How good would a Leica R4 be for a first film camera?

Question

I'm fairly experienced with digital SLRs, owning a Nikon D50, Pentax K10D, and currently a Canon 30D over the past several years. Now I'm thinking of purchasing my first film camera. A few obvious choices would be a Pentax Spotmatic or an older Leica Reflex. I'm leaning towards the R4 but curious as to how easy of a first film camera it would be. Any suggestions?

Thanks. I'm not interested in selling all of my current gear and switching to film. I'm merely interested in dabbling in it. I've shot digital for a little over 4 years and wasn't fortunate enough to have started in film first. Additionally, half of my current lenses are digital body only (Canon 17-55 and a handful of Pentax DAs).

Thanks Edwin. I'll seriously consider one of those two Minoltas. Do you have any book, website, etc. advice for someone moving backwards from digital to film?

NOT understanding earned you a thumbs down from someone. Your logic is like telling someone they're insane for wanting a vintage muscle car because Vipers and Ferraris are more capable vehicles.

Answer 1

I do NOT understand your reasoning for back stepping from digital to film. For what purpose? Everything, and then some, is available using digital, especially if the camera can shoot in RAW. Everything in digital is viewable immediately where as with film it needs hours to process -- plus finding labs who still process film. As far as the Leica R4 is concerned -- it is overkill as far as I am concerned, plus a 10 megapixel, or slightly more, digital SLR will provide similar resolution with far more options then film. Oh, and then there is the weight difference. However, what is poison for one is food for another. Either way, have fun and remember, it is NOT the camera but the imagemaker -- the camera is ONLY a tool.

Answer 2

Leica R4s

Answer 3

Disclaimer: I am a dedicated Minolta manual focus film camera user. I bought my first Minolta - an SRT-100 - in 1971.

If money is no object then the R4 would be a good choice.
Of course, the R4 & R5 were a result of the collaboration between Minolta & Leica.

The first fruit was the R3 which was a Minolta XE-7 with Leica badging, pentaprism, metering and lens mount. The shutter was designed by Leitz and Copal. The XE-7 has a very smooth film advance and the quietest shutter I've ever heard - except for the XD-11 which uses the same shutter.

Leica offered an Auto Winder for the R3 but under their agreement with Minolta it wasn't offered on the XE-7. A Minolta repairman once told me he thought he could graft the Leica Winder to an XE-7 but I moved and lost touch with him.

The Minolta designed XD-11 was the world's first multi-mode SLR (Aperture and Shutter Priority and Manual) and was the basis for the R4 & R5. Leicaphiles claim that Leitz was completely responsible for the R4 & 5 but they are really Minolta-based.

Minolta also sold their 16mm f2.8 fisheye and their 35-70mm f3.5 and 70-210mm f4 constant aperture zooms to Leica.

I use my XE-7 when I want to make in-camera multiple exposures since is has a lever to disengage the film advance and the frame counter. The R3 has the same feature. Since I've grown lazy in my advancing years I shoot in Auto (Aperture Preferred) 95% of the time. Plus I like lots of DOF.

Additional Minolta-Leitz products were the Leitz-Minolta CL and Minolta CLE rangefinder cameras.

IMO, unless you just have to have a Leica an XE-7 or XD-11 would be a good choice.

Welcome to "traditional photography".

EDIT: I suggest "Object & Image: An Introduction To Photography, Third Edition" by George M. Craven

Answer 4

Leica R4

Answer 5

