older r cameras?

[smokysun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

since i've bought 4 r lenses to use with the 20d i've thought of getting an r 3 or 4 cheap to try some film. any recommendations on which model? (or an early sl?) alas, a 5 seems to cost considerably more.

 

thanks,

wayne

[luigi bertolotti]

since i've bought 4 r lenses to use with the 20d i've thought of getting an r 3 or 4 cheap to try some film. any recommendations on which model? (or an early sl?) alas, a 5 seems to cost considerably more.

 

thanks,

wayne

 

R4 : nice, small, can find rather cheap, but was a camera that had suffered of some electronics problems during its lifecycle, somewhere there are docs on the s/n of the "risky" models... my one is sometime "strange" in metering behavior;

 

R3 : in my opinion, not nice in esthetics, but probablyis the best buy in terms of price/quality.

 

SL2 costs a lot, SL can be found at no high cost if it is not so good in cosmetics, and is very well maintainable. Both excellent cameras.

[ejd]

If you are putting your lenses on a Canon digital body, you could also put them on a Canon film body -- very cheaply.

[stunsworth]

Wayne, you can pick up an SL fairly cheaply, but remember these are old cameras and require adjustment if the meter is to be used with modern batteries - there are other alternatives including a modern battery and a voltage regulator.

 

The R4 had a reputation for failing electronics, but any total duds would have been binned a long time ago. I have an R4S that I bought cheaply, and apart from pretty poor shutter lag it work ok (or at least did the last time I tried it :-).

 

Finally there's an R8. If you shop around you should be able to buy one of these for around £400 ($800) - at least that's what I paid for mine. Of the Leica SLRs I own (SL, R4S, R8) this is easily my favourite.

[smallfilms]

I have two R5s and love them. I don't know why the R5 is not more highly esteemed. they are compact and reliable.

[smokysun]

thanks to all! i've decided to go for now with an R4 cause it's a cheap trial. with db2 back, motor-winder and diopter it came to $260. Steve, if i love film results, i'll get an R8.

 

as for using different lenses, i've found the sigma and leica lenses give very different results from the canon lenses (and i've number of the best L's). the two pics below could only have come from the 50 cron, even on a canon 20D body. it's my contention the body secondary in terms of picture quality.

 

i also wanted to see what it's like to use these lenses on a full-frame to see the difference.

 

thanks again, it was a hard choice. luigi, i actually like the boxiness of the R3!

 

wayne

 

ps. also very attracted to the small size of the R4.

[dhsimmonds]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you can stretch to an R8, then go for it. It is a great camera and before long there may even be some DMR backs going cheap to give you superb true 16 bit images.

[masjah]

Another vote from me for an R8. They really are superb value for money s/h.

[smokysun]

thanks for the heads up on the r8. i'm definitely interested!

 

wayne