Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

leica r3 electronic compatible lenses?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:


" However the fact remains that amongst my stack of A3 sized exhibition prints, the ones that just leap out from a board of say 20 taken with a variety of lenses, the ones that leap out and are commented on are always from a Leica lens.

I'm going off my own topic here so i should forgive myself in advance Very Happy The statement above to me does not tell me anything about the lens but alot about the photographer. I am probably the worst amateur on the board (titter ye not), but even i know that the "best" and most well known photographs more often than not have very little to do with lens quality. I am sure some of the greats have been taken with leica lenses but an equal amount or more are unsharp images taken with bad to excellent lenses. I don't think anyone disputes the quality of the leica lens, but some people achieve fantastic photos without them. The best lenses may produce the best quality but they may not produce the best photographs, if you follow my drift!


PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
maxcastle wrote:
Oreste wrote:


" However the fact remains that amongst my stack of A3 sized exhibition prints, the ones that just leap out from a board of say 20 taken with a variety of lenses, the ones that leap out and are commented on are always from a Leica lens.

I'm going off my own topic here so i should forgive myself in advance Very Happy The statement above to me does not tell me anything about the lens but alot about the photographer. I am probably the worst amateur on the board (titter ye not), but even i know that the "best" and most well known photographs more often than not have very little to do with lens quality. I am sure some of the greats have been taken with leica lenses but an equal amount or more are unsharp images taken with bad to excellent lenses. I don't think anyone disputes the quality of the leica lens, but some people achieve fantastic photos without them. The best lenses may produce the best quality but they may not produce the best photographs, if you follow my drift!


It depends on what you want and how much you are willing to pay. I am hardly going to say that anyone should buy any product, but there is a general consensus that Leica lenses of any given era produce the most pleasing images overall compared to the competition of that same era. And it does not take more 'skill' to see this.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:


It depends on what you want and how much you are willing to pay. I am hardly going to say that anyone should buy any product, but there is a general consensus that Leica lenses of any given era produce the most pleasing images overall compared to the competition of that same era.
You're on the ropes man Wink "the most pleasing images overall compared to the competition of that same era", i refer you to "this is war" again, fantastic photos, leica body - nikkor lens. To the best of my knowledge no survey was ever carried out to say" leica lenses took the best photographs in any decade", consist in image quality yes, but most pleaseing images is too subjective an area to make any definitive statement on.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
maxcastle wrote:
Oreste wrote:


It depends on what you want and how much you are willing to pay. I am hardly going to say that anyone should buy any product, but there is a general consensus that Leica lenses of any given era produce the most pleasing images overall compared to the competition of that same era.
You're on the ropes man Wink "the most pleasing images overall compared to the competition of that same era", i refer you to "this is war" again, fantastic photos, leica body - nikkor lens. To the best of my knowledge no survey was ever carried out to say" leica lenses took the best photographs in any decade", consist in image quality yes, but most pleaseing images is too subjective an area to make any definitive statement on.


Ancient history, from early 1950s, David Douglas Duncan, I believe? After the war, German optical 'secrets' were taken from the Germans by the Allies and given to the Japanese to help them rebuild. It took a while for German industries to recover from the war, with people struggling just to eat. In any event, Leica may have fallen behind just a little due to this, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

This is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-52_%281943%29

Duncan used a 400mm Leica lens at the Democratic national convention in 1968:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=823&q=self+portrait+usa+duncan&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=JJNcUOyDBY-MyAHWlYDoDQ


PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:


Ancient history, from early 1950s, David Douglas Duncan, I believe? After the war, German optical 'secrets' were taken from the Germans by the Allies and given to the Japanese to help them rebuild. It took a while for German industries to recover from the war, with people struggling just to eat. In any event, Leica may have fallen behind just a little due to this, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

This is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-52_%281943%29

Duncan used a 400mm Leica lens at the Democratic national convention in 1968:



I don't see the connection with the sub article. As to duncan using leica lenses, no disagreement there, but he did use nikkors on leica bodies to achieve certain things, his pictures in that book are not all sharp but they are great pictures. I'm no duncan but i don't see why i can't produce decent images with non leica lenses on an r3. Nowhere did i say i expected leica quality, if i did i would have titled the thread "what 3rd party lenses are compatible with an r3 and give leica glass results". I perhaps should have made it clear that i knew i would not achieve leica quality without the lens but i presumed everybody took that for granted, i mean if you put a 1000cc engine into a ferrari you are not going to break any records but you will still get to the destination Wink


PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
maxcastle wrote:
Oreste wrote:


Ancient history, from early 1950s, David Douglas Duncan, I believe? After the war, German optical 'secrets' were taken from the Germans by the Allies and given to the Japanese to help them rebuild. It took a while for German industries to recover from the war, with people struggling just to eat. In any event, Leica may have fallen behind just a little due to this, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

This is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-52_%281943%29

Duncan used a 400mm Leica lens at the Democratic national convention in 1968:



I don't see the connection with the sub article. As to duncan using leica lenses, no disagreement there, but he did use nikkors on leica bodies to achieve certain things, his pictures in that book are not all sharp but they are great pictures. I'm no duncan but i don't see why i can't produce decent images with non leica lenses on an r3. Nowhere did i say i expected leica quality, if i did i would have titled the thread "what 3rd party lenses are compatible with an r3 and give leica glass results". I perhaps should have made it clear that i knew i would not achieve leica quality without the lens but i presumed everybody took that for granted, i mean if you put a 1000cc engine into a ferrari you are not going to break any records but you will still get to the destination Wink


OK, there was very little market demand for mass-market, low-cost non-Leica lenses to fit Leica reflex cameras. The rest you can deduce.

Last edited by Oreste on Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:50 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
maxcastle wrote:
Oreste wrote:


It depends on what you want and how much you are willing to pay. I am hardly going to say that anyone should buy any product, but there is a general consensus that Leica lenses of any given era produce the most pleasing images overall compared to the competition of that same era.
You're on the ropes man Wink "the most pleasing images overall compared to the competition of that same era", i refer you to "this is war" again, fantastic photos, leica body - nikkor lens. To the best of my knowledge no survey was ever carried out to say" leica lenses took the best photographs in any decade", consist in image quality yes, but most pleaseing images is too subjective an area to make any definitive statement on.


Ancient history, from early 1950s, David Douglas Duncan, I believe? After the war, German optical 'secrets' were taken from the Germans by the Allies and given to the Japanese to help them rebuild. It took a while for German industries to recover from the war, with people struggling just to eat. In any event, Leica may have fallen behind just a little due to this, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

This is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-52_%281943%29

Duncan used a 400mm Leica lens at the Democratic national convention in 1968:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=823&q=self+portrait+usa+duncan&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=JJNcUOyDBY-MyAHWlYDoDQ


How does this even relate to anything?.

I'll add my humble opinion on the matter. I own a rather large Leica R collection, and I use the gear ever single day when I am out shooting. It's my prefered tools.
But when I pack my bag to go on excursions, the lenses come and go depending on what I think I need, but there is only one lens that I always bring along. And it's not leica. It's a run down, broken, stuck at wide-open auto chinon 55/1.4.
It's not a lens that gets used that much, but when I do I sure am thankful I brought it along. It pretty much requires it to be overcast, but not dark as it handles iso horribly. But the way it renders things differently than everything I use otherwise is just amazing. The point I am trying to make is that the camera and the lens is a tool for your creative mind, nothing more, nothing less. Far better photographers than me have made far better photographs with far less. Lens sharpness is everything if you are shooting a paper sheet stapled to a wall in a basement with controlled light and a concrete tripod. If you actually use the gear in any real setting, your shutterspeed, iso, light quality, light amount, steadiness of hand, your movement, the subjects movement, your eye etc. etc. etc have a far, far larger effect on the "sharpness" of your images than any lens chart will tell you. That said.

Does leica have some special glow?. Yes, I think they do actually, but then I might be reading into what I want into that. Can't prove it, and I won't try to indoctrinate it into anyone, too bad your so far away or I'd let you play with my stuff for a while and let you make your own opinion. What I do have a problem with is disproving it violently. If you don't think they do, that's just fine. But there is no need to start shouting that leicas are overrated, too expensive and crap.

Are you supposed to use leica lenses on leica bodies?. I'd recommend it, it's a really nice combo. But I'm a student myself, so I understand fully about not going out there and buying a new "system" that is very expensive just because people tell you it's nice. It might be smarter to get a Minolta, but then again, you already own other analog cameras, right?. If you can get a lens in a leica-R mount for a decent price that you can justify to yourself, go for it!.

Am I a leica fanboy?. Yes and no. I love the stuff, the build quality, the image quality and the general feel of them. Would I buy something just because it is leica?, I might actually, but to a certain limit and only if I got a really good deal so I could justify it that way. But to me, they are all tools, and I welcome anything that offers something different, irregarding brand.

