Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/08/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Re: Leica-Users List Digest V1 #160
From: "Charles E. Love, Jr." <>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 23:13:38 -0400 (EDT)

At 12:52 PM 8/20/96 PST, you wrote:
>** Reply to note from (John McLeod) 19 Aug 1996
15:51:26 GMT 
>> I also own a Canon EOS-1n.  While the Canon is an incredible picture-taking  
>> machine and the Leica M is compact and jewel-like in its operation, I would  
>> have more trouble parting with the R6 than any camera I own.  I enjoy the  
>> feel of the camera, its balance between simplicity and features, and the  
>> quiet, yet solid, sound of its shutter.  I realize few will agree with the  
>> above, but it forward nonetheless as conclusions from my own experience. 
>On the issue of R cameras, it's not the Minolta heritage of the shell 
>that counts, bit some of the parts inside being Minolta (mostly the 
>advance mechanism) that probably contribute. The weak part of most R 
>cameras in my experience is the film advance, the lack of fast flash sync 
>and that's about it. Not AF, that's ony important to people like me that 
>shoot a lot of action. I too use the EOS1n, but wish I could also keep an 
>R system hand along with my M. But at this point, I can't afford to do 
>that, since I work for a newspaper (i.e. cheapskates).  
>Otherwise, I'm in complete agreement with you. I've used R cameras since 
>'81 - R3, R4mot, R4, R4s, R4sP, R7. Of those, the best is the R7, but of 
>the others, R4 and R4sP. The are wonderful tools once you get to kow 
>Eric Welch 
>Grants Pass, OR

I've had  a Leicaflex standard, SL2, R3, R4, R4SP, R5 and R6, and have been
using the cameras since the late '70s.

 I liked the way the R4 worked well enough, but it was incredibly
unreliable.  Leitz kindly sent me 3 different ones, none of which lasted
more than a few months before the electronic gremlins hit again (the first
one was repaired 5 times before we got into the trading game).  I have heard
from lots of sources that R4's (and R4s's) were a disaster until the very
last ones (one place this was written up was one of the collector guides, I
think the blue book--and market prices for used ones reflect this problem).
Finally Leitz gave me an R4SP, which worked fine, as do the R5 and R6.

The SL2 was wonderful to use--the same quality feel as an M camera, a feel
none of the later R cameras replicates--but I found myself never choosing
it, because of the weight and lack of aperture-preferred automation and dual
metering.  The R3 was reliable and a good picture taker--I just seemed to
wind up choosing the later (smaller) bodies once I had them.  I got an R6
because I do a lot of close-up work, and only the R6 had a mirror lifter at
the time.  It's fine--but not an SL2!
Charles E. Love, Jr.
517 Warren Place
Ithaca, New York