I have a chance to buy a VERY good condition R4 with 50mm f2 Summicron as a start in Leica. I know some of the pitfalls of early models, this one's serial number is above 1611000. Local prices(in Australia) are much higher than US (sigh) but I beleive this is worth pursuing...any ideas on what I should keep an eye out for? Thank you.

-- Mary Quayle (maryquayle@hotmail.com), January 18, 2002

Answers

My first leica was a post 160..... r4 which worked well at first. Unfortunately, after a time the winder mechanism broke (first manifested itself in irregular spacing) - according to the dealer this put it beyond repair. Without wishing to be unduly down on these minolta-made bodies, my repairer claimed that they had been built-up with plastic shims and seemed to find them a bit laughable. It may be that he was wrong/biased etc. I think I'd probably lean more towards an SL myself (given that they're not too much more money (at least here in UK)) these have a wonderful solidity to them and excellent viewfinders. Having said above, if it's all too late or your mind is made up, I was quite happy with my R4...before it started mis-behaving.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 18, 2002.

The R4 was not Minolta made. It was a further development of the Minolta XE7 derived R3 (which was also not made by Minolta). If you get a good working R4 then they are quite a nice camera. Personally, I could not live without a diopter adjust, but otherwise it should work quite well. While Steve's may have broken, we really have no idea how many rolls of film had gone through it. I also assume that Steve's was no longer "economic to repair". I am sure Leica could have repaired it.

My advice is that as long as the price seems right the R4 can be a good buy, as they are relatively unfashionable (like the R3) so can be cheap.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 18, 2002.

Good points: Nice looking and well designed camera that can take Leica R glass. Good meter. Decent finder.

Bad points: Winders clunky, no TTL flash exposures, lots of mirror slap makes low speed shots hard to hand hold. Leica R glass is great but limited affordable lens availablilty compared to just about every other camera system made. Dated electronics reliability questionable now that the cameras are over 20 years old. They all need a new foam seal kit installed.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 18, 2002.

Yes, to be clear, I meant "put it beyond economic repair in the view of the second hand dealer" who offered to replace it (the other unit he offered me from his stock had faulty metering so I declined his offer). I always thought they were made by Minolta for Leica - sorry if I got this wrong. I once compared the minolta body (xe7?) and noticed striking similarities with the door opened. I got the impression, that whilst they were fine in their day, they hadn't been built to last in quite the way that other Leica's are/were. I guess what I mean is that these are fairly old cameras now. FWIW, I have had others of the Minolta- inspired R's and never really liked any of them too much. Perhaps this is prejudice on my part? More likely, that I don't find the v/f's too glasses-friendly. Anyway, apologies if I've caused confusion.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 18, 2002.

Actually, I think if the camera is working now (about 18-20 years on) and you have a good three month warranty then the electronics are likely to continue to function just fine. If you want a winder it is clunky but works very well which is what counts. The point about the R4 is that it should not cost a lot as it does not have TTL flash, 1/2000 sec etc. etc. As such it works as a fine introduction to the R system, one might argue that an SL is nicer, but the R4 has a much more sensitive meter and does has automation when you need it.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 18, 2002.

I have an R3 that I bought a year or so back that works flawlessly. I agree with the others that if, after all this time, the camera is working well and comes with some sort of warranty that it is probably a good buy. I also found that with prudent shopping that there are good deals around in good, reasonably priced R glass. If the bodies good I'd say buy it, save the money a good R6/7/8 is going to cost and buy lenses.....

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 18, 2002.

I think you shouldn't buy an R4 because that's not an M.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), January 18, 2002.

Behave, Michael. Mary: I only have one complaint about my R4. It's the way they display the shutter speed in the finder; or rather, the way they don't display it well. One of a vertical column of LED's lights upto indicate the shutter speed. That would be fine, if the LED were made to shine through a window with the speed value engraved in it. That is, in fact, how the speeds are displayed on the R5. But on the R4, it's a different story. The red LED merely lights next to the shutter speed marking, which is further to the right. And what illuminates the shutter speed itself? Not the LED, but simply the light from the subject area. No light in that part of the frame? No shutter speeds will be visible. It's a major nuisance for me, because even though the exposure may be correct as indicated elsewhere in the finder, I still like to know my shutter speed.

Apart from that, I have no complaints.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 18, 2002.

Hi, Mary:

I'm quite happy with my R4 though dreaming about getting an R6.2.

I own right the same gear you describe. Mine is serial number 1669547 and I have owned it for short longer than two years, shot a fair amount of rolls with it (I'm not a professional photog, I'm speaking about some tens of rolls only) and had no problems after the foam of the back window was inexpensively replaced because I noticed some light leaks shortly after I bought it.

The lens is a VERY good one though some Leicaphile friends could tell you more about it.

Only advise: be aware of what Bob says about the light meter indication. He is absolutely right on this, of course, but the light meter still is a very good one as per my experience.

Possible problem: you will soon be missing more lenses if you can't afford them the way I can't myself. But I'm fortunate I own my FM2n and several far more affordable Nikon lenses for those occassions. And it is a camera with a fully mechanical shutter (1/4000 s top speed !) that will NEVER develope ANY electronic shutter failure (notice why I want a R6.2 . . . and take into account that I'm an electronic engineer)

Mary, these are my experience, thoughts and fears disclosed for you. I hope they could be of any help.

Please, excuse the lenght. Best of luck !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), January 19, 2002.

I traded an old Nikkormat and some Nikon lenses for an R4 and a 50 summicron about 6 yrs ago. Got me completely out of Nikon and started with R Leica. I had used M for 20+ years. The R4 meter cell was bad and it cost me 300 to get it fixed and cla'd at Leica, New Jersey. It came back beautiful and has worked great ever since. I've added R4S and R7 (probably one too many bodies) and 6 lenses from 28-180. I love the R system and nearly always get a high number of good pictures. The R4 is a nice, durable little camera with more than enough automation, and simple to use. If I don't have anything specific to photograph there is a good chance that the R4 and a couple of lenses will be what goes out of the house with me. Good luck!

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), January 19, 2002.

I like my R4. I use it regularly on various photographic assignments. The only complaint is the dark viewfinder relative to the more recent R8 but that's all :). It's cheap and you can get into Leica very well with the R3/R4 systems. Just make sure to have enough dough leftover for getting a lens too!

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), January 20, 2002.