I would like to know why the LEICA R8 is not a great success. According to me, it is not very popular. Why.... Personaly, I do not like the design ( neither the old Leicaflex and Leicaflex SL) Why the Leica designers make such weirds camera bodies ....All technical considerations are welcome. Jean-Pierre Auger.

-- Jean-Pierre Auger (paphoto@videotron.ca), April 21, 2002

Answers

i woudl say it is because you can get technologically much more advanced SLR's from other manufacturers (with modern features such as AF), that are of equal quality, cost less, and have a MUCH larger lens collection from which to choose from (and these lenses of roughly equal quality cost much less - i.e. Canon L lenses, or Nikon AFS lenses)

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.

Some reasons off the top of my head: I found the camera body way too big and bulky for something which doesn't have a built-in motor. Also the R lenses - although well made and beautiful optics - are v.expensive and bulky & heavy. Finally, I also dislike a camera (any camera by any manufacturer!) which completely dies when the batteries go. Hell, the R8 is so battery dependant you even have to switch the camera on just to see how many frames you've shot!

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), April 21, 2002.

It's kind of funny that people are still making the same comments about the R8 now as they did in 1996 when it debuted, and tales of its poor sales and iminent demise have been in continual circulation during all of the ensuing six years--yet nearly every other SLR selling in 1996 has been discontinued except the R8. There are plenty of other R bodies out there for those who don't like the R8, and with adaptors Leica lenses can be used (albeit a bit inconveniently) on EOS bodies. Yet the R8 is already in its (at least) 3rd production batch. It will not be the design or weight of the R8 that kills it, it will be when (and if) the market shifts so much to digital that even Leica's small-scale production can't be sustained. If Leica has a digital R ready by then, it will probably be raked over the coals too; if they don't have one, the R system will go out of production, even if it doesn't go out of use by determined owners.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 21, 2002.

From two Leica dealers that I have spoken to, the R8 is indeed a failure. The reason? Just like the M-5: Leica was producing what it thought that its potential consumers wanted, but not what they really were looking for: the typical mistake of a company driven by its prodcution people rather than its marketing people.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 21, 2002.

". . .tales of its poor sales and iminent demise have been in continual circulation during all of the ensuing six years--yet nearly every other SLR selling in 1996 has been discontinued except the R8"

Sales will probably end when they finished emptying the basement of all the ones they made in the first six months of 1996. :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

Actually, ven though there are various serial # batches including the latest one which are all labelled Portugal instead of Germany, it's not *impossible* they were all made in 1996, or at least from a majority of parts that were. Maybe all the M6's were made in 1984, too? Might make a nice article for the LHSA Viewfinder if someone could have them carbon dated:>)

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 21, 2002.

It's totally off topic, but a nice story--I know of a book that was published in 1902, and regularly brings about $1000 every time it comes up for auction. The company that originally published it supposedly still in the late 80s had boxes of them in storage, and would send one to auction once in a while. That's where my R8 idea originated.

Today I was in Circuit City, and went to their camera section. The Canon Rebel is a remarkably compact and ergonomic camera with a good solid feel in the hand, and technically far ahead of the R8, for just a couple of hundred bucks--probably less than it would cost to do a minor repair on an R8. With competition like that, I'm surprised that Leica can sell any R8s at all. Certainly there's bound to be a certain amount of mindless brand-buying by rich folks to go with their Rolex watches (scotch, expensive fountain pens, tilley hats), and I'm sure their are legitimate reasons for wanting an expensive body for the Leica-branded Minolta and Sigma zooms to fit, and even one or two GOOD reasons to own an R8, but . . .

In one sense it doesn't matter, though, since whatever makes Leica feel good and continue to make RF stuff makes me happy. In spite of the cynicism in the previous paragraph, as we used to tell amateur customers buying expensive pro equipment who said they felt guilty (those were the days!) when I worked in a camera store in the 70s-- every purchase by someone who doesn't really need the stuff keeps the prices down for those who do, by making continued production profitable, so please buy more. :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

As far as a Leica reflex goes, I wish Leica made a basic all mechanical slr with a metering system and display like the M6 TTL and a mirror lock-up feature. Nothing inovative, just a finely crafted, durable, camera that would accept their fine lenses. Maybe I'm just weird!!!

