Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,217   Posts: 1,532,131   Online: 1042
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,553
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15

    Leica SLR's r3/r4 what's the verdict?

    Just curious how the R3/R4's stack up. They seem like a good value judging by the used market..

  2. #2
    Paul Sorensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,895
    Images
    26
    You need the green one Sean!
    Last edited by Paul Sorensen; 10-25-2005 at 08:54 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Added link

  3. #3
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,553
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    lol, nice! but green isn't worth twice the price of some black one's i see

  4. #4
    Paul Sorensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,895
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean
    lol, nice! but green isn't worth twice the price of some black one's i see
    It is if you are being charged by an angry rhino and he misses you because your camera is camouflaged. Either that or he hits you and misses your Leica. Either way, there has to be some value there.

  5. #5
    cvik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Sorensen
    It is if you are being charged by an angry rhino and he misses you because your camera is camouflaged. Either that or he hits you and misses your Leica. Either way, there has to be some value there.
    Don't know about angry rhinos but bulls hunt for the red dot

  6. #6
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Brilliant, wonderful fantastic.
    .
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  7. #7
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    I have an R3 (not the MOT version) and an R4s. I bought both new, the R3 in 1979 and the R4s in about 1986 when it was on sale with a free motor winder. I much prefer the R3, and bought the R4s for a second film choice and a backup body. The R3 is larger and heftier, and fits my large hands well.

    Both have spot metering manual, aperture priority auto exposure spot metering, and aperture priority auto exposure center weighted metering. 99.9% of the time I use spot metering manual exposure, which is in part why I prefer the R3. It has full indication of recommended shutter speed and set shutter speed in the finder. The meter is a needle indicator that runs along a shutter speed scale on the right of the finder, and you can easily interpolate to 1/3 stops. The R4s uses LEDs by a shutter speed scale, and two adjacent LEDs light up for intermediate speeds. The R4s shows only recommended shutter speed in the finder, so you have to remember or double check manual shutter speed settings on the camera top. I shoot a lot on an eye level tripod, and I hate having to turn the camera over to see the set shutter speed.

    One other minor feature I love on the R3 is that the frame counter is on the camera back below the wind lever, which again means it's nice to see it on an eye level tripod or without turning the camera over.

    The R3 uses a cam driven mirror that slows to a stop as it reaches its upper travel limit, so its impact against the massive body is minimal. I've shot handheld 1/15 second exposures routinely with a 24mm lens on the R3 and gotten consistently good results. The R3 also has noticeably less shutter lag than the R4s. I'm not sure if the R4s mirror is cammed. Has film in it right now, so I can't check.

    To make it short, the R3 has some features that make it a major increase in convenience and usability over the R4s for my way of working. My son likes the R3 so much that he saved up and bought a Minolta XE-7 for a system he mostly inherited from grandparents. The R4s is not a dog, it's a very nice and solid camera, and I expect that some might prefer it. The R3 just works like I think.

    You'll see all kinds of things about reliability of electronics on the R3 and R4s both. Mine have been used all day in over 100F and below -20F without special protection. (Days out in Big Bend in July and an all day winter carnival on a frozen Minnesota lake.) I've dragged them all over Europe and hiking through the wet Appalachians routinely. I recently replaced foam gaskets on the backs, and my R3 finally needs a little work on the film advance (frame spacing at the beginnings of rolls) after thousands of rolls of film. Those are the only problems ever to come up. Some places on the 'net have info on which serial numbers of R4 to buy, after a modification to the electronics. Might be at cameraquest.com, but I can't recall now.

    R lenses are a relative bargain now. I passed on a like new 135 f:2.8 for $200 recently because I already have a 100mm and a 180mm, and because my mom has recently started handing down some of her camera gear, which includes a 135 f:2.8 in superb shape.

    Just a note on how she came to buy an R system. I worked for a dealer in 1979 who required me to use an R3 for a week so that I could sell it effectively. My mom is an artist and art teacher and was visiting when I got my Kodachrome 25 slides back from shooting side-by-side comparisons with the R3 and my Canon FTb's and lenses. We threw the slides up on the wall and half way through the viewing she started asking about prices on the Leicas. She made a deal on a used body and bought a 60mm f:2.8 macro, a 28mm, and a 135mm within a week, on an elementary school teacher's salary. The difference was that palpable. My father, who's no particular enthusiast also saw the difference and bought himself a complete Minolta CLE kit for their big trip to Europe after we kids were all out of the nest.

    Two other annecdotes about the optics.

    A customer at the store I worked in borrowed an R3 and 50 Summicron and shot identical frames of multiple subjects in different lighting with that and a Nikon and 50mm Nikkor. He brought back the Kodachromes for processing, turned them over on the lightbox so that you couldn't see markings, then asked an employee to come over and sort the two rolls of 36 exposures and tell him which were which. A couple of minutes later the result was a single pair of shots misidentified.

    In Minneapolis in 1982 or so, camera stores invited their best customers to a Leica sponsored event. Most of these were Nikon shooters, and a few Canon. The main event was a slide show from a photographer who shot stock and magazine assignments with R cameras. About 10 slides in one of the audience asked which polarizer the photographer used to get the color saturation, and whether it needed to be circular polarizing. The answer: "Yes, you need a circular polarizer. I don't own or use a polarizer, but I've heard the B+W is good, and I've been thinking about trying one."

    BTW, I still regret not buying an M5 on dealer special, where employees get Leicas at half list, which is 10% below dealer cost. But I was headed to graduate school the next year...

    I'll stop now and you can PM me with any further requests for rambling and ranting.

    Lee

    P.S. Mine are chrome R3 and black R4s. I wasn't going on safari and didn't need the matching binocs.

  8. #8
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,553
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    great info thanks

  9. #9
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean
    great info thanks
    Sean,

    Forgot to put the minus sign before 20F. The high that day was -20F, and I had the R3 hanging out unheated for well over 4 hours with no mechanical or electrical problems whatsoever. Metering was spot on. I shot a Hasselblad 500 CM that had 1/60 go to 1 second in that weather on a commercial job.

    Also, there are several varieties of R4 with different features. I'm not a collector, so I can't list the differences. I'll see if I can find a reference. And I'd love to try an SL2 as well. They are rarer, and more expensive, but are all mechanical and built like a tank.

    Lee

  10. #10
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,553
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    I'm a bit undecided at the moment, so far leaning to the r3 and also investigating the leicaflex sl's. I do like SLR much more than rangefinder (had an M6 once and loved how it performed but never was crazy about the rangefinder aspect). I am finding I like shooting two subjects 35mm street & 8x10 largeformat landscape. So my medium format system is gathering dust, I thought I might sell it and fund a leica r3 with 35mm lens or similar. I contemplated using my mf kit for street but my gut tells me it will be too cumbersome for my liking..

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin