Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/07/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 03:29 PM 7/20/96 -0700, you wrote: >>On the R3: if you can get past the fact that the R3 is very close to >being a Minolta XE7, it's a fine camera--I used one for a long time. >It's reliable, and has spot and averaging metering with >aperture-preferred automation .... > >>If you get an R3, it must have the third lug on the lenses. > >The R3 then uses the "standard" modern three lug lenses? Is there a >substantial difference between the R3 and the newer R "mechanical" SLR >cameras? > The R3 is not a mechanical camera, but an electronic one (that is, the shutter is electronically controlled and will not operate w/o batteries except at one speed). The R3 also operates in shutter-preferred automatic mode as well as manual. The R6, on the other hand, is a mechanical camera, that is, can operate w/o battery. The battery powers only the light meter, not the shutter. It will operate only in manual mode--you set both aperture and shutter speed. It is of course smaller than the R3, with diodes instead of needles to indicate exposure, and has some extra features such as TTL flash and mirror lifter. Given Leica's traditionalists, it will probably hold its value well. The R6 does require the third lug--it does not interface with its lenses in the same way the SL and SL2 did. (BTW, the R4, R5, and R7 are all electronic, with multiple automatic modes.) >It appears that for reasons known only to the gods, the "R" bodies sell >at a substantial discount. I travel to Central America and other places >not on the usual tourist routes. I would rather lose a less expensive >"R" than a more expensive "M." Both systems appear to do much the same >thing with Leica lenses, however only the gods of the marketplace can >say where prices for "R" and "M" cameras will settle this month in >Shutterbug! > Well, the R and M are good for different things. I thought Popular Photography said a neat thing when they compared the SLR to a family sedan, which can do all kinds of tasks, and the M to a classic sports car, which is terrific at a limited range of tasks. M's are great for photographing people (quiet, unobtrusive, hand-holdable at slow shutter speeds) and travel (small size)--but forget closeups, long lenses (except for the old Visoflex), perspective control lenses, graduated filters.... >The R3 appears to be a viable alternative. Would an R6 confer >significan advantages if both take the same lens systems? They do both take the same lenses. The R3 is bigger, heavier, and more automatic--as well as being cheaper, and available, of course, only used. The R6 is more expensive (even used), smaller, and manual (not dependent on batteries except for the meter). Your call! >Glenn > >Glenn Thrall >gthrall@ix.netcom.com > > > Charles E. Love, Jr. 517 Warren Place Ithaca, New York 14850 607-272-7338 CEL14@CORNELL.EDU