Leica R3

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, as well as the Minolta-sourced 16mm Fisheye-Elmarit-R and 80-200 f/4.5 Vario-Elmar-R. You will occasionally find 2-cam versions of the 16, 24, and 80-200 f/4.5.

 

Thanks, Doug. Clearly, then, Minolta's lens designs figured into the SL2 mirror box.

[Advertisement]

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

[ho_co]

Some time later I studied one of my books of Emil G. Keller and there I read that the cooperation with Minolta started in 1971, the year of the introduction of the M5.

And Minolta had influence in the development of the SL2, it´s a fairy tale, that it was the last Leica, that Leitz developed alone. For example the shutter of the SL2 is part of the Minolta factory.

Yes, the CL came out shortly after the M5, and the CL was produced by Minolta. (Actually, some parts were produced by Leica and sent to Minolta for assembly.) So it's reasonable that the cooperation would have started as soon as it became clear that the M5 wasn't going to sell.

 

As Doug Herr pointed out, there was influence from Minolta in regard to the SL2 mirror box.

 

But help me on that: Couldn't I say that's not influence from Minolta, but choice by Leica? That is, if Leica wanted to get some focal lengths into its line-up quickly, and chose to take lenses from Minolta, then the SL2 would have to have a new mirror cavity.

 

In other words, as I see it: Leica said, "I want those lenses" and that meant "I need to change the housing." But to me that isn't the same as Minolta-influenced.

 

OTOH, the R3 is Minolta- influenced. It looks as if Leica said, "Heck, we're just not selling reflexes. Can you help?"

 

Or is that a distinction without a difference? Or did Minolta have other input to Leica design before the R3?

 

More and more interesting.

[john_newell]

The SL2 shutter is not from Minolta. It's a cloth, continuously-variable mechanically-timed shutter just like the SL shutter. As far as I know it was made by Leitz Portugal. Minolta's influence on the SL2 was the mirror box clearance specs.

 

Micro-trivia question. Are the SL and SL2 shutters actually the same? I thought there were some design differences? Asking only for curiosity's sake.

[ho_co]

John, I've always thought that all three Leicaflex shutters were the same. In addition to the description Doug gives, they also all claimed the same flash synch speed of 1/100 sec and the same top speed of 1/2000 sec.

 

Since, so far as I know, cloth shutters are built into a body rather than being first built, shipped, and assembled into a body as metal bladed shutters are, I don't see how a shutter might have come from Portugal into a German camera.

 

Perhaps the shutter was installed in Portugal and then the partially completed body was shipped to Wetzlar; or maybe the slow-speed gear train (or high-speed train or both) was built in Portugal and sent complete to Germany, but I'm still not sure when the Portuguese plant was opened or when the SL2 was discontinued.

 

So I repeat: I've always thought the Leicaflex shutters were all the same, but I may be wrong. I hope someone with knowledge responds to your question. Very interesting indeed!

[mole73]

Howard,

 

it´s indeed a very interesting thread, I like those background-facts too!

 

I read that the production of the SL2 was discontinued in 1976, only two years after introduction. The production of the SL2 was a disaster. They hoped of selling two glasses for one body. But it went wrong. Soon after that the R3 was launched (also in 1976).

 

I also would like to know when the factory in Portugal started production for Leitz. Was it in the mid-seventies? Perhaps when the R3 went on stage?

 

To come back to your question: i would also say that Leica took advantage of the cooperation with Minolta, it´s without a doupt another story as it is with the CL, when Minolta was fully involved in the development.

 

But another point: did you know that the developer of the CL was the same as for the M3?

It was Willy Stein. He thought about a little "Volks-Leica" and in 1973 with the massive help of Minolta they began to produce the nice little CL.

Many people think of the CL as a camera from Minolta. That is not right: it was developed in Germany and produced in Japan.

 

Robert

[Joop van Heijgen]

John, I've always thought that all three Leicaflex shutters were the same. In addition to the description Doug gives, they also all claimed the same flash synch speed of 1/100 sec and the same top speed of 1/2000 sec.

