[Leica] R 6.2

[Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>]

The R6.2 is the finest mechanical SLR available. I, however, am not sure I
understand the desire to abandon the R7 in favor of the R6.2. Basically,
the R6.2 is an R6 with a 1/2000 shutter. Perhaps some internal refinements.
The R7, in manual mode, is still better than the R6.2 in many ways. The R7
is the most refined and bug free R camera in the R3 to R7 chain. One
feature of the R7 that I find an absolute necessity (I traded up from R6 to
R7 for this feature) is 1/2 shutter speeds. The mirror dampening, light
meter sensitivity and accuracy, is the best. I would personally not even
think of going backward from an R7 to an R6.2. Maybe I don't mean
backwards, but I won't give up the R7 1/2 speeds and viewfinder info. I use
my R7's in manual mode always. But the R7 has those little extras that make
it worthwhile.

If you are afraid of battery failure, well, you cannot beat the R6.2. But
if you have spare batteries in your bag, it's a moot point.

IMHO

Jim


At 04:06 AM 6/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>My basic system is M6 and R7, also some lenses.  It comes in waves, but the
>R6.2 is a consideration of my Leica yearnings.
>I've very little experience using this camera, although more with the R6.
>Is the .2 a big .2?  Is it better to M6 things and use an R7 for extended
>features (i.e. priority stuff and I guess that's it!) Or are there any among
>the LUG that find it 'reasonable' to put the R7 aside and the R 6.2 in?
>I've had much exposure with the R8. Perhaps I should go this route.  But
>perhaps not.  The money, yeah but I'll leave that out 'cause it just gets
>more cumbersome.  By setting aside the R7 (at least not using it as my
>primary SLR camera) am I reverting back to anything like de-evolution?   Or
>is the 6.2 just right.  Any opinions would be helpful, especially from those
>who must buy things (Leica stuff) just because they can't help it.  That
>would be from the horse's mouth (?)
>