Re: [Leica] R4--A bad Camera?

[Kent Jon Peters <KPETERS@huntel.net>]

palmieri wrote:
> 
> Ted Grand wrote (snipped)--
> 
> >The previous cameras were
> >replaced due to "upgrading models" and not because they broke down. (other
> >than one no good rotten *#*#!!%&*** R4!!  Leica replaced it!):)
> 
> Hello All--
> 
> I have an R4 that was just "reconditioned" to Leica specs within the last
> month. The focus was off as was the light meter. There were some other minor
> things that were taken care of. Maybe it was foolish of me to spend as much
> to have this work done as I see these cameras selling for on the used
> market.
> 
> Over the years I have used this camera sparingly because I had a hard time
> focusing it (and still do). I find that the finder is much darker than my
> Nikons and it is hard to read the settings in dull light. But, these are
> really not big complaints because when I get it right the camera is able to
> produce some really outstanding quality photos. I use it on a tripod 90% of
> the time so focusing it accurately is not really an issue as I can take my
> time to get it right. I use a diopter to help me get the focus right.
> 
> I would like to know what makes the R4 such a criticized camera. Not that I
> plan to argue about or defend its merits and/or faults, only that I would
> like to understand from much more knowledgeable "Leica" people what its
> faults are in absolute terms and relative to other R Leicas. Too, what
> should I be alert about in using this oldish camera (which looks like it
> just came out of the box!)?
> 
> Any advice, help and information would be very much appreciated.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Peter in NJ
- ----------
My r4's are well used and I love them dearly.  I sleep with one under my
pillow.  You can also make the viewfinder brighter by upgrading the
focussing screen.  It helped mine.  kent