Re: [Leica] R5-R7 decision

["Aram Langhans" <alanghans@komoto.naches.wednet.edu>]

Thank, David, for you comments.  I have 5 lenses already and I know they are
not cheap.  But, like you, I didn't buy them for cheap quality, but to give
me the best images for a long time.  The last time I bought a camera was
almost 30 years ago when I bought two Rollei SL-35's because I wanted good
lenses.  I have 5 Zeiss lenses for them and I only got into Leica last year
because I was having meter problems with my Rollei's that no one could
solve.  Not even Harry Fleenor.  I still have those cameras and don't know
if I can part with them, as they have been my buddies for so long.  I have
shot maybe three rolls with them the last year, however.  A shame to let
them sit, but we have a history, one that I hope to develop with Leica.

Aram


 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:28:55 -0800
> From: David Rodgers <drodgers@swiftnet.com>
> Subject: > Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011113074925.00a5c6b8@swiftnet.com>
> References:
>
> Aram,
>
> I've used many different camera bodies over the years and the R7 is my
> favorite. The Nikon F3 is a close second, and these two bodies seem very
> much alike to me. All manual, yes, but with just the right features,
> relatively modern electronics, and durability. Still, it's hard to believe
> that at one point the R7 MSRP was around $2,700.
>
> I never thought the 1/2 stops for shutter speeds was a big feature. But I
> like the bright viewfinder, MLU and most of all the size and handling. The
> exposure system in any mode is right on. I don't have a motor drive. I've
> come close on a number of occasions to buying one, but felt that a drive
> would change the feel and handling too much.  Same with a winder. Plus I
> the R7 may be the last manual focus SLR body I buy. I want it to last for
a
> long time. Motor drives can be hard on a body. The R7 can probably take
it,
> but that's still more pounding than my thumb gives it.
>
> I've considered an R5 or RE as a second body. My SL sort of fits that role
> but my one ROM lens (80-200/4) won't fit on it. Plus, my SL has be
> relagated to High Speed IR film, something I don't shoot quickly. I
usually
> carry the R7 and an M6. If I had a backup I probably wouldn't even use it.
>
> Having looked at a dozen or so R5s and REs over the past year I can say
I'd
> probably still want an R7. It just feels more durable. Whether or not it's
> worth the extra money is a tough choice. Rather than features for me it
> would come down to how often and how long I plan to use it. I use my R7 a
> lot. A couple of times a week at least, and I plan to do so for a long
> time. I just bought a 60/2.8 that will probably be my primary R lens. If
> you're use the R system a lot I'd go for the R7. I doubt you'll be
> disappointed you spent the extra money. If you're use it occasionally,
then
> the R5 might be a better choice. I don't know how much an upgrade and R5
is
> over an R4, though.
>
> Something to keep in mind is that there are really no bargain R lenses. I
> use Leica because I think they're the highest quality tools available in
> 35mm photography.  After I bought 4 3-cam lenses for my SL I bought an R7
> and never looked back. Forward at the R8 maybe, but never back :-).
>
> Dave
>


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html