The thing that will make you a better photographer is not the camera body, but the confidence you get using that camera body just might Smile

The only things you should look out for is modern made canon stuff, I have no experience with nikon but I would suspect it's the same. Those are just shit, but I guess you already know that because you hang out here Smile
Tho I have seen great photographers produce great shots even with those, so..

Best of luck to you on your decision, but try to get some time to go out shooting aswell instead of only scouraging ebay, been there, done that and it doesn't help Smile

Damn I really sound preachy and superior when I write, sorry about that, but I already hit submit!


PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
“There is a point at which everything becomes simple and there is no longer any question of choice, because all you have staked will be lost if you look back. Life's point of no return.”


Thank you all for the input. I am going to go with an adapter and lenses. I will in time post up some pics. Some day i will get a leica but it will be one from the era that duncan took the korean war shots, i'm sure the lenses won't be the best from that period but i like old things, especially well used with a bit of history to them, for everything else theres the spotmatic Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
maxcastle wrote:
“There is a point at which everything becomes simple and there is no longer any question of choice, because all you have staked will be lost if you look back. Life's point of no return.”


Thank you all for the input. I am going to go with an adapter and lenses. I will in time post up some pics. Some day i will get a leica but it will be one from the era that duncan took the korean war shots, i'm sure the lenses won't be the best from that period but i like old things, especially well used with a bit of history to them, for everything else theres the spotmatic Very Happy


To get a good working example from that era you're going to have to pay a good penny.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-IIIF-Red-Dial-Self-Timer-w-5cm-f-2-Summicron-SUPER-Clean-Rangefinder-/230854494216?pt=US_Vintage_Cameras&hash=item35c0000808


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:


To get a good working example from that era you're going to have to pay a good penny.



"Stop beating it into the ground man, you ain't doin anybody any good" (cool hand luke)


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
There is a general consensus that Leica lenses of any given era produce the most pleasing images overall compared to the competition of that same era. And it does not take more 'skill' to see this.


My experience is different , may a few Leica lenses are significantly better than others, I did try approx 6-8 Leica-R and screw mount lenses , none of them was better at all than others. I remember for Leica-R 28mm, 60mm macro, 100mm macro head, Summitar, Elmar, 5cm and 3,5cm may some others too only 3,5cm Elmar impressed me. Leica glow what I heard many times = soft, uncoated if people don't know made with Leica. Once I did ask local shop owner who had almost any Leica in his hands include most expensive ones, he did laugh about Leica just a bit worst than others. Come on be serious, try many lens as I do and you will see they have little differences.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Come on be serious, try many lens as I do and you will see they have little differences.
Thats the road i will be taking Smile


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
maxcastle wrote:
Attila wrote:
Come on be serious, try many lens as I do and you will see they have little differences.
Thats the road i will be taking Smile


Regardless of whether people agree about the merits of Leica lenses, as a practical matter this makes little sense, because very few independent lenses were made for Leica reflex mounts.

I am not trying to convince you of the merits of Leica lenses, but simply make you aware that the "Leica experience" consists of two things: the handling qualities of the cameras and lenses themselves, and the quality of the results. The Leica R3 is nothing but a Minolta XE-7 body with modifications to the meter and mirror system and a Leica reflex lens mount. As such, the camera is not a true example of "Leica engineering". The Leicaflex cameras and Leica M cameras are.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:


the "Leica experience" consists of two things: the handling qualities of the cameras and lenses themselves, and the quality of the results. The Leica R3 is nothing but a Minolta XE-7 body with modifications to the meter and mirror system and a Leica reflex lens mount. As such, the camera is not a true example of "Leica engineering". The Leicaflex cameras and Leica M cameras are.


i can see what you are saying and i appreciate your points, i do understand that leica lenses are top class. So if i understand what you are saying : all the people with r3's that don't have leica lenses don't have leica cameras and even if they do have leica lenses they are not on a leica camera . The r3 has some leica in it but not enough, does everything have to be leica on the camera or is there an acceptable percentage? Also the leicaflex and leica m cameras are leicas even if they don't have the lenses or do they have to have the lenses to be leicas? I suppose the fundamental question is "when is a leica not a leica" ? Wink


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
maxcastle wrote:
Oreste wrote:


the "Leica experience" consists of two things: the handling qualities of the cameras and lenses themselves, and the quality of the results. The Leica R3 is nothing but a Minolta XE-7 body with modifications to the meter and mirror system and a Leica reflex lens mount. As such, the camera is not a true example of "Leica engineering". The Leicaflex cameras and Leica M cameras are.


