I USE MY CAMERA FOR LANDSCAPES AND STREET PHOTOS ,THE R IS A LOT CHEAPER SECONDHAND IS IT AS GOOD.

-- allen herbert (ALLEN1@BTINTERNET.COM), March 09, 2002

Answers

Yes! The R system is great for both landscapes as well as street photos, but guess what? So is the M system. The R system is best for macrophotography and telephoto work whereas the M distinguishes itself in low-light with wideangle and normal angle lenses. before you buy, rent. You cannot go wrong.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), March 09, 2002.

But is double the price for the m justified

-- allen herbert (ALLEN1@BTINTERNET.COM), March 09, 2002.

If you don't know the answer to this question without asking some else's opinion, you shouldn't spend the money on a Leica. (Troll?)

-- Wilhelm (wmitch3400@hotmail.com), March 09, 2002.

they are different animals -- but -- Optically, if you pick the better lenses for either, then no, there is no difference in what you pick. Even picking the medium lenses, no. The Leica optics are pretty consistently peak, though I could nit-pick through either line up (over the past 20-30 years) and find something to like less. The current newest offerings, though, are offered without compromise (optically, without metion of weight, size, cost).

They handle differently. Without autofocus, the Leica slr may not be as fast for "street" photography, and the "framing" through the M rangefinder viewfinder is of importance you don't know until you use it for a while. (you see way more than the 50 mm view, for instance, which is important not only for artistic framing, and anticipation of when to release shutter). I can hold an M at slower shuuter speeds(usually). Until the M7, there was no automation in the M. Wide angle focus is quicker and surer with the M, especially in dim light --- if you have a good rangefinder target and no other rf focus bug-bears, which is not always possible. A modest but adequate M set-up is smaller (backpacking, or even unobtrsuively under a jacket), but a complex M system has you dragging around enough lenses that an reflex, 1 prime, and 1-2 zooms becomes smaller. Etc.

In short, don't anticipate choosing based on optical differences, but feel and style of shooting (also, if you intend to heavily go macro/telephoto/etc.), so I really don't think most of us can make the decisions for anyone else.

Also, I am not so sure that you will find a 50% price difference if you look around -- you may be comparing older and less preferred R stuff to newer and preferred M stuff. Some of these lenses have 30 or more year histories under the same or close name, and research your stuff to know which of several variations you may have.

As others point out elsewhere -- you have other options to consider, and you need to look, try, borrow, rent before investing thoudsands in what is, frankly, and experiment in your personal tastes and style. If SLR, Leica your best option If landscape, should a modest medium format camera be you choice? (e.g., even if I were to stick to 35 mm as a landscaper, I would certainly consider the panorama stretch of the Hasselblad/Fuji, assuming I had access to lab/processing). Used vs new?

I'm all Leica, except for 4X5, but I did come through a lot of trial and error, (and a hsiotry of some familiairy with rangefinders) even building my M system while discarding Nikon in favor of Pentax. Very individual.

-- Lacey Smith (lacsmith@bellsouth.net), March 09, 2002.

allen: look not only at the used body prices, but at the lens prices. Many used R lenses are not so cheap.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 09, 2002.

you do not state what you are currently shooting with, whether you are looking to build a system, or are just looking for a body and a single lens. specifically you do not state why you are looking at a leica. i own an m3, r6.2 and an sl, but they are not for every one. a good used sl and a 50 f2 will set you back $700-$800. for a good used m with a lens you can easily double that. most of the people on this forum are leica users. they take a very well made camera and run a lot of film through it knowing that the camera will out live them. others simply collect leica's like others collect art, and a third group simply want to own a leica. of this third group many simply re sell their cameras a few years later. there will be enough people commenting on the differences between r and m cameras that i do not need to repeat it, but for all but a few of the elite on this forum, our skill rather than the camera and lens is the limiting factor. think things through and repost and we might be able to give a more specific answer.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), March 10, 2002.

R system is a very nice set.

However, if you look in an economic view, the Nikon FM3 seems a good rival.

If you want a leica for the sake of it, go for the M system (or the Konica Hexar).

I'm a R7 user and am satisfied since it meets all my requirements. If the FM3a was present on the market at the time, I would have gone for it. A matter of time and mood.

Regards. X.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.

A seemingly simple question with no simple answer for everybody...

All IMO only!: Street/travel photography is a VERY different animal than landscape photography, and while I feel that either tool can be effectively used in both situations, I believe each situation really calls for a different tool to efficiently obtain optimum results.

THUS: I would recommend an M for street/travel because of the smaller size, quieter and less intrusive operation, bright "over-100% field-of-view" VF, and easy focus in low-light situations. For landscape I think the SLR is a better tool due to the ability to position Split-Neutral-Density filters accurately, adjust polarizers efficiently, and check DoF more easily. Actually for landscape, a simple mechanical MF SLR camera and a few lenses would probably be even a better than a 35 due to the larger negatives. And there are several options available used that are less expensive than comparable R gear.

BUT: If you need to use just one tool for both applications, then I would pick based on which subject you shoot more of the time -- If you shoot street/travel more often, get the M; if you shoot landscape more often, get an SLR.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 10, 2002.

Will go for m with 35mm seems to be the best all round option as i do a bit of everything,the low light option seems very useful.Thanks for your thoughts everyone.

-- allen herbert (ALLEN1@BTINTERNET.COM), March 10, 2002.

Smart idea to go with the M bodies. Better focusing and more portable outfit. Also the choice of Leica SM, BM, and Voigtlander SM lenses are extraordinary. You don't get it with the R series although the matrix metering and TTL flash options are better on the R8 I really do believe.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.

Leica have always been better at making rangefinders than SLRs. I have never taken to their SLRs as I have found them diffult to operate, plus the build quality is not all that either compared the the M cameras.

-- Karl Yik (karl.Yik@dk.com), March 11, 2002.

The M's are marginally easier to focus w/wides and lower light, but focus is less critical when using wides (DOF). R's are FAR better and convenient with macro and tele. When shooting architecture, I sometimes get off-center results using my M; more right side when shooting vertical (right hand down). People talk unobtrusive; M's are less so, but I find most people KNOW when someone is aiming a camera at them, especially w/flash. It helps with the M's out of frame line visibility.

I use M's almost exclusively (with Hassy SWC). My reasons:

1. Compact, if not light weight. OTOH, mt OM-1 is as small AND lighter. But, the M is smaller in profile, which is important to me, as I find it easier to carry in a small pouch.

2. Quality of build. With its mechanical presision M's are a pleasure to use. M and R should be comparable.

3. I rarely use 90 and never use 135 and macro.

4. Cost is not a factor. Deals can be had if one is patient.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 11, 2002.