R system

[topoxforddoc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the R system is great and the M is as well. They are just different beasts. The R9/DMR and the newer lenser are every bit as good as the M series. Short focal lengths and whisper quiet unobtrusive cameras are great for candids, low light and street photography. However, when you need longer focal lengths, SLRs win hands down. I am very happy both with my R9/DMR and my M6TTL. Like every job, you just need the correct tool.

 

Charlie

[Advertisement]

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

[zanydave]

I'm with Ken on this. Flogged my M7 to buy more into the R system. After all it's just a tool to obtain an end result & I see better with an R.

 

Each to their own eh!

 

Dave

[dentkimterry]

I have both M and R systems. Use the R 90%, the M 10%. Just my style. Your mileage may vary.

[tobey bilek]

The difference is that the pilot was there ready in case Mr. Boeing screwed up. How would you feel if no pilot was there?

 

My biggest problem is forgetting to focus an M after shooting an R for a while. Everything looks so sharp.

 

I must agree, 24/35/80 need upgrades to current LEICA standards. Who cares what N&C offer?

 

Need auto-focus? Buy N or C. I personally don`t like them even if picked the decisive moment and fired the shutter themselves. Another alturnative is the 4/3 system. You can crank out junk all day without thinking and without buying film.

[andybarton]

The difference is that the pilot was there ready in case Mr. Boeing screwed up. How would you feel if no pilot was there?

 

Pretty upset, but don't forget that Herr Leica has kindly put an M detent on the mode wheel too

[hamey]

Hi Steve.

 

I will try that next time I use it.

 

These M's are a funny thing, I get the urge to part with it but when I get my slides back I quickly change my mind.

 

It's that horrible Leica Disease again.

 

Cheers

 

Ken.

[wbesz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, ..while at Photokina, Wolfgang (from Bonn) and I roamed around Cologne in the afternoon to visit all the Leica stores,

 

..and I ended up in trading an old Summicron-R 35mm lens for a lovely mint and current Vario-Elmar-R 1:4/35-70,

 

which is now attached to my R7!

[zapp]

 

I must agree, 24/35/80 need upgrades to current LEICA standards. Who cares what N&C offer?

 

QUOTE]

 

There is not only N&C, but also Z, and a lot of Leica M and copies of M's. Sure enough my post shows that I will not invest in a new 35 or 80 R lens and keep hoping that Leica will show news. On the other hand if there is no R news, I need to think more into M for wide angle....

[Micheal]

I'll go with Ken having used nikon" F" series cameras with selected Ai lenses, primarily wide angles. Then having recently purchased an R-8, at a good price, right as the R-9 came out as I didn't want an upgrade improved with suggetions from previous owners & a totally new internal design, I wanted the original design .The lens I purchased for it is a f.2.8 19mm as I primarily shoot with a 20mm on a Nikon F3. Then a couple of months ago I purchased a 28mm f.2.8 Elmarit as that is what I usually use if not using the 20mm. I very occasionally use a 35mm but not enough to justifiy buying one as I am trying to keep my outfit small.

I have had three M series bodies & various leitz lenses. I found out there is a major difference between looking through the optical lens itself & looking through a window which never changed with different focal lengths. With the problem that you can't shoot a

24mm, 20 or 21mm or 15mm without using an auxillary optical viewfinder which is a poor depiction of what is in front of the camera compared to a SLR. No comparison.

There are a couple of observations I have to make regarding regarding the camera forum

It is dominated by "M" users & occasionally the R8/R9 if it has the digital back. Rare the

discussion of the R8 system.

They are into trashing Canon & occasionally Nikon as being of a real step down from an "M". I find this a little bourgeois.

In reality there was was at least a 200 to one ratio of Nikon Fs to Leicas during the sixties & 70ies. Half the time the Leica "M" users were tourists driving a Mercedes Benz. In graduate school we started calling them Doctor/Lawyer cameras.

