Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, JOHN GILBERT wrote: >>>>>>>>>Today, the >>candidate R user must weigh price/risks with R3/4/5 2nd hand offers, >>which do not have a very good reliability reputation, even on this list= , >>and which are very low-key spec wise. <<<<<<<<<< >> >Is this true? Is this the general attitude on the list toward those bodies? > >JG John, My experience is with the R4s and R4sP. I purchased the R4s new in 1984 = or so and had no trouble with it. One of the R4sP bodies I purchased used; after I bought a winder I found that this body did not work right with th= e winder. It was repaired by Leica USA and has worked well since then. The= other R4sP was rebuilt from a wreck (mechanics: me, electronics: Leica US= A) and has been perfectly reliable. What I have read is that early R4 bodies (not R4s or R4sP) were very trouble-prone. The problematic bodies had serial numbers below 1,600,000= =2E Early R3 production was also notoriously unreliable. Problems usually occurred right away. I suspect that any R3 or R4 which has been used muc= h and is now functioning properly either worked right from the start or has= been repaired. For this reason I'd be more likely to buy a used R3 or R4= in "user" condition than one in "mint" condition. One's perception of a camera's reliablility will be influenced by how har= d the camera is used. Some bodies will hold up well under continuous, heav= y use, while others may have trouble with this usage but show no signs of trouble after years of more moderate use. My R-bodies have had only moderate use. Doug Herr Sacramento