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.

This is a rather generic answer, but I haven't been enamored with any of the Leica R bodies which were originally based on a Leitz-Minolta collaboration, starting with the R3. The SL2 was the last Leitz German designed reflex camera, and was a nicely crafted and well made body. To me, the R3 and all subsequently R bodies represented the typical "blobflex". The R8 has all of the features one could want (outside of AF and an integral motor, both of which one could live without). But it is a rather bloboid shape, one off from the original R3. There is nothing "endearing" about these cameras. The best feature of the R system is some great lenses, particularly a series of high quality APO lenses and some newly designed excellent zooms.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 21, 2002.

I use an R8 when the M becomes inappropriate, and my experience with it has been extremely pleasant. It is wonderful in my hands. I think many people did not go past the asthetics of the camera to the stage where they actually use it for some time. I understand the cost is high, but having already inherited some fine primes from the days of SL2 it was actually less expensive than to start a new system based on EOS or Nikon. For those who are used to SLs the R8 is indeed their logical successor, with all controls naturally falling into place. So why is it not a success? Must be due mainly to the aforementioned cost factor. IMHO, the EOS looks ugly, too:) Come to think of it, the SLs were 'minor' failures, too. Seems like the general buying public just like the competetor's offerings better, for some valid reasons i'm sure.

As a general observation, M users, when they decide to use an SLR, they will opt for the very features they abhor in an M, ie all the electronics bells and whistles. As such, Leica SLRs are sorely uncompetetive. But for those who want the viewfinder of an SLR but don't want or need all the 'features' available from the likes of EOS1 and F5, the R8 is probably right, if they like the look of it in the first place. Alternatively, an R6 or an SL2 will do just fine.

As to why the designers make the R8 the way it is, Erwin wrote an entire article on his site. Designers are artists, too. As such, it is subjective. Good design don't always succeed, and some very bad designs are very successful, no doubt due in part to the efforts of the marketing departments. Whatever that makes us tick.

-- Steven Fong (steven@ima.org.sg), April 21, 2002.

I mostly don't care one way or the other, but comparing the R8 to the Rebel is a bit over the top...

Seems to me you can't judge the success of the R system by Canon/Nikon metrics. Leica reflex cameras have not been competitive in the professional sphere going back probably to the 70's, except in some pockets in Europe. As more folks switched over to AF in the last 15 years, Leica's market position has worsened, if anything.

I'm sure Leica is aware that it is not offering a mainstream product, so to expect success on the level of the F5 or EOS-1 series is probably unreasonable. As a camera for a niche audience of traditionalists, the R8 is pretty appealing.

The problem for Leica is that this niche is shrinking.

-- Gary Voth (garyvot@vothphoto.com), April 21, 2002.

< -- Art Waldschmidt>>

Art, have you checked out an R6 or R6.2? Seems to fit your bill to a T. Get one while you still can.

<>

Steven, as someone who recently switched from Nikon AF to EOS, I now understand why former Canon users find the R8 so refreshing. I never needed to carry the manual for my F5, but with the EOS 1V I feel like I'm studying for the regional boards again. The R8 has a lot of faults but confusing controls aren't one of them.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 21, 2002.

I have ahndeled the R8 a few times and it always created an itch to buy it. I find that body le best designed reflex available on the market today. Period. Personal taste :-) Why didn't I buy it ? Because all the lenses I need are available for the M. Maybe a 135 would appeal to me, espescially a Summicron one, but that does not exists. I know about the 180 Summicron and Elmarit, they are just too long and expensive for the limited use I have. Sadly, Canon has that 135/2, and a quite good one too. So, for me, the prime problem with the R range is the lenses. Or the lack of it. Even if I looked for a shift lens (which I will do at some stage), there are none in the Leica range, while Canon has 3 to offer! I love the R6 too, btw.

