Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,943   Posts: 1,557,653   Online: 1212
      
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8

    Choosing a Leica R6 or R6.2

    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. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    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. #3
    Rolfe Tessem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Egremont, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
    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.
    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. #4
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    See http://www.photoethnography.com/Clas...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. #5
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Element 6
    ... snip...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.
    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
    "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

  6. #6
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    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. #7
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,918

    Cheaper

    Quote Originally Posted by gnashings
    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.
    A 2x neutral density filter would be a much less complex, and cheaper option Peter.

  8. #8
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Bentley Boyd
    A 2x neutral density filter would be a much less complex, and cheaper option Peter.
    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. #9
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee L
    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
    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. #10
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Bentley Boyd
    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.
    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 ).
    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.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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