The idea that a Leica is far superior. Take a Canon EOS IV & closely compare the quality, finish & fit to that of a R9. Notice that EOS is really well made & the main difference is the shape/ergonomics. What camera do you see all of the press guys shooting if not the Mark 11. The EOS IV is comletly dust sealed & like Nikon F's has a 100% viewfinder.

So enough raving, I really got burned out on the Canon 16-35mm f.2.8, IV multi- layered levels of complexity. Once you got it figured out it was a cheap thrill to shoot with at first as it is a almost silent, instant focus, image gathering devise, could really burn the film.

So I went for the R8 as an antidote to the Canon. Guietly encountering reality one frame at a time. . . with primo optics.

 

 

Sincerely,

Michael

 

http://www.stardustgrafik.com

[zapp]

If you check out the new Leica homepage, the 24mm R is not listed anymore. What a coincidence.

Let's wait for the R10 - if you can fit a digital camera in an M body, you may do the same with an R body.

[rsh]

I have an M8 on order, but use use both M & R (SL2s). I will buy an R10 if it is a digital body and get a 21-35, 28- 90 and use my current lenses. No need to change.

[ruiespanhol]

I agree - I like my R and wont give it up. I will get the DMR - but just seen there is a £300+ price rise since summer. Damn!!! I also want a 24mm lens for it and probably a 50mm to go with my 90mm. I do not like the 28-70mm zoom as screen is a little dark and focusing is hard indoors.

 

I have one 28-70 of last batch(ROM) and like it for me is one fine performer.

O.k the distortion could be better in the 28 and 70mm but the sharpness and contrast are very good and in my opinion the best in your class.

It was one zoom whit resonable price whit overall good performance but not perfect however is far away from one very bad lenses like many think.

 

Best,

[Guest Bernd Banken]

I'll go with Ken having used nikon" F" series cameras with selected Ai lenses, primarily wide angles. Then having recently purchased an R-8, at a good price, right as the R-9 came out as I didn't want an upgrade improved with suggetions from previous owners & a totally new internal design, I wanted the original design .The lens I purchased for it is a f.2.8 19mm as I primarily shoot with a 20mm on a Nikon F3. Then a couple of months ago I purchased a 28mm f.2.8 Elmarit as that is what I usually use if not using the 20mm. I very occasionally use a 35mm but not enough to justifiy buying one as I am trying to keep my outfit small.

I have had three M series bodies & various leitz lenses. I found out there is a major difference between looking through the optical lens itself & looking through a window which never changed with different focal lengths. With the problem that you can't shoot a

24mm, 20 or 21mm or 15mm without using an auxillary optical viewfinder which is a poor depiction of what is in front of the camera compared to a SLR. No comparison.

There are a couple of observations I have to make regarding regarding the camera forum

It is dominated by "M" users & occasionally the R8/R9 if it has the digital back. Rare the

discussion of the R8 system.

They are into trashing Canon & occasionally Nikon as being of a real step down from an "M". I find this a little bourgeois.

In reality there was was at least a 200 to one ratio of Nikon Fs to Leicas during the sixties & 70ies. Half the time the Leica "M" users were tourists driving a Mercedes Benz. In graduate school we started calling them Doctor/Lawyer cameras.

The idea that a Leica is far superior. Take a Canon EOS IV & closely compare the quality, finish & fit to that of a R9. Notice that EOS is really well made & the main difference is the shape/ergonomics. What camera do you see all of the press guys shooting if not the Mark 11. The EOS IV is comletly dust sealed & like Nikon F's has a 100% viewfinder.

So enough raving, I really got burned out on the Canon 16-35mm f.2.8, IV multi- layered levels of complexity. Once you got it figured out it was a cheap thrill to shoot with at first as it is a almost silent, instant focus, image gathering devise, could really burn the film.

So I went for the R8 as an antidote to the Canon. Guietly encountering reality one frame at a time. . . with primo optics.