 

Since, so far as I know, cloth shutters are built into a body rather than being first built, shipped, and assembled into a body as metal bladed shutters are, I don't see how a shutter might have come from Portugal into a German camera.

 

Perhaps the shutter was installed in Portugal and then the partially completed body was shipped to Wetzlar; or maybe the slow-speed gear train (or high-speed train or both) was built in Portugal and sent complete to Germany, but I'm still not sure when the Portuguese plant was opened or when the SL2 was discontinued.

 

So I repeat: I've always thought the Leicaflex shutters were all the same, but I may be wrong. I hope someone with knowledge responds to your question. Very interesting indeed!

 

 

"... I don't see how a shutter might have come from Portugal into a German camera."

 

According to information from my Leica repairer (educated in Wetzlar) is the whole SL 2 camera made is Wetzlar, inclusive the shutter!

The 'inside' of the SL 2 is more complex built than the SL what it makes more complicated to repair this camera!

According to him is the SL better built than the SL2.

 

The SL2 is a very good camera, but you don't have to get technical problems with it; the repair is complicated and expensive...

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As Doug Herr pointed out, there was influence from Minolta in regard to the SL2 mirror box.

 

But help me on that: Couldn't I say that's not influence from Minolta, but choice by Leica? That is, if Leica wanted to get some focal lengths into its line-up quickly, and chose to take lenses from Minolta, then the SL2 would have to have a new mirror cavity.

 

In other words, as I see it: Leica said, "I want those lenses" and that meant "I need to change the housing." But to me that isn't the same as Minolta-influenced.

 

Whether one considers this an influence or choice, it was Minolta's mirror clearance spec that went into the SL2 and every subsequent R. Later Minolta-sourced lenses may have been influenced by Leitz: the 80-200 f/4.5, which was incompatible with the Leicaflex and SL, was replaced with the SL-spec 75-200 f/4.5.

 

 

Micro-trivia question. Are the SL and SL2 shutters actually the same? I thought there were some design differences? Asking only for curiosity's sake.

 

I haven't opened an SL2 so I don't know for certain. There were some differences between early versions of the Leicaflex and the SL, particularly the high-speed gear train which was built-up in the main casting from pieces in the Leicaflex Type 1 and was a sub-assembly in the Leicaflex Type 2 and the SL.

 

 

Perhaps the shutter was installed in Portugal and then the partially completed body was shipped to Wetzlar;

 

That would be my guess. By the time the SL2 was in production both the slow-speed and high-speed gear trains were drop-in modules.

[jaapv]

 

To come back to your question: i would also say that Leica took advantage of the cooperation with Minolta, it´s without a doupt another story as it is with the CL, when Minolta was fully involved in the development.

 

But another point: did you know that the developer of the CL was the same as for the M3?

It was Willy Stein. He thought about a little "Volks-Leica" and in 1973 with the massive help of Minolta they began to produce the nice little CL.

Many people think of the CL as a camera from Minolta. That is not right: it was developed in Germany and produced in Japan.

 

Robert

 

The legend started because the CLE was a full Minolta camera, as there were major design changes made to the original CL.

Just to mention that the later R cameras, from R4 up to the R8 were based on Minolta as well. Although the R8/R9 are fully of German design, there is still a lot of the original Minolta DNA to be found in those cameras. A tribute to the quality of the R3.

[barneybm]

I would like to agree with all those who had a positive word for the R3.

 

I had four of these cameras. They performed flawlessly for at least 25 years without any service at all. I still think they are the most comfortable and intuitive R cameras to use (and I have an R8 and R9).

 

If you have any desire to shoot film, the R3 is a wonderful camera.

[ho_co]

I read that the production of the SL2 was discontinued in 1976, only two years after introduction. The production of the SL2 was a disaster. They hoped of selling two glasses for one body. But it went wrong. Soon after that the R3 was launched (also in 1976).

Robert, I won't speak to "disaster," but it sure didn't generate sales.

