is getting stonger all the time.

 

As you quoted, choose the appropriate tool for the job, you're are right, it's a pity that I only discovered the Leica M abilities a few years ago.

 

Cheers

 

Ken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamey, you will find the M9 to be quite a different animal from either the R8/9 or the M7. Skin deep it is like the M7, but it is digital and deliver a whole different package for you to work with. In it's own right fantastic IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the R9 is on my bucket list.:D

 

Last year I finished a documentary on a small town using the R4 with Ilford 100 film and the 50 Cron, mostly for images of building exteriors and such. I also used the M3 with TriX and the Summarit 1.5 for most portraits and building interiors.

 

The work flow was very easy as the R4 complemented the M3 nicely.:)

 

I hope to get the R8/R9 this year to work in tandem with the R4. I have a IIIF that is a nice companion with the M3.

 

It is nice to have choices to accomplish the task ahead. I use the M body and the R body in similar situations and sometimes I just like to set the two cameras up differently.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hi everyone,

I use on occasions, an original Leicaflex and an SL2, also I have a Leica R6.2 which is a super camera. However my real shooter is my beloved R9, until you own one of these and use it for real, all the comments about its size and looks fade in to oblivion, the results are outstanding. I recently took some holiday shots and I was looking at the scans on my computer, when my twenty year old son walked past. He turned round and watched me go through a few of the scans. He then made the following statements Dad, what are those photos, are they 3D or something they look really "Brill" Hope there are some R9 users out there willing to give similar comments for the benefit of potential users.

 

All the best

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply put, I find the ergonomics and functionality of the R8 to be the best SLR I have ever had the the good fortune and pleasure to use. It is cleverly designed to do the most amazing things with absolute simplicity and sense. Add to that, for example, the 80mm 1.4 Lux and you have a dream machine for portraiture. Oh yes, and its asymmetrical shape is functional and great looking, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved my M8 but to be honest I sold it and bought a 15 mm 2.8 R lens. I think it is a matter of preference and perhaps each user finds his own niche with the tools he or she chooses. I just feel more comfortable with that camera than I did the M series. Build quality etc are all magnificent on Leica products, results however are up to me I feel. I dunno I just love every nuance of Leica and the brilliance of the range finder will always fascinate me while the R series is where I feel most at home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved my M8 but to be honest I sold it and bought a 15 mm 2.8 R lens. I think it is a matter of preference and perhaps each user finds his own niche with the tools he or she chooses. I just feel more comfortable with that camera than I did the M series. Build quality etc are all magnificent on Leica products, results however are up to me I feel. I dunno I just love every nuance of Leica and the brilliance of the range finder will always fascinate me while the R series is where I feel most at home.

 

Same here.

 

Ken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it has to do with marketing - Leica R cameras had to contend with strong competition from Japan, usually one or two steps ahead in technology, and certainly in automated mass production, which kept the prices low. The Leica M had few or no serious contenders, and as the market got smaller and smaller the advantages of large scale production had correspondingly little impact.

Even the Leicaflexes, arguably the best SLRs ever built, were disastrous commercially. Only by reworking Japanese designs was Leica able to keep up, and when they tried to regain lost ground by a superb home-grown camera, it nearly killed off the company, as the competition had moved ahead technologically.

The R8 never sold in the numbers needed -There were still factory-new ones for sale in 2011!, and the R9 was too incremental an upgrade to save the situation - and digital had arrived....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leica m Rangefinder camera's have not that much competition if you compare that with the Slr market the R was fighting a losing battle. we are talking about competing with Contax, Nikon, Canon, Minolta and Pentax.

 

The R8 is however a great camera and would happely buy a R9

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...