Choosing a Leica R6 or R6.2

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by Element 6, Mar 3, 2006.

  1. Element 6

    Element 6 Subscriber

    Messages:
    38
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Hi, I would like to get into the Leica R system and am considering the R6. I like the total mechanical aspect of it due to intended use in possible adverse environmental conditions (cold, rain, 2 weeks without electricity etc.). My question is for users who feel there is a significant benefit to the R6.2 over the R6. Most likely I will be starting out with a normal lens and then a wide angle, then tele etc. Is the 1/2000 additional shutter speed on the R6.2 worth side stepping the R6? Are there any other notable differences?

    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. Tom Duffy

    Tom Duffy Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Seems like not really. Check out this reference:

    http://www.nemeng.com/leica/002c.shtml

    The R6 or 6.2 is basically a mechanical Minolta and very, very expensive on the used market for what you get.

    I'd seriously consider a Leica R8 which is a bargain on the used market and and the finest 35mm SLR I've ever used. I think the perceived reliability advantage of the R6 is mostly illusory. If you decide to purchase an R8, make sure you purchase one with a serial number above 242700 as the earlier ones had some teething problems.
     
  3. Rolfe Tessem

    Rolfe Tessem Subscriber

    Messages:
    211
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    Egremont, MA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The R6 and 6.2 don't have much (if anything) to do with Minolta.

    Maybe you're thinking about the earlier collaboration, which resulted in the R3 (based on the Minolta XE1/7) and R4 (based on the Minolta XD11)?

    The R6/6.2 are small, mechanical SLRs which are much more "M like" in feel than the R8/R9 which are themselves terrific cameras, but a very different design.
     
  4. Lee L

    Lee L Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    See http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?LeicaR6.html~mainFrame

    The R6 and R6.2 had a body with the XD-11 size and shape, but the interior was all mechanical except for the light meter. It was only a bit larger and heavier than an M6. Minolta never built anything like the R6, even though it has the XD-11 shape on the outside.

    Given the electronic/mechanical concerns and size difference, I wouldn't consider the R8/9 an equivalent to the R6/6.2. (That's not to say that both aren't great cameras, just very different design concepts.) I took it that battery dependence was the issue, not reliability per se. Maybe that's why Salgado used them in far flung places.

    Lee
     
  5. df cardwell

    df cardwell Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,341
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Location:
    Dearborn,Mic
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    There are small differences. You should handle the cameras, and shoot with them. The 6.2 is a VERY nice camera. Although to be fair, any of the R series will survive in conditions that will kill the photographer.

    You should handle the cameras, and see how they feel in your hands, how you can see the screen, and all those things. Buy the camera as you would buy a pair of boots.

    As for 1/2000.... well, if you want to get the absolute most acutance from the image, you need to minimize camera movement ( induced by the photographer ! ) and 1/2000 can be handy for that. Also, avoid stopping the lens any farther than necessary to avoid diffraction problems. Again, 1/2000 could be handy. But I don't know, outside of a desert or snowfield ,whether it would be necessary.

    Good luck.

    d
     
  6. gnashings

    gnashings Inactive

    Messages:
    1,376
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Location:
    Oshawa, Onta
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have ended up in situations where the 1/2000th shutter would be a very useful feature (wanting shallow dof in very bright conditions), but I think more experienced photographers would seldom find themselves in such a situation: it was brought about by my wrong choice of film (or rather, choosing to skimp on the film already in the camera, rather than rewinding what I already shot and puting in slower film...). But, sometimes such occasions happen despite the best of plans - this was not the only occasion where I wished I had a camera with that extra stop of shutter speed... I guess the decision would come down to weighing the gains against the expenditure...

    Peter.
     
  7. benjiboy

    benjiboy Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,601
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Location:
    U.K.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Cheaper

    A 2x neutral density filter would be a much less complex, and cheaper option Peter.
     
  8. Lee L

    Lee L Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Cheaper perhaps, but not less complex if you think about it. The filter is one more piece of kit to carry (and remember), and possibly in multiple sizes or with multiple adapters if your lenses are not matched to a single filter size. I managed to standardize 50mm, 100mm, and 180mm lenses on a single filter size, but my 24mm won't even take that size with an adapter. The higher shutter speed is always on the camera, and you don't have to pull it out of the bag and attach it before a fleeting shot gets away.

    Then again, I don't see a single stop of DOF being critical in many situations, and if you're shooting negatives you could often overexpose a single stop and print through without sacrificing too much.

    Lee
     
  9. benjiboy

    benjiboy Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,601
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Location:
    U.K.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I shoot mainly slide film and one stop overexposure is critical especially if you are taking portraits in very bright conditions at full aperture to throw the background out of focus and you are caught with 400 ASA film in the camera. Your point about filter sizes Lee, is a valid one, I hadn't thought about it because all my Canon lenses take 52mm filters and I use two ND filters A 2x and a 4X I have had for years.
     
  10. gnashings

    gnashings Inactive

    Messages:
    1,376
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Location:
    Oshawa, Onta
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    and that is exactly what it was...


    Ben, you make an excellent point - and I hate to cry about this again.. I feel like such a whiner - but most of my glass was stolen and I have not rebuild my collection yet. The only filter I have is a 4x of questionable quality...
    Lee, I think you make a very good observation as well - but what I can take out of this exchange is that the extra shutter is nice to have, but nor crucial. I would say yes, you will be in a situation where you will probably think "I wish I had it", but I don't think enough times that you will think you need a new camera, or dislike the one you have.
    Fortunately for me, my New F1 has that 1/2000th setting - and I have already found it useful. Of course, it couldn't help me when I had it loaded with one film, and chose the only other functional SLR I have - a Nikon FG - for the film I actually needed.... Grrr.... I need to rebuild my glass collection so I can look for a nice FD back up (I already know what its going to be :smile:).
    Well, I rambled on - but I think I will look and see if anyone on eBay is geting rid of cheap nd's... I could really use an ND grad, too.... - there I go again...

    Peter.