Hello Folks; A number of years ago I purchased an R3 new in the box. I gave up using it after I purchased my M3 then my M6 which I currently use. My question is this;why has the selling price of the R3 been consistently low? I have looked at various sources such as e-bay and most R3's sell for about $200.00 to $300.00.Are they that unpopular or is there some other reason for their low resale value? Any comments are appreciated. Thanks.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), March 26, 2002

Answers

I can't answer for the entire buying public but I'd guess the low market value is caused by things like:

The relatively dim, non-interchangable viewscreen

the lingering reputation of the early-production R3 bodies, which were notoriously unreliable

the persistent (and incorrect) notion that it's little more than a re- badged Minolta, and

the lack of modern features like eyepiece diopter correction, TTL flash, shutter-priority or program automatic exposure, no half-step manual shutter speeds or fast motor.

Are you asking because you want to sell it?

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), March 26, 2002.

Low price comes from unreliability (already said) and low specs (a middle lined Minolta).

Popularity is given mostly to mechanical R. The aura of the M goes on the R. But the R7 (electronics) still keep a good value.

Good luck if you try to sell the R3.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.

Douglas: Thanks for the information. I had thought of selling the camera but it is not working. Cosmetically it is mint- but for some reason the shutter speed dial is stripped. I did have it serviced by Leica some years ago because light was leaking onto the film via the little window that allows you to check the ASA of the film you have loaded into the camera. They did a complete CLA at the time and the camera functioned for a while.My lack of use probably had something to do with the camera being on the fritz again.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), March 26, 2002.

Most of Doug's points are correct, and to correct the post following his the R3 is NOT a rebadged Minolta (how many Minoltas do you know of that were made in either Portugal or Wetzlar). The early ones did have electrical problems but these were corrected in the second year of production and the later R3's and R3 Mots are actually very reliable cameras. The low value is due to the focussing screen and the fact that the camara was kind of a one-off in that it doesn't accept accessories from the SL series or from the R4 onwards cameras. What accessories were available for it are hard to come by. On the other hand the later cameras are virtually bullet-proof (the R3Mot statistically has one of the lowest repair rates of any R camera) and a very inexpensive platform for R lenses (which is what takes the picture anyway). As an aside I just had an overhaul done on a customers R3 at Kindermann Photo in Canada (a Leica warranty repair depot with a very good reputation). The cost of a CLA, plus having the foam light trapping on the backdoor replaced, plus the replacement of the LED battery check was $195.00 US, very reasonable in my opinion.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.

The early ones did have electrical problems but these were corrected in the second year of production

Bob, do you know of a serial number cutoff for buggy/corrected production?

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), March 26, 2002.

At the risk of making R3 owners cry and throw a tantrum, it is about 75% Minolta (the 25% Leica includes the selective metering option, the lensmount, mirror box assembly and outer body casing plus a few other things). But that's not entirely bad. Minolta made a very reliable camera and in fact the most un-reliable parts of the R3 (and R4-7)are 100% Leica: the electronics and stopdown/DOF meechanism. The only Minolta-based part that is un-reliable in R series is the film transport, and only because up until the R7 it was bone-stock Minolta and never designed to withstand the rigors of a motor-drive such as Leica made available. From a user standpoint the R3 might just be the best thing going for newcomers and as beater-bodies and backups. They are pretty much disposable. The $195 overhaul quoted above does *not* seem reasonable at all on a camera with a retail value of $200-300.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 26, 2002.

Jay - as my customer felt. It was far more 'reasonable' to spend $195.00 to fix a camera that he knew the history of (he had owned it for many years), knew it had been well cared for and was in general mint+ shape then spend $800+ to possibley buy someones elses problems. I guess the same reason I don't consider myself foolish to have just sunk $500 for a clutch in my '86 Volkswagen (that we've owned since knew) rather then dump it because it's 15 years old.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.

Actually the $195 overhaul on the R3 makes a whole lot more sense than a $500 clutch on a 15 year old VW. With the R3 at least for a year if anything else goes wrong it'll get fixed free, a bonus over buying another used R3 or paying $800 for a newer model. With the car, next week it needs another $500 repair, you say "I just spent $500 for a clutch, I better fix this too", and so it goes until you've got more than enough in it to buy a late-model used car with an extended warranty. Been there, done that.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 27, 2002.

Sorry Jay, I just can't let this one go. In the past 5 years my Vw has had one clutch replaced ($500), the tower struts replaced ($140), and a rear window defogger ($75) for a total of $715. I'm of course not counting tires, gas, oil etc. Cost of a leased, say Honda Civic at $179/mo over 5 years would be $10740. Sorry buddy, I'll keep the VW running a couple more years, it pays for a lot of my other far more important vices.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 27, 2002.