 

 

Sincerely,

Michael

 

http://www.stardustgrafik.com

 

Michael,

 

well described. When I started photography in 1970, there was only one camera for a (smart) guy like me:rolleyes:

 

The NikonF, the 'nam camera. My theoretical input was the Time Life Series about photography and a b/w magazin from Switzerland, the Camera.

 

At those times the local reporter all used M models for their b/w local stuff and the rest of amateurs with money used Ms too, I called them "Burberry-coat photographer".

The Pros switched one by one to Nikons, mainly the F2 and from this time onwards, Nikon is my brand.

My best shots had been made with the F it was a very deep relationship and after every "magic roll" the warm feeling as for an expensive music instrument.

 

After giving up "serious" photography due to the switch to windsurfing in 1973 and Hobie-sailing in 1974, I took last year a D200 to compete to myself....

 

Early this year a M7 plus lenses is additionally in my bag only to find out whether there will be the "feeling" as described by longterm M-users.

 

But at the end I might sell the Leica stuff because I think I'm a mirror-slap-man:)

 

If the Canons/Nikons would disappear now, all newspapers and magazines would contain no sharp, colorful and impressive pics of any kind, right?

 

Just my 2cents.

 

Cheers

Bernd

[rob_x2004]

Some lens designs in the lineup are really outdated by now and should be replaced by modern designs.

 

I think optics are pretty much all Leica have up their sleeve, and they seem not to want to compromise their optical qualities for modern conveniences like AF. Whats wrong with that?

 

The only other thing I can think of is the R9/metering/flash synch and which for some, combined with the lens optics makes the R9 the best 35mm ever built. Never see any discussion on that.

[sdai]

... and they seem not to want to compromise their optical qualities for modern conveniences like AF. Whats wrong with that?

 

Which is just another urban myth to be debunked ... the EF and N mount lenses are all superior to their FD and MM type predecessors.

[rob_x2004]

Simon you cant rotate the mass of the current Leica lens designs with anything less than a tank engine. Talk to panasonic. Do you like the Leica look or dont you?

[sdai]

Simon you cant rotate the mass of the current Leica lens designs with anything less than a tank engine. Talk to panasonic. Do you like the Leica look or dont you?

 

So how did Canon make it happen with the 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 1200/5.6? how did Contax do with the 17-35/2.8, 85/1.4, and the Tele-apotesssar 400/4?

 

Panasonic is another story though ... I don't think Leica can make any AF lens in Solms, they need to find an OEM partner in Japan or in China ... there're decent ones over there, the Zeiss ZA lenses were initially test built in China and I guess "Made in Japan" simply would made a lot of folks feeling much better thus would command a higher price then Sony brought production back to Japan.

[rob_x2004]

I don't think Leica can make any AF lens in Solms

 

Neither here nor there. You need to find the articles by Panasonic on meeting Leicas performance spec whilst making a lens that could AF and IS. And it will be a far cry from 4/3 camera to full blown R or M. Anyway, depends what you like the look of.

 

But the only point I make is you cant AF or IS the present range, and given optical qualities is why most buy Leica....ehhh....hang on....I guess many buy because it has a red dot. You are right they could reverse engineer from Canon or Nikons lead and everyone would be happy wouldnt they.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rob_x2004]

So how did Canon make it happen with the 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 1200/5.6?

 

Im not following you. Are you saying these are the same design as the FDs only they introduced USM between the elements?

[sdai]

Neither here nor there. You need to find the articles by Panasonic on meeting Leicas performance spec whilst making a lens that could AF and IS. And it will be a far cry from 4/3 camera to full blown R or M. Anyway, depends what you like the look of.

 

Rob, I'm 1/3 Japanese and I've read all the ORIGINAL Panasonic interviews published in almost all Japanese photo magazines ... but that wouldn't change my viewpoint because I've worked in Japan for that many years. If Leica has no problem being only second best, so be it.

 

But the only point I make is you cant AF or IS the present range, and given optical qualities is why most buy Leica....

 

You're right but, that's exactly why Leica needs to revamp their design. Canon, Contax can all do better with AF and/or IS ... and I expect the same from Leica as well.