Vickko
Mentor
Oh, if you don't have any R lenses, I might not recommend jumping in. And in my opinion, R4 isn't the best model to jump in at.
Maybe reconsider why you want SLR in the first place. There are some fine Leica lenses outside of the range that is best covered by the M, such as the 180mm APO, and wide lenses. Shooting SLR at these ranges is best (better viewing, composing). Otherwise I would stick with the M.
Maybe reconsider why you want SLR in the first place. There are some fine Leica lenses outside of the range that is best covered by the M, such as the 180mm APO, and wide lenses. Shooting SLR at these ranges is best (better viewing, composing). Otherwise I would stick with the M.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I fancied an SLR for the lack of parallax issues but having used M bodies previously and having found a very ugly ducking M4-P I may go for that and use the Canon 50 once it's fixed up.
If anyone would like to advise me on what I should offer on the M4-P look out for the thread as I'm about to put it up with a link.
Thanks again
If anyone would like to advise me on what I should offer on the M4-P look out for the thread as I'm about to put it up with a link.
Thanks again
mfogiel
Mentor
I have tried Leicaflex SL2, Leica R4s2 and R5. The Leicaflex SL2 is great if you want an all mechanical body, but if something needs fixing, you better throw it away ( I had a quote for a major CLA on another body for 650 EUR, I gave up...). If you are financially constrained, then R4s2 is great with 2 limitations: some shutter lag and only 1/1000th min speed. However, the camera works well, is pretty small and I found a couple of bodies for an average price of 135 EUR. Leica R5 is to be avoided because of a very squinty VF. I am not sure what magnification has the R6, but if it is like R5, I would never buy such a camera again.
The lenses to recommend would be foremost the Summicron 90 and M Elmarit 60.
If you really want something cheaper, look around for a Minolta XD7 - in practice a twin of Leica R4. There are some great lenses in that line which used to be quite cheap: 50/1.4,58/1.4, 50/1.2, 58/1.2 ( I have this one and it is a gem), 85/2, 85/1.7 and so on.
A more serious alternative in my mind, as far as the body goes, would be Nikon F3 - you can find some of these in great condition for 200 EUR, and these cameras are better than most manual SLR's ever produced. As you certainly know, there are some gems among the Nikon lenses too, and not too expensive.
The lenses to recommend would be foremost the Summicron 90 and M Elmarit 60.
If you really want something cheaper, look around for a Minolta XD7 - in practice a twin of Leica R4. There are some great lenses in that line which used to be quite cheap: 50/1.4,58/1.4, 50/1.2, 58/1.2 ( I have this one and it is a gem), 85/2, 85/1.7 and so on.
A more serious alternative in my mind, as far as the body goes, would be Nikon F3 - you can find some of these in great condition for 200 EUR, and these cameras are better than most manual SLR's ever produced. As you certainly know, there are some gems among the Nikon lenses too, and not too expensive.
rlouzan
Well-known
The problem with the Leicaflex bodies is that if the shutter curtain give up, it will take a camera tech several hours to disassemble and reassemble the camera - not economically viable as mfogiel just pointed out + The Achilles Hell of Leicaflex bodies is decementing of the pentaprism .
The best Leica R camera models are: R4-S, R4-S mod P and R6.2
Regards,
Robert
The best Leica R camera models are: R4-S, R4-S mod P and R6.2
Regards,
Robert
Harry Lime
Practitioner
And you are saying that based on what? Internet hearsay?
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I have the R8, R6.2 and SL.
The R8 is a very, very good camera. It's a little on the heavy side and not as compact as something like the F2. I wish the shutter speed dial was a little firmer, but maybe that's me. Some people have experienced a film scratching problem, but that is a known issue and can be easily fixed. Mine has not had this issue. I have the Winder-R and it could be a little faster for my taste. The Drive-R is a lot faster. The ergonomics are truly among the best I have seen. I've had mine for about 6 years and it has been perfectly reliable.
The R6.2 is a jewel. Very compact and it feels great in hand. The viewfinder is exceptionally bright and the ergonomics are very good. Build quality is very high.
The only complaint I have about the camera is the somewhat long travel on the shutter release. I added a softie, which makes a big difference. This is a very good camera.
The SL is built like a tank. It's almost overkill. The weakest point is the small plate on the front of the finder hump. The viewfinder is exceptionally bright. The silver coating on the prism block may oxidise and weaken with age, but I'm not sure how wide spread a problem that is. I'm not too crazy about the rounded corners in the viewfinder, but that's a matter of personal taste. The camera comes with a plain focusing screen and you can focus accurately across the entire frame. Swapping it for a split screen is expensive and you need to first find one. They are difficult to find. The meter needs a mercury PX625 battery, which is no longer made, so just skip that one. The throw of the film advance lever is very long. I ended up replacing the lever with one from a SL2, which helps.
Personally I would go for an R6/6.2. R7 or R8/9.
Also take a look at the R3. A lot of people knock it, but frankly a lot of the criticism is unfounded.
I don't know enough about the R4/R5.
The R8 is a very, very good camera. It's a little on the heavy side and not as compact as something like the F2. I wish the shutter speed dial was a little firmer, but maybe that's me. Some people have experienced a film scratching problem, but that is a known issue and can be easily fixed. Mine has not had this issue. I have the Winder-R and it could be a little faster for my taste. The Drive-R is a lot faster. The ergonomics are truly among the best I have seen. I've had mine for about 6 years and it has been perfectly reliable.
The R6.2 is a jewel. Very compact and it feels great in hand. The viewfinder is exceptionally bright and the ergonomics are very good. Build quality is very high.
The only complaint I have about the camera is the somewhat long travel on the shutter release. I added a softie, which makes a big difference. This is a very good camera.
The SL is built like a tank. It's almost overkill. The weakest point is the small plate on the front of the finder hump. The viewfinder is exceptionally bright. The silver coating on the prism block may oxidise and weaken with age, but I'm not sure how wide spread a problem that is. I'm not too crazy about the rounded corners in the viewfinder, but that's a matter of personal taste. The camera comes with a plain focusing screen and you can focus accurately across the entire frame. Swapping it for a split screen is expensive and you need to first find one. They are difficult to find. The meter needs a mercury PX625 battery, which is no longer made, so just skip that one. The throw of the film advance lever is very long. I ended up replacing the lever with one from a SL2, which helps.
Personally I would go for an R6/6.2. R7 or R8/9.
Also take a look at the R3. A lot of people knock it, but frankly a lot of the criticism is unfounded.
I don't know enough about the R4/R5.