-- Stephane Bosman (stephane_bosman@yahoo.co.uk), April 22, 2002.

"For those who are used to SLs the R8 is indeed their logical successor, with all controls naturally falling into place."

After working with an SL for 6 months, I will say I appreciate the R8 concept more than I did before. It is indeed an attempt to back up and pick up where the SL left off in some ways - ultralow-profile prism housing, simplified control groupings, etc. I don't do enough SLR work to justify more than a $400 body, though.

And I get much better results from the SL than I ever did from the R4-7 bodies - I (personally) find it easier to hold steady. But there it is...

Stephane - there is in fact ONE shift lens in the R line - the 28mm PC Super-Angulon.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 22, 2002.

The R8 is a wonderful body. Perfect ergonomics, great features (such as the flashmeter), the unique option of not having to use a motor (and thus silent wind/rewind), beautiful viewfinder, reassuringly dense and heavy . Shutter is state of the art, and so are the light measurement options (matrix, centreweighed, spot). The different exposure modes are foolproof and easy to access. They work with all R lenses manufactured since the mid-seventies.

Only downsides (in my opinion): needs to be turned on to view frame number (I hate that), leather hand strap only available with larger motor (it can thus be very tyring to handhold the R8 vertically with lenses such as 180 elmarit without that motor), choice between well designed heavy and expensive motor or poorly designed lighter and more affordable winder, motor works only with dedicated Leica battery.

The lenses are absolutely gorgeous, with benchmark items such as the new (unaffordable) 15mm elmarit or the more reasonable 19mm elmarit, 28mm elmarit, 35mm 'lux and 'cron, 50mm 'lux and 'cron, 80mm 'lux, 100mm apo-elmarit or 180mm apo-elmarit and 'cron, plus a whole series of unaffordable exotics in the longer range. Not mentioning the current zooms, which are systematically rated as top performers (except the 28-70).

OK, the price tags are high. But so is the M system's price tags. However, at that price, you get Leica construction and Leica optics. Manipulate R lenses in shop, and, if you enjoy fine mechanics, it will be torture for you to leave them behind. You alone can judge if it is worth the effort and sacrifices.

Visibly, the market as a whole has voted against the R system. I'm convinced the real reason is lack of AF, something ageing amateurs and pressurised pros seem to require. And no I do not want Leica to follow the disastrous example of Contax N....

So try it, and enjoy it, while it is still there !

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

"I wish Leica made a basic all mechanical slr with a metering system and display like the M6 TTL and a mirror lock-up feature. Nothing innovative, just a finely crafted, durable, camera that would accept their fine lenses."

Art, we'd better not even think about the response to that; remember that those who can't afford Leica, or were to lazy to adapt to a rangefinder and hence couldn't take decent pictures with one, always complain about the obsolescence of the M series as it has no AF. (And, of course, cursed be the Leica users.)

The R8 is a worthy successor to the Leicaflex SL--although I'd like to see the latter revived, with the current lens mount. (Andrew Nemeth has a story to tell about modern R lenses on Leicaflex bayonets, and then there's the meter coupling...)

For the serious applications, there's the R-to-EOS lens adapter. Tell an editor that your images will be sharper and more brilliant than he can imagine 'cuz your optics are the world's best, but they must be developed and scanned first, why doesn't the paper accept anything but tiffs and jpegs nowadays--and you don't get another job.

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), April 22, 2002.

Maybe Leica can look at the Nikon FM3a and add the AE feature to the 6.2 and accept the failure and lack of interest of/for the R8 and simply drop it.

-- Andre Bosmans (a.bosmans@pandora.be), April 22, 2002.

I think electronics aside, the R8 is quite a unique and striking body design. It embodies the traditional Leica solid metal look and feel which is lacking in other SLR manufacturers. I certainly think its the best looking R body of the whole range.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), April 22, 2002.

