djakomo Posted March 20, 2009 Share #1 Posted March 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello everybody! My dad owns (don't know why since he always used Olympus) an old Summicron R f2.0- 35mm. Since many years I dreamt about getting a Leica to see it how it feels... now I found dermination, money and occasion to go for it! I'll go for second hand stuff, as I am no pro and also a bit "scared" in front of the Leica myth. I found two options: an R4 camera (above the # 160xxxx "safe" serial number) with also a Summilux R 1.4- 50 mm (old version)... or an R5 with a Summicron R f2.0- 50 mm (again the older one). The difference in price is about 100 euros (higher of course for the second kit). My eye is not sharp enough to spot minor problems on the two cameras, nor differences: they both look OK, and I have been told they actually are. Considering the cameras, the different Cron /Lux lenses and the prices, what would you suggest me? Consider that- as said- I am just an amateur who basically brings his camera along in his travels, or in the weekend walks around town and surroundings.... I really thank you very much for any help you could give me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Hi djakomo, Take a look here A doubt from a Leica wannabe.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest suilvenman Posted March 20, 2009 Share #2 Posted March 20, 2009 First of all, welcome to the forum. An interesting choice you have there. The R5 is an updated version of the 4 but basically the differences are not that noticeable: both have the same metering modes. The 5 might be "newer" but since both cameras are now at least 17/18 years old, this is not really an advantage. I have an R-E which is a very close relative and I have been really pleased with it - it does everything I expect of it. Since both cameras come with older versions of lenses, I would go for the R4 with 1.4 Summilux. The extra stop is useful for indoor/lower light situations and gives a brighter viewfinder image. With the 35 Summicron, the 'lux will give you greater flexibility. Overall, given that there is only 100 euros difference (assuming everything is in working order), and that there are no important differences in the bodies, I'd make my choice based on the lens. Hope this helps, Ken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted March 20, 2009 Share #3 Posted March 20, 2009 Welcome to the Forum! I must plead complete ignorance of the R system, but do want to invite you to post pictures on the Photo Forum as soon as you can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djakomo Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted March 20, 2009 Hi Ken, thank you for the welcoming, and for the suggestion! Actually I was really keen on the Summilux because of that additional stop, but I thought that the R5 was a substantial improvement of the R4; while you say it's better to focus on the lens () rather than on the camera.... good to know! I was a bit afraid of the somewhat shaky reputation of the R4, just that. Cheers! Giacomo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djakomo Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted March 20, 2009 Welcome to the Forum! I must plead complete ignorance of the R system, but do want to invite you to post pictures on the Photo Forum as soon as you can. Hi Brewer... thanx for the invitation. My problem is that I don't really know how to digitalize pics... I mean, I am still at the "slides" evolution stage! Even of this makes me fill up the room with boxes and frames, it gives me a stronger sense of the "unique image feeling".... but I promise I'll do my best! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted March 20, 2009 Share #6 Posted March 20, 2009 In terms of lens ergonomics and optical quality, I would opt for the 50mm Summunicron. But if you need the extra stop of speed, then you have your answer right there: the Summilux. Sorry, I don't know much about R bodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 20, 2009 Share #7 Posted March 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) An R4 is more like 30 years old, not 18. Good, cheap camera, though, provided you check the light seals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 21, 2009 Share #8 Posted March 21, 2009 I think I'd opt for the R4/Summilux although the Summicron is a superb lens. As for you 35mm Summicron, you need to check that it's a 3 cam lens so it will work correctly on the R4 or 5. The 35 Summicron is a particularly special lens, good luck with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Posted March 21, 2009 Share #9 Posted March 21, 2009 Hi and welcome to this forum. I would choose the R4 because of the Summilux because of the better AL useability and its sharpness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djakomo Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted March 21, 2009 Thanx a lot guys, for both welcomes and suggestions. So it seems that the Lux vs. Cron match is more important than the R5 vs. R4... well, good to know. Honestly I didn't expect that, cause I expected the R5 to be a substantial improve, while the Summicron/Summilux issue was more a subjective one. Also, do you think that exposing at 1.4 could be risky for a good focusing? Whatever, I am going to decide by the end of this week, according to the final details and inspections... of course I'll let you know, to check if I took the wrong decision! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted March 23, 2009 Share #11 Posted March 23, 2009 I had an R3MOT years ago and that seemed a good camera. At that time I could not afford any more lenses so I went back to a Nikon F2As. I think a 50mm F1.4 Nikkor was about £55.00 for a mint example whilst a 50mm Summicron R was about £250.00. But even then I vowed, one day I would like to have an M system Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted March 23, 2009 Share #12 Posted March 23, 2009 An R4 is more like 30 years old, not 18. Good, cheap camera, though... Great when you can say that about a Leica, Andy! The mega expense of digital has made all film cameras seem -- relatively -- "cheap" these days. But cheap shouldn't refer to build quality or performance of a Leica in any respect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubledan Posted March 23, 2009 Share #13 Posted March 23, 2009 When I used R gear many years ago I owned the R4, R5 and R-E, all good cameras; and it was the R-E I used most often, especially when traveling, because of its somewhat lighter weight. Weight is something you might want to consider when it comes to choosing lenses as well. Eventually I swtiched to rangefinders for most photography and sold all the R bodies but kept a few prime R lenses, which I then used on a Canon EOS slr with an adapter. I hate to say it, but the Canon was superior to any of the R's in several respects, from automatic film advance to built-in adjustable flash (to use in a pinch), to brighter viewfinder. Even stopped down quite a bit, it was easy to focus manually. Just a thought. Dan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djakomo Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share #14 Posted March 23, 2009 Really thanks to all of you! At this stage I made up my mind: I'll go for the R4 and the Summilux. Dan, I thought as well at getting a simple adapter to put the lenses on.. but I had the feeling that something was missing. I know, it's just stupid formalism... but you know, I already enter the Leica world via the secondary door of the second hand market... doing it via the backdoor of an adapter would have been too much for my already battered ego! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.