Re: R6 and R7

[photog3@ix.netcom.com (Mel Weinstein )]

You wrote: 
>
>Joe B. writes:
>>It's the results that I'm using the equipment for (mainly!). Thus, as
>>someone who changed from Nikon to Leica, I have no problem at all
>>with the R6 and R7 bodies.
>
>I currently use an old M3 and an F4E and an FM2n. Is the switch to
>Leica R worth the hassle and are the lenses the same as M glass? Folks
>I've talked to said they didn't like the R glass for some reason,
>which was a while ago. Maybe they weren't using it right or something.
>I have one other question, how are the older R bodies, such as the
>R4s and R5? Does anybody still use these older bodies or have they all
>switched to the R7? I've seen in Shutterbug (thanks for the tip about
>finding used M6's) R4s sell for about $500 which seems pretty
>reasonable to me.
>
>Regards,
>
>***************************************************************
>                          Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
>     Mike Sweeney         I took the one less traveled by,
>sweenma@wkuvx1.wku.edu    And that has made all the difference.
>                                                 - Robert Frost
>Mike,

    I am using an R5 and it works beautifully.  The lenses are as sharp 
as I have ever seen.  I have a 24, a 35 f2, a 50 f2 and a 90 f2.  I 
realy like the 35 which is the lens I use most often.  If you don't 
care about the electronics of the R5 than the R4 will be a good choice 
and you can save about $500.   Good luck.

Mel Weinstein
Santa Monica, CA