I'm primarily an M user, but I have an R6.2 which I bought specifically for one lens, the 180/2.8 APO. I love the lens, it is incredible, but I really dislike the camera. It's too small to balance on the lens, and with the motor and grip, it's big and clunky.

Does anyone think leica will ever offer an SLR with a built in motor? If I could mount my 180 on a medium sized slr with a built-in drive, similar in size to an F100 or Eos-3, I'd be a happy camper. (I know about the EOS adapter rings, but I do documentary work and stop-down metering isn't an option.)

Anyway, I was just curious and wanted to throw this out there...

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), April 13, 2002

Answers

What's wrong with the R8 + winder?

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), April 13, 2002.

A couple of thoughts:

The R6.2 is just about as small an R-body as Leica has ever made - so an integral-motor R body would probably be almost as big as the 6.2+ motor - or the R8+winder (already suggested).

Who knows what Leica will do in the future? The 'design specs' for the R8 intentionally kept it a thumb-wind camera with optional motor to maintain some kind of cosmic connection with the M line - although I don't know why, myself. It's dead as a doornail if the batteries die, and not especially quiet without the motor, so what good is the thumb wind per se?

In their "R-system chat room" a year or so ago Leica allowed that they had "learned their lesson" from the R8 - but no one knows if that means an R9 in the future with smaller size - or what.

I think an R8+winder would be slightly less "clunky" than the R6.2, since it is better-integrated ergonomically. That's one option.

re: the Canon adapters. I also shoot a 180 for documentary work - on an SL body - and do 90% or more of my shooting at f/2.8 for max shutter speed. I think you may find this to be less of a practical problem than you think - but obviously could be wrong: it's your shooting style, not mine, we need to consider.

For me the problem with the Canon and an adapter if I shot a lot stopped down would not be the metering as such, since I could set the aperture/shutter manually (which you already do with the 6.2) but the dark view screen at f/8 or whatever.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 14, 2002.

Hi Noah

You write:

>> I'm primarily an M user, but I have an R6.2 which I bought specifically for one lens, the 180/2.8 APO. I love the lens, it is incredible, but I really dislike the camera. It's too small to balance on the lens, and with the motor and grip, it's big and clunky.<<

Though I never own either the R6.2 or the R8, I have the opportunity to manipulate both. The R6.2 is an extremely small 35mm SLR which reminds me the design philosophy of the now defunct Olympus OM series. It seems to me the goal of the original design was mainly to obtain the smallest 35mm SLR possible, while using very traditional and not so efficient ergonomics. Frankly I never imagined this body really fit for motorization. Like so many SLR from the past the motor was an afterthought. Some other posters suggested you the R8. The R8 is by far the 35mm with the best ergonomics with or without motor I had the possibility to handle. The market never did justice to this design. Though I’m a rangefinder addict as far as 35mm format is concerned (for me besides action photography with long tele-lens anytime you’ll need the advantages of an SLR, medium format will do better), I recognize the R8 is probably the best available design today. What impaired its sales is probably the absence of AF which any experienced photographer will recognize as a gadget for any lens shorter than say 200 mm. The R8 was designed to be fitted with the motor should the need arise and its motor is perfectly integrated to the design when fitted. So the R8 should be a much better choice for you.

>> Does anyone think leica will ever offer an SLR with a built in motor? If I could mount my 180 on a medium sized slr with a built-in drive, similar in size to an F100 or Eos-3, I'd be a happy camper. (I know about the EOS adapter rings, but I do documentary work and stop-down metering isn't an option.) <<

I was a professional user of Nikon SLR’s for years. I used the old Nikkormat Ftn, the F2 with an adaptable motor, FM and FE with adaptable motor and finally the F4S with integrated motor. My conclusion is simple: I simply dislike the integrated motor of the F4S as the body has became as cumbersome as a medium format camera with it. I see no reason at all to integrate the motor in the body (if it is something more than a winder) as I don’t need a 6 frame per second motor in everyday work. I liked very much the 1970’s – 80’s 35mm SLR designs because of their modularity. For me it was a major step backward to integrate everything. So I see no reason a “R9” should have an integrated motor.

