Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/08/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12:52 PM 8/20/96 PST, you wrote: >** Reply to note from John_McLeod@designlink.com (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 >them. > >Regards, > >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 14850 607-272-7338 CEL14@CORNELL.EDU