If what I want is the most durable manual SLR that is both flawless in finish yet rugged in nature, will I be happy with an R6.2? Does an R6.2 "feel" like a Leica? When I hold an M6, I am slightly in awe of its craftsmanship. Will I have this same feeling with the R6.2? I’d appreciate any feelings on the subject. Thanks.

-- Augusten Burroughs (talkingdog@aol.com), December 29, 2000

Answers

Augusten:

I have a M6 outfit and to be perfectly honest you might be better off with the Nikon SLR system. Nikon makes some really good equipment (especially their old FM2 and F3 manual focus cameras) and their lenses are more reasonably priced. I appreciate the bokeh that can be obtained from the M series lenses (abeit from only a few) and I have no idea if this is the same with the R lenses. I terms of compactness, the FM2 is just as compact as the R6.2, loads cheaper, lenses are of comparable quality and loads cheaper. IMHO getting an M is reasonable for Leica because of the reduced retrofocus that allows for more accurate correction of the wide-angle lenses (not to mention the ease of focusing with a rangefinder in low-light and lack of mirror slap). These advantages are lost when you go to any SLR system so you must rationalize what you are really spending money on.

Any relations to Robert Burroughs by chance????

Regards,

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), December 29, 2000.

The questions you ask are very subjective and the only one really capable of answering them is you yourself. You need to get an R6.2 in your hands. Basically, the R6 and 6.2 (I own 2 6.2's and one 6) feel pretty much like the R4-R7. Except for a little buzz of the shutter mechanism at certain speeds you wouldn't tell the difference. I also own M cameras and I've had enough trouble with them that I'm not really in awe of their quality any more. I happen to like the 6/6.2 bodies. I just got an R8 today, so probably will be e-baying one of the R6.2's soon, but other than the R8 the only other R I'd want would be the 6 or 6.2.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 29, 2000.

"When I hold an M6, I am slightly in awe of its craftsmanship. Will I have this same feeling with the R6.2?"

With a Leicaflex or Leicaflex SL/SL2, yes. With the R6.2, I don't think so. The R6.2 is basically a $2000 Minolta-derived version of the FM2n. You get to mount R lenses on it, but it never really tripped my trigger...

"what I want is the most durable manual SLR"

Sebastio Salgado does OK with his in some inhospitable places, but my money's on the original N**** F in this contest. Of course then there's N****'s alphabet soup meter coupling to deal with. Of course I find Leica's x-cam situation equally confusing.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), December 29, 2000.

I love the Leica M rangefinder system but in a SLR I'd personally go for a manual Nikon. I agree with John Chan with the exception that I favor the Nikon F2-AS body for it's solidness and precision. The F2- AS was the last of the manual professional Nikons with the DP-12 photomic head, which is very reliable. You could buy a lot of Nikon glass (especially mintish second hand Nikkor prime lenses) for the same money you'd pay for three or four Leica lenses.

-- M.V. (mahv@xtra.co.nz), December 29, 2000.

As far as the feel is concerned, you should judge for yourself at your local camera store. On the quality of the lenses, however, I feel that you would be better off with the R6.2 above the aforementioned Nikons. I too own a M outfit with the standard 35/50/90 combo, and like many others went with Nikon gear for my SLR because of $$ factors. The reason a lot of people do this is because as stated above, a 3 lens combo is standard for the rangefinder, but many people will have everything from 20mm to 300mm for their SLR's. You'd better be on good terms with your bank manage to do this with Leica. But this year I sold all the Nikon (2 bodies, 8 lenses), and bought an R body with the 3 lenses I use most with an SLR (macro, 90mm, 2X TC). When I want wide or standard I use the M6. I used the 20mm once in the last two years. I find that most people buy way more lenses than they use, so cut back and buy the best. Most lens tests confirm that the Leica glass, including the SLR glass is better. Especially with the Macro I noticed an immediate improvement. As an aside I can handhold the 90 to a lower shutter speed because the release of the R6.2 is noticably smoother than the Nikons I owned.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), December 29, 2000.

If you are going to actually use your cameras to take pictures, rather than admire the fit and finish, then I believe that for the money, Nikons with the last AIS lenses will deliver high quality images and not break the bank.

I use F3s and FM2s for my bodies... the FM2 is the contemporary of the R6.2, but at a quarter the price, I don't believe it is much less of a camera, if less at all. For a user, the lower price assures that getting the picture, rather than "protecting" the investment, is the priority. Mine has been dropped, soaked and subjected to severe environments. After 17 years, it has never been serviced and the shutter (based on my flawlessly exposed slides) is dead on.

Since so many Nikon users are trading "up" to auto focus, the abundance of readily available AI / AIS lenses is allowing USERS to assemble outfits that would have been financially prohibitive 10 years ago. For well under a thousand Dollars I bought 3 pristine lenses, a 24mm f/2.8, a 35mm f/1.4 and a 105mm f/2.5 (a true classic!). I have completed side by side tests of the 35 and 105 against the 35mm Summicron and 90mm Elmarit M and in 90% of the shots, there are no major differences, the 35mm Summicron beats the Nikon at f/2.0, but after f/2.8 they converge, and at f/8, you would be hard pressed to choose the "better" image.

If you want a high quality rangefinder, then it is the Leica M... the competition has not developed a track record yet. But for SLRs, only some sense of loyalty would keep you in a system that can be nearly matched, (or surpassed) at a fraction of the cost. As a user, I choose the economical route. I may break my tools in use, and I want to be able to replace them without a ridiculous sticker shock. My "cheap" Nikons are almost old enough to vote and show no sign of quitting... very cost effective.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 29, 2000.

I'm an M fanatic (3 bodies and 8 of the current lenses - my bank manager sends me Christmas cards) but I have to agree with others on this thread - for a manual focus SLR I'd stay with Nikon.

I've handled the R6.2 and the R8, but I still think the Nikon F3 is the apotheosis of the manual focus 35mm SLR. Its construction is at least as good as the the 6.2, it has AE if you want it, it feels sleek and ergonomic (without that ridiculous motor, anyway) and it is in no way exceeded mechanically (or in feel) by the Leicas. Generations of pros have taken it into situations that we can't even conceive of (like the F and F2 before it), and it keeps on running. Plus it's still fully factory repairable, unlike the F and F2.

My favourite lenses for it include the 28/2.8 AIS, the 55/2.8 Micro, the legendary 105/2.5 and the incredible 180/2.8 AF. Others will recommend the seminal 24/2.8, the 35/1.4, the original 85/1.8 and either the 50/1.8 AIS or the 50/2.0.

All together, an unbeatable manual focus package that won't leave you short of money for film for the next ten years.

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), December 30, 2000.

The camera body - Leica, Nikon, Canon, or any other - is a light tight box to hold film and a shutter. What matters more is the glass that forms the image on film. I prefer Leica glass, therefore I use a Leica body.

I've been through the heart of the Nikon system - F thru F4. I prefer the Leica R6.2 and R7 because of the lineup of prime R lenses. I still think the Nikon is a fine system. I don't think the glass compares however, and that's the deciding factor for me.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), December 30, 2000.

I have to agree with Ken here. However the camera body feels, it is the lens that is the deciding factor. I have had many Nikon AI lenses, but I have gradually traded them in for R primes, well at least those focal lengths that I really like, mainly because they are so expensive, even used ones. It has nothing to do with sharpness per se, but the way Leitz lenses do colour. I just like them so much more than Nikkors. OK, this is not a Leica vs XXX thread, so forgive me if I have strayed. The point I am trying to make is, decide on the type of glass you like first, then think about the body. To do otherwise is to have it backwards. Happy New Year to all.

-- Steven Fong (steven@ima.org.sg), December 30, 2000.

I own many mechanical Nikons (FTn, F2A, Nikkormat FT3, 2 FM10's)and used to own several F3HP's (which are *not* mechanical, they die except for 1 shutter speed if the batteries fail). All are durable, reliable bodies. Some of the Nikkor lenses (as someone outlined in a post above, I agree with this lineup completely) give the Leica glass a run for the money optically (although the R lenses are mechanically more solid). What all those Nikon bodies lack that the R6.2 gives you is 1)an eyepiece adjustable in 1/4 diopters from -2 to +2, which is a real help to nearsighted bifocal wearers who need a little + compensation to focus the ground glass, since it is at a virtual distance of about 1m; and 2)a spot meter. All the Nikons except the F3 are 60/40 center-weighted, the F3 is 80/20 but still not selective. I use my R6 and 6.2 100% in selective mode.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 30, 2000.

FWIW, Tomas Tomasy, who has written several books on camera repair, states that the Canon F1 is the toughest camera he's ever enountered.

I've had them all break on me. Leica, Canon F1, Nikon, Minolta, Exakta, Alpa, etc. Keep it clean and lubed every decade, and you'll have fewer breakdowns.

The *BEST* quiddity (mechanical loveliness) in a camera I've ever encountered was an Alpa 10d. #2 is my Leica M3, as overhauled by Sherry Krauter. It's serial number is above one million.

(Listen to us! like a bunch of Ham radio types, talking equipment...)

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), December 30, 2000.

Yes, but that Nikkor 105/2.5 is a beautiful lens.

-- ralph carter (ralph@shine.com), December 30, 2000.

Yes it is. Some of my all-time favorite slides were taken with the Nikkor 105/2.5. My love of that focal length prompted me to then try the 90mm Summicron R, then the 100mm APO R. The Leica lenses stunned me, and I was on my way. I haven't been disappointed since. I'm not foolish enough to believe that R lenses are everything to everybody - they aren't even for me. But my point in this thread is that you should make a decision about your glass first, then survey the available bodies to make best use of your favorite glass according to your priorities, your style, and of course your pocketbook. Our differeces is what makes the world go 'round.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), December 31, 2000.

I see the "Leica Feel" extends well beyond the camera itself. I'm blown away by the quality of the answers to my question. And I really appreciate people taking the time to answer so thoughtfully. There were so many excellent points; I have a lot to think about now. I actually have a tank-ish F3 and it's a great camera; I use it with a 1.2/50. The trouble is, no batteries=no shots. Maybe I'm delusional and talking myself into it, but I also think there's something about the leica glass that is, well, magical. So that point -start with which glass you like and go from there- was well taken. Again, thanks.

-- Augusten Burroughs (TalkingDog@aol.com), December 31, 2000.

Leica glass is indeed beautiful, however unless you do slides or B&W you probably won't see much of a difference if any from Nikon glass. If you do mainly color prints processed at a one hour lab you will surely be disappointed.

-- George Ryan (grabil@clear.net), December 31, 2000.

George:

Let me preface this by saying that I have never used R series lenses. My experience is with M series and they aren't the very latest models. I also have 3 Nikon bodies with 14 lenses.

I can see a difference on all of the film types that I have tried, including print film that was commercially developed. That is not to say that the shots with the Leica lenses were always better; just noticably different. In high contrast situations [in my experience] I prefer slides made with the Nikon lenses. The opposite=the opposite. In between, it just depends on the subject, the film and the lighting.

I have found the Nikon lenses and bodies [F2, FE2, FM2] to be very reliable. Actually [with the exception of motor drives; I presently have three that don't work] the only piece of junk that I have from Nikon is a 55 f2.8 micro. It has been returned 4 times to have oil cleaned from the dia. I have now given-up and will order a new lens. When you began to know the repair people on a first name basis, that is the only option.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), January 01, 2001.

Augusten

You really have to try it yourself. The R6.2 is a very well made camera and has a very nice feel and is well designed and reliable. As it is a manual camera without many bells and whistles then it is always difficult to compare its specifications with other matrix metered etc. cameras as the question is whether its specifications measure up - most of these specifications are irrelevant. A case in point is that I have the 1/2000 sec on the R6.2 but have used it maybe once or twice, so I personally feel no need for a 1/4000 or even 1/8000 sec. I agree with the others that the quality of finish of an SL, or SL2 is superior, but many would say the same about the quality of the M3-M4 over the M6 (the old Contarex is a much nicer camera in build quality than anything made today too). The quality is excellent. SLRs are not really very exotic and we all know what they are so I think you are unlikely to feel awe. The rangefinders are different and to some extent this stimulates the senses more than any SLR in my opinion. The lenses are the main thing and they are certainly spectacular, I was a Canon (FD) user and was converted in the mid 80s. Much as I like Nikons, having got the R system I think I would regret exchanging it. The cam system for the R-lenses is pretty simple actually. One cam for the Leicaflex, two cam for the SL - SL2, three cams for R3 to R8, and ROM for full R8 functionality.