To push the things a bit farther, I think the best way Leica should have to develop a new camera body is quite different than to have separated ranges with a rangefinder camera and an SLR. I think the solution lays in a modern version of the Visoflex, so you can actually use a rangefinder camera when its advantages are maximal and a SLR when needed…

Sounds crazy ? Not so. The M7 went to electronics… IMHO it doesn’t went into electronics enough. But let’s imagine a “M8” which has the same kind of shutter the R8 have, Matrix metering when in auto mode and true spot metering in manual mode. The awkward loading is discarded and replaced by a classical replaceable backdoor (fast loading, interchange possible with a data back and then a high resolution full format digital back). The finder has an integrated three magnification level. The advance is kept manual (to avoid noise). From the widest angle you can imagine to 135 mm (or even 180 mm with “ears”) you can use it as a rangefinder camera and you can – should the need arise – equip it with a high performance motor with its convenient handle. Now you need to go reflex to use it in high magnification macro-photography, take your “Visoflex IV”, it will couple to the body but the electronic way so you use the shutter button and not a lever. In the prism is the same Matrix metering in auto mode and spot metering in manual mode as built in the RF body while connecting it disconnects the original measuring pattern on the shutter curtain. The you add an auto bellow and the needed lens. And presto you have all what you need. As the original body is a true TTL OTF flash body you can also use a dedicated macro flash in this configuration or studio flashes with a pre-test through the prism. Now you need a long tele-lens, easy too, the same applies to the Visoflex coupling, but this Visoflex has also an integrated AF motor and AF device which will couple with this long lens… You’ve got an up to date fast AF long tele-lens equipped body. Exactly what you need when you need it! Modularity at its best!… No need to have two different range of lens, no need to spend anything for something you don’t actually need for your work and finally a possibility to buy on an extended period of time your system.

So to say to integrate everything might not be the real solution as far as small format is concerned. Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 14, 2002.

Now you need a long tele-lens, easy too, the same applies to the Visoflex coupling, but this Visoflex has also an integrated AF motor and AF device

An interesting idea but the AF is one of those gagets I don't want to pay extra for.

"Pete" - Leicaflex SL, 180mm APO-Telyt-R I don't want no steenkin' AF.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), April 14, 2002.

Very interesting. I basically chose the R6.2 because I got an incredible deal on it and the 180, so maybe I should try out an R8. I'm not so sure that I even NEED the winder, I just want something more comfortable to use. I always thought the F100 was the most comfortable SLR for me, but I'll give the R8 a try. Thanks to all who offered their opinions...they were a big help. Anybody wanna trade. ;)

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), April 14, 2002.

Noah: The R8+winder balances the 180 perfectly. Yet another reason to buy it.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), April 14, 2002.

Noah: If you're trying things out - I'd recommend trying an SL body just for comparison. No guarantees it'll work for you, but it's (to my hands) a better balance than the small R bodies and less expensive/less rotund than the R8. Downside - no motors at all unless you get the rare/pricey MOT version (but you said motorwind was incidental) - no AE (but the R6.2 lacks that anyway) - Bascially the SL is an R6.2 in a bigger body - and with a sturdier DOF preview system (for that matter s sturdier EVERYTHING).

My pre-APO 180 f/2.8 and SL fit/balance together so well they feel like they were poured from the same mold as one casting.

Should be able to get a chrome body in good shape for +/- $450. And it is just about exactly the size/weight/shape of a F100.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 14, 2002.

Dooh! One caveat to SL - I'll bet your 180 APO is a ROM lens - in which case you'll have to get it converted back to 3-cam operation to use on an SL - otherwise it won't even mount, let alone meter. Sorry I forgot that!

R8 may be the best bet after all.

Doug Herr's shot is with the 3.4 APO - and an SL.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 14, 2002.

My guess (or perhaps it's a hope) is that Leica will divert future SLR R&D to a digital body. Leica can't afford to obsolete and update digital bodies every year like Nikon and Canon...I look for them to wait until technology permits digital capture at 35mm standards (eg 12-20 megapixels on a full-frame sensor)and incorporate it into an R- mount body. Or they'll just close the R line down.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 14, 2002.

Noah

Why not add a winder-R to the R6.2? It might improve things. It adds size and bulk and a vertical release button. I like mine as simple as it is. Only c$150 s/h. If you want you can even add the grip.

Otherwise I think the R8 is the best option. As handsome as the SL is, I don't use mine now because it has no diopter adjust, it has poor low light metering sensivity and does not take all my R lenses - o yes and no hotshoe (a small point but always annoying). Also no mirror lockup - not that it really matters on an SL.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.