i can see what you are saying and i appreciate your points, i do understand that leica lenses are top class. So if i understand what you are saying : all the people with r3's that don't have leica lenses don't have leica cameras and even if they do have leica lenses they are not on a leica camera . The r3 has some leica in it but not enough, does everything have to be leica on the camera or is there an acceptable percentage? Also the leicaflex and leica m cameras are leicas even if they don't have the lenses or do they have to have the lenses to be leicas? I suppose the fundamental question is "when is a leica not a leica" ? Wink


The lens mount, and mirror/meter system (based on the mirror/meter system of the Leicaflex SL and SL2) are designed by Leica. The shutter is made by Copal, not Leica or Minolta. It is otherwise exactly the same as the Minolta XE-7 except for the body finish. It does have a completely different 'feel' from a Leicaflex or from a Leica rangefinder camera of the same era (M3, M4, M5, etc.).

http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/minolta-xe-7.jpg

http://vtom.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v21/p737025492-3.jpg

You can see the depth-of-field preview lever stuck on the front, different from that of the Leicaflex SL or SL2:

http://www.summilux.net/r_system/SL2-bon-2.jpg

To me, the R3 is a good camera born of economic necessity, but it does not have the same 'feel' as a Leicaflex.

It seems you are at least sincere in your question, but the answer is that few independent lenses have ever been sold with Leica reflex mounts. You will therefore have trouble finding any.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:


To me, the R3 is a good camera born of economic necessity, but it does not have the same 'feel' as a Leicaflex.

It seems you are at least sincere in your question, but the answer is that few independent lenses have ever been sold with Leica reflex mounts. You will therefore have trouble finding any.


I have two points one a question, do the r3 and r4 have a different "feel" ? I know the the lens to fit the r3 are few by 3rd party that will fit, so, i will buy an adaptor and use other lenses. i suppose if i meet anyone who doesn't know anything about cameras says to me "wow nice looking camera, leica!" i will have to correct them and say "its not actually a leica" ! Crying or Very sad Embarassed


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
maxcastle wrote:
Oreste wrote:


To me, the R3 is a good camera born of economic necessity, but it does not have the same 'feel' as a Leicaflex.

It seems you are at least sincere in your question, but the answer is that few independent lenses have ever been sold with Leica reflex mounts. You will therefore have trouble finding any.


I have two points one a question, do the r3 and r4 have a different "feel" ? I know the the lens to fit the r3 are few by 3rd party that will fit, so, i will buy an adaptor and use other lenses. i suppose if i meet anyone who doesn't know anything about cameras says to me "wow nice looking camera, leica!" i will have to correct them and say "its not actually a leica" ! Crying or Very sad Embarassed


The R3 and R4-R7 are based on Minolta chassis. Only the Leicaflexes are 100% Leica-designed and made.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:


The R3 and R4-R7 are based on Minolta chassis. Only the Leicaflexes are 100% Leica-designed and made.


so those are not really leicas either ? Shocked


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You didn't get to the best part yet, where you'll learn that some Leica lenses are rebadged Minoltas too, so they are not real Leicas. But that's not all, at least Minolta is respectable, however some zooms were apparently made by Sigma of all brands.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
You didn't get to the best part yet, where you'll learn that some Leica lenses are rebadged Minoltas too, so they are not real Leicas. But that's not all, at least Minolta is respectable, however some zooms were apparently made by Sigma of all brands.


rofl, jesus is there no end to this madness Smile a leica camera not a leica, a leica lens not a leica, where will it all end?


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It all ends with Hasselblad gluing a wood block to NEX-7 and charging 5K for that.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
It all ends with Hasselblad gluing a wood block to NEX-7 and charging 5K for that.


+1 Welcome in wonderful world where is more money than brain


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
It all ends with Hasselblad gluing a wood block to NEX-7 and charging 5K for that.

You couldn't make it up.
It's like some screwy movie plot from the 60s.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
"Its a madhouse" (charleton heston, planet of the apes)


PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
maxcastle wrote:
Oreste wrote:


The R3 and R4-R7 are based on Minolta chassis. Only the Leicaflexes are 100% Leica-designed and made.


so those are not really leicas either ? Shocked


No, not really. The Leicaflexes were the last 100% Leica-engineered Leica reflex cameras until the R8/9.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4