Re: [Leica] R4 or M?

["Dan S" <dstate1@hotmail.com>]

Jason, I have not encountered corrosion in any Leica camera, so I can not 
comment on that part of the quality issue.  As for the viewfinder, you can 
purchase one of the later R5-R6 focusing screens if the brightness is not 
satisfactory.  It will increase the illumination by about 1-1.5 stops.  I 
have seen them used for about 40.00 usd.

Many of the complaints you have about the R4 were remedied in the later 
R5-R7 cameras.  That said, how many times are you going to need to change 
the exposure compensation switch in every day use?  If it is only 1 or 2  
times on a roll of film we are not talking about a ton of hassles...

The R4, while not the best Leica SLR ever, is certainly a great way to get 
into the system for a minimal cost.  The lenses are MUCH cheaper used than 
comparable M pieces, and there is much greater versatility in the system.

Don't think I am talking down the M, I love mine.  Just be aware of the 
compromises you will have to live with in a rangefinder.  Particularly the 
less accurate representation of wide angle perspective and depth of field.

My final thought is that you should remember that the final quality of your 
photos will be determined by you, the photographer.  You may want to use 
that old R4 for a year to get back in the swing of things...and then move to 
another camera.  An M alone will be no guarantee of good photography.

Good luck and have fun
Dan States
Chicago Ill.
>
>I'm new to the LUG so excuse excuse me for raising old debates.
>
>I have an R4 post 1.6 million (Portuguese) with a 50mm Summicron f2 
>(Canada) which I inherited.  The camera hasn't been regularly used, I have 
>had a lapse from photography but intend to become active again.
>
>I like the solid engineered feel of the Leica but some of the features just 
>don't impress me on such an expensive piece of kit.  First off the black 
>finish on the top plate is beginning to bubble and corrrosion has actually 
>broken through around the eyepiece frame, this on an otherwise mint body, I 
>expect a replacement top plate would exceed the s/h value of the body and 
>in any case I would worry that a repaired camera might come back to me with 
>more faults.  I also have an R4 Winder (Austria) similarly exhibiting signs 
>of corrosion, although the metal is different, white metal alloy instead of 
>the brass of the top plate.  My old OM1N through much heavier service has 
>never suffered in this way, even though some of the paint has worn off to 
>reveal brass underneath.
>
>With regard to the design of the camera I find the viewfinder difficult to 
>use, the shutter speeds would be easier to the left of the frame (I use my 
>right eye) and in many lighting situations the meter readings are very 
>difficult to read.
>
>The film speed and compensation buttons and dial seem poorly designed and 
>not well engineered and the preview lever seems to be almost an unsubtle 
>afterthought tacked on (tendency to stick on mine).
>
>The light seals inside the back cover have all perished, but this seems to 
>be common on any camera of similar age.  The lens, is perfect in every 
>respect, why were Leica unable to manufacture the body to the same 
>standard?
>
>I have considered changing to a rangefinder instead of the R, the main use 
>of the camera will be travel/trekking/landscape photography, weight and 
>size are an issue but I wonder if I would lose too much flexibility.  The 
>M's are beautiful looking cameras and feel suberb to handle.  Is it 
>generally true that M's do not suffer the same quality problems as R's?  
>They clearly hold higher resale values.
>
>Any views/comments/suggestions gladly received.
>
>Jason Hall
>Birmingham, UK
>
>
>
>
>
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com