Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Otto Braasch wrote: > leave the R-series when the RTS III came out. > I experienced similar failure rates with the R3, R4 and R5 in the > 80ties as I do now with the RTS III and until today I have not seen > any figures on other professional cameras, which would tell me, that > they are (much) more reliable. Unless more users come up with hard > figures on failure rates of their cameras, which could be compared, > it would be wrong to downgrade the RTS III. LUGnuts: Interestingly, dependability issues come up mostly with expensive cameras. I remember reading about Chris Jons who works with NGS a lot saying he typically takes on a job to remote areas 6 Nikon f4s and 6 N90s. And at the cost of N90 versus R8, you can take three. I know when I go on a location shoot where I am away from rental houses, taking only three Nikon bodies leaves me feeling anxious. Too much is at stake. I have an 80-200 zoom, but always take my 105, 135 and 180 manual lens just in case. I remember being in a seminar with Tom Grill on stock photography (he is partner in Comstock and a high level image producer) where is said that the Leica M was the only camera he felt he could be comfortable taking only one body on an extensive travel session into contries where he needed to look like an amateur. I suspect the Leica R6/6.2 has the same dependability. Since lenses are the most important part of the system, I'd accept less costly bodies at the expense of longevity so I could better afford multiples that I must have in any case. As an aside, I just don't understand why anyone would choose to put a Russian coke bottle on a Leica body. But if the Russians had made a M style body that was reasonably dependable, focused accurately and kept the film flat--I might like to order several, especially if they had small, quiet motors and accepted Leica lenses. Donal Philby San Diego