Personally, in my opinion the R6.2 really scores over the Nikons in its screen brightness and good ergonomic design, but the lenses are the thing....

-- Robin Smith (rsmith@springer-ny.com), January 02, 2001.

Augusten,

I have to agree with the folk who say that the glass comes first. That was what persuaded me to go down the Leica R route. I don't believe there is any better choice than Leica R for optics (and that includes Leica M).

People don't buy Leica R bodies for the latest whizz-bang camera technology, of course. My own R7 has everything I expect to need but it's no match for a Canon EOS 1V, for instance. On the other hand, the R7's a heck of a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper and I can use Leitz lenses, so I'm a happy camper. It has a good, solid feel to it and inspire confidence (in me, at least). My experience is with the R7 not the 6.2; however, your own description of "the most durable manual SLR that is both flawless in finish yet rugged in nature" fits all the R cameras pretty well, IMHO.

Regards,

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 04, 2001.

I was interested in Tom's comments about the Alpa - I agree they are the most beutifully finished 35mm cameras ever made - their various optics are also reputed to be excellent. Unfortunately they were an even smaller company than Leica and relied on outside optical suppliers and the result was they were unable to compete even vaguely on price or system completeness - but they were heavy and magnificent. Somewhat idiosynchratic too from what I remember.

-- Robin Smith (rsmith@springer-ny.com), January 04, 2001.

When handling my R4 (I don't own an R6) I don't get a feeling of awe as I do with my M cameras. I do, however, get a feeling of "Aw, I wish they had made it a little bigger and easier to grip." It feels like it wants to slip out of my hand. My M cameras and Nikon FE2 don't feel like that. I think this is caused by the right-hand end of the camera being a little short - another quarter inch would help - and there seems to be a slight taper, like a watermelon seed. I bought a used motor drive to help me hang onto it. The square cross section grip on the drive, and the leather strap, help a lot. The feeling of awe comes, not from handling the camera, but in seeing the results. Color seems more saturated than with Nikon, and black and white prints are very snappy. The comments are based on the 50mm and 90mm Summicron.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 04, 2001.

About the Alpa...nicely built, but very qwirky. And despite admirable innovations, its age really shows (semi-auto stop-down metering, dim viewfinder with no eye relief, jumpy exposure LEDs, remove the baseplate to change the battery!, and film loading reminiscent of the M3).

In front of me right now I have an Alpa 11si (the last true Alpa model made mid-70s) and an R6.2. I fool around with the Alpa. I shoot pictures with the R.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), January 09, 2001.

You buy R body not for the body, for the Leica R lenses-- the best of all SLR lenses contrast and in color rendition.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 10, 2001.

Let's face facts boys and girls, Using the Leica R is hell. It's only to use the glass. I have not tried the R8 but from some of the reviews it sounds quirky on the electronics. I just purchased a whole used R set of lenses and bodies on Ebay and using the RE bodies on one photo essay was just an unbelievable struggle. Try checking depth of preview with the motor on. In a hurry? No auto rewind. The noise of the motor would wake the dead. The price one pays to use their glass is quite heavy (and I'm not talking money). Still, it's hard to boot the beast out the door. Anyone know if Leica will make a digital body for all their 3 cam lenses? Let's face it, digital is here to stay. I recently purchased a Leica V35 and the spring hook was broken. I had to return to the dealer. I wonder if that was an omen?

-- Jeff Widener (imagechase@aol.com), October 16, 2001.

This is a very old thread! Augusten, if you are still reading this, then go to a Leica dealer and try out a R6.2 and R8 body. The R8 is a magnificently built camera, but you buy Leica cameras for the LENSES.

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), October 17, 2001.

Leica equipment is way overpriced and overrated. If money is not an issue for you, knock your self out. But if not, Nikon equipment, particulurly older bodys and lenses is very inexpensive compared to Leica equipment. Manual focus Minolta equipment is excellent too. The best Minolta body, in my opinion, is the X-570, because it has match- LED metering in manual mode, and lacks the useless (to me) fully auto mode. Minolta lenses are of excellent optical and outstanding mechanical quality. I have my Great Grandfather's Leica screw mount rangerfinder, and given its age its a magnifecent camera, I also have the original Leicaflex for a while, and I hated it.

-- GB (gbagwin@hotmail.com), January 21, 2002.