Hi all,

I am not an R8 owner but I have manipulated it

Jacques writes:

>> The R8 is a wonderful body. Perfect ergonomics, great features (such as the flashmeter), the unique option of not having to use a motor (and thus silent wind/rewind), beautiful viewfinder, reassuringly dense and heavy . Shutter is state of the art, and so are the light measurement options (matrix, centreweighed, spot). The different exposure modes are foolproof and easy to access. They work with all R lenses manufactured since the mid-seventies. <<

I tend to fully agree with Jacques here

>> Only downsides (in my opinion): needs to be turned on to view frame number (I hate that), leather hand strap only available with larger motor (it can thus be very tyring to handhold the R8 vertically with lenses such as 180 elmarit without that motor), choice between well designed heavy and expensive motor or poorly designed lighter and more affordable winder, motor works only with dedicated Leica battery. <<

Though I agree on the battery question, I’m not so bothered by the fact you’ve to turn on the camera to see how many frames were consumed (I have the same feature on the Hexar RF and it never bothered me that much)

>> The lenses are absolutely gorgeous, with benchmark items such as the new (unaffordable) 15mm elmarit or the more reasonable 19mm elmarit, 28mm elmarit, 35mm 'lux and 'cron, 50mm 'lux and 'cron, 80mm 'lux, 100mm apo-elmarit or 180mm apo-elmarit and 'cron, plus a whole series of unaffordable exotics in the longer range. Not mentioning the current zooms, which are systematically rated as top performers (except the 28-70). <<

Well, the question of lenses is something to be considered another way perhaps…

First, having used for a long, long time Nikon lenses, even if I admit the Leica ones are better, you really need some particular circumstances to make the difference to appear in real life. Bench tests are one thing, practical results when using a body hand held and with relatively fast films another one… Even more than with M lenses (chiefly due to the way they are often used i.e. wide open more frequently than with a SLR) the diffrence of quality with competing lenses is less PRACTICALLY evident … Hence the importance of the price tag in the lesser success of the R8.

But we must also consider for what purpose someone might consider buying a high end 35mm SLR. Jacques quoted a fair number of lens which, but for the 180mm one, are more or less available to a rangefinder user. A customer who wants a SLR to be used for macro- photography with such a price tag as the R8 system will be tempted to see what he can get for the same budget in the medium format SLR range. A customer who wants to use its 35mm SLR body with long to very long tele-lenses will certainly de more tempted by an AF version than a manual focusing one (indeed I hate AF most of the time but I must admit it is a bonus when the inherent depth of field is reduced to a point stopping down doesn’t permit you to have a visible gain in DOF as to use valuably a DOF table at all apertures). Fast AF on fast big lenses works well now. R8 as no AF feature even on their long tele-lens system which, by the way, is a clever two part design but this clever design didn’t even permit the potential owner to have any kind of real savings when compared to the AF competitors. So we can safely say despite all its qualities the R8 system is whether insufficiently technically developed to suit the requirements of its potential owners or its price tag is way to heavy for those who might want to buy it despite its limitations.

>> OK, the price tags are high. But so is the M system's price tags. However, at that price, you get Leica construction and Leica optics. Manipulate R lenses in shop, and, if you enjoy fine mechanics, it will be torture for you to leave them behind. You alone can judge if it is worth the effort and sacrifices. Visibly, the market as a whole has voted against the R system. I'm convinced the real reason is lack of AF, something ageing amateurs and pressurised pros seem to require. And no I do not want Leica to follow the disastrous example of Contax N.... <<

I do agree with Jacques on the AF point.

Friendly.

François

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 22, 2002.

Maybe Leica can look at the Nikon FM3a and add the AE feature to the 6.2 and accept the failure and lack of interest of/for the R8 and simply drop it.

They had one -- it was the R5 or R7. The R8 is a much better designed camera than either of those.

