Re: [Leica] Re: R4 = repair it at least four times

["Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi>]

The German magazine Color Foto did a survey in 1989 among its readers a=
nd
24.3% of Leicas had problems - most of these were model R4. How many - =
it
was a bit cryptically stated but 30% of the R3 cameras had problems and=
 the
number for R4 was even higher so that the reliable models - the R4s and=
 the
rangefinders - helped the overall picture only slightly. So I guess you=
 are
right anout R4, the early ones at least. BTW the worst was Rolleiflex S=
L
2000 F - 57.1% had problems - Olympus OM-4 51.7% and Minox 35 GT 40.0%
problems. Interesting! Raimo

- ----------
> From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@islandnet.com>
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: R4 =3D repair it at least four times
> Date: 02. kes=E4kuuta 1998 21:43
>=20
> Christian wrote:
>=20
> <<<<<< Now it happened a third time. From these experiences I would s=
ay:
> stay away from R4's.>>>>>>>>
>=20
> Hi Christian,
>=20
> I wont bother LUG members once again of my threatening Leica to smash=
 an
R4
> to pieces on their front steps with national TV and wire service stil=
ls
> photogs doing there recording of the event, if they didn't give me a =
new
> camera instead of trying to fix the piece of junk for the fourth time=
. I
> wouldn't buy an R4 for a dime unless it had the guts taken out and
totally
> replaced! No matter what serial number!:)
>=20
> Some of the early R4's off the assemblyline models had the same junk =
guts
> as the crap guts of the R3!  They were fixed and the R4 actually beca=
me a
> fine working camera after Leitz fixed whatever the horror story innar=
ds
> were.
>=20
> But for my money I'd buy an SL before I'd buy an R4 or save my money =
and
go
> right, get an R8! :)
>=20
> ted
>=20