Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Larry.Zaks@DANA.COM wrote: > > On Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 02:18:35 -0500 (EST) ChipZHZ@aol.com wrote: > > >R3- First Leica electronic based on Minolta XE-1. Spot metering and > >averaging. 35,600 black,4,250,chrome, 25,000 MOT. Both common. Mine > >developed meter problems shortly after purchase. Manual or auto > >(apeture priority?) Rather low resale value. > > The above raised my curiosity. In the KEH Camera Holiday '97 catalog, the > R3MOT's in similar condition are less than the R3's. I do recall the Minolta > XE-1 vintage 1975 or 1976 and at the time thought it was a very nice camera. > My questions are: > > 1) Why might the R3MOT be selling for less than the R3 (at KEH anyway)? Usually the other way around. > 2) Is it foolish to buy an R3 or R3MOT for mechanical reasons (is it not as > durable or mechanically reliable as other R's)? Definitely not foolish if looking for a cheap way to get into the Leica R system. > 3) The mercury battery problem. I assume the R3 family took mercury cells. > Does Wien make an air cell that replaces the mercury cell? Does not use mercury cellss. > 4) Regarding the R3MOT; it appears there is a winder and motor etc. > what would be a better choice? Only a winder available. > 5) Would choosing a camera body from the R3 family be a decent way > to get into the R system of lenses? Yes, it is a cheap way to get into the R system with a reasonably modern camera. > 6) Finally, I assume the R3 and all subsequent R bodies use 3 cam lenses > to take advantage all possible exposure automation. Is this true? > It uses 3-cam lenses. Any thoughts, opinions or information you care to share on the subject would > be most appreciated. I have had good success with an R-3Mot. > Regards, > > Larry Zaks