What is the big deal about the FM3a that gets everyone so excited? I handled one the other day and was singularly unimpressed - not a patch on the quality of the R6.2 or the R8, or even an Elan 7. This site seems to worship this camera for reasons I just don't get. Also I have to say it in my experience the R optics can knock the MF Nikon set into a cocked hat 90% of the time. Sure the Leica is more expensive, but there is a lot of s/h Leica R stuff out there and this is priced much more reasonably. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking here that you get the "same or better camera" than an R by buying an FM type camera. I personally don't think this is true at all. Of course a camera is just a tool etc. etc. blah blah blah, but I too find it strange that may fanatical M users are equally fanatical R haters based on no data or personal experience.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

The lack of popularity for the R-8 is primarily economics. The R-8 series camera is expensive and competes in a very challenging business and technology environment. There are many greater choices to the buyer in the SLR arena with a range of prices. Leica is fortunate that the M cameras have not needed to compete in that environment in decades.

-- Barbano (joseph.barbano@symmetron.com), April 22, 2002.

I agree with Art Waldschmidt (above). Something like the R6.2, with AE. Concentrate on making it durable and quiet. Just a reliable vehicle for the excellent Leica R lenses, for the niche that doesn't need all the bells & whistles. Let Canon & Nikon, etc., worry about the rest. (i.e., AF)

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

Popularity is, of course, a relative thing. The R8 is not going give the Nikon F5 or Canon EOS-1v a run for their money, but what it does, it does extremely well.

The build quality of the lenses is unmatched, and the optical quality is second to none.

I'm puzzled by those who bash the R8's ergonomics -- I think they must have just looked at the camera in a display case without actually trying one. It is one of those cameras that works much better than you would think at a casual glance. In fact, the ergonomics are just superb.

And for those who think it is large, it is no larger than any of the top-line Nikon or Canons when size is compared with the motor drive or battery pack attached in each case. I use the R8 with winder, and it balances perfectly with some of the longer or heavier lenses such as the 180mm f2.8 APO or even the 100mm f2.8 Macro. I don't believe a lighter or smaller body would be as desirable.

-- Rolfe Tessem (rolfe@ldp.com), April 22, 2002.

I'll tell you why it hasn't been a success.It has to be the most ugly,hidious camera ever to leave the Leica factory.

-- Phil the cool (philkneen@manx.net), April 22, 2002.

IMO, the R8 is the best SLR ever made. I shoot an F100, F5, FM2T, FM2N, and the sweetheart M6. A friend of mine has an R8 and I think I've used it more than he has. It is a wonderful camera. It IS the easiest camera to focus I've ever used. Great features. The best metering ever put in a 35mm and is very intuitive to use. The only reason I have not switched over to the R system is the price of the lenses. Nikon 85 1.4 AF - $900.00 Far far cheaper than an 80 lux. If I had lots of money it would be different. I'd shoot Leica only.

-- Brian E. Harvey (bharvey423@yahoo.com), April 22, 2002.

The R8 is a failure as far as Nikon and Canon sales numbers go, but by Leica it is OK. Most city dealers in Europe seem to always have one on hand and there are two stores in Zürich that have the original blue LED cameras for in store customer testing of te bodies and lenses. I like that large size and it seems as though larger users like that right down the line. The size issue only becomes a problem when I am making the crucial choices about what to take climbing/trekking. (That said, I always seem to end up with an M6 and one or two lenses and an X-Pan with the 45mm.)

-- Reto (Redcave@schweiz.com), April 22, 2002.

Jay wrote: "Steven, as someone who recently switched from Nikon AF to EOS, I now understand why former Canon users find the R8 so refreshing. I never needed to carry the manual for my F5, but with the EOS 1V I feel like I'm studying for the regional boards again. The R8 has a lot of faults but confusing controls aren't one of them."

Jay, I know this is a thread on the R8 but EOS ergonomics will grow on you. There is a learning curve coming from other systems, but the logical placement of controls for use *while your eye is at the viewfinder*, and the ability to tune the camera to your spec via personal and custom functions is really quite unique...

-- Gary Voth (gary@vothphoto.com), April 22, 2002.

Gary: that is true of someone who uses the EOS day in and day out. For someone like myself who flits between several camera systems the EOS user interface is daunting. But I like the IS lenses, so I'm sticking it out.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 23, 2002.

Thanks Jay, I hope it works out for you...

-- Gary Voth (garyvot@vothphoto.com), April 24, 2002.