 

But another point: did you know that the developer of the CL was the same as for the M3? It was Willy Stein. He thought about a little "Volks-Leica" and in 1973 with the massive help of Minolta they began to produce the nice little CL.

Agreed. I didn't know it came from the M3's designer, but it is as sweet and natural as the rangefinder ever got--just like the M3.

 

The story I've heard is: When the M5 failed to sell, Leica needed something new and in a hurry. It was completely a Leica design. (Had to be--Minolta had never built anything similar.) Minolta had spare production capacity, so Leica went there. There were even some parts of the winding mechanism that Minolta couldn't produce accurately, and Leica had to send them to Minolta.

 

In hindsight, Leica must already have had connections with Minolta (planning R3?) for that connection to have taken place so quickly.

[ho_co]

According to information from my Leica repairer (educated in Wetzlar) is the whole SL 2 camera made is Wetzlar, inclusive the shutter!

Joop, that's my understanding as well.

 

I was working for Ernst Leitz Inc, Rockleigh NJ at the time, and we were aware of Leitz production facilities in Wetzar and Midland, but we salesmen didn't hear of Portugal until shortly before the R4 arrived, as the Trinovids migrated there.

[ho_co]

... There were some differences between early versions of the Leicaflex and the SL, particularly the high-speed gear train which was built-up in the main casting from pieces in the Leicaflex Type 1 and was a sub-assembly in the Leicaflex Type 2 and the SL ...

Doug--

Thanks! That goes along with Joop's description of the SL2 being a much more complicated camera than its predecessor.

 

Just for clarification: I'm unfamiliar with the 'Leicaflex Type 1' and 'Leicaflex Type 2' designations. When you say "early versions of the Leicaflex," are you referring to both the Leicaflex with external metering and the Leicaflex SL, or to internal changes in the former?

[Joop van Heijgen]

Joop, that's my understanding as well.

 

I was working for Ernst Leitz Inc, Rockleigh NJ at the time, and we were aware of Leitz production facilities in Wetzar and Midland, but we salesmen didn't hear of Portugal until shortly before the R4 arrived, as the Trinovids migrated there.

 

The R3 camera was in fact the first Leica 'made in Portugal'. This after a test production serie of the R3 in Wetzlar in the beginning ('76). 'Made in Germany' is to be found on the bottum of this camera!

[ho_co]

You're right, Joop. I got my model numbers wrong. First R3s were "Made in Germany," later ones "Made in Portugal."

[wildlightphoto]

Doug... I'm unfamiliar with the 'Leicaflex Type 1' and 'Leicaflex Type 2' designations. When you say "early versions of the Leicaflex," are you referring to both the Leicaflex with external metering and the Leicaflex SL, or to internal changes in the former?

 

Internal (and external) changes in the former. The first two versions have a "pie"-shaped film counter window, a tripod socket held by three external screws, and no meter "off" switch. These are typically called Type 1. The second two versions of the Leicaflex have tripod socket screws hidden under the bottom plate, a round film counter window, and a meter on/off switch. These two versions are called Type 2. Internal changes differentiate between the versions of each type. Aside from the mirror box, late Type 2 Leicaflexes are more like the SL than like the first Leicaflex Type 1.

[asiafish]

I just got my used R3 MOT and R6 bodies earlier this week. The R3 is larger in every dimension, heavier and yes, it looks like a Minolta. That said, it also has a much smoother and lighter shutter release and the film advance also has a better feel.

 

Other than the Minolta XE-7 shape, however, I see no difference in build quality between the two. The black chrome finish is the same on both, and equally attractive. The R6 has a brighter viewfinder, but the R3 is by no means dim or difficult to focus (can't wait for the diopter lens I ordered to arrive).

 

I agree with everyone here that says the R3 is underrated. I originally had no intention of keeping it as I bought a package with the R3 and 50/2 Summicron and was going to resell the body, but the beauty of the R3 has me actually considering returning the R6.

 

The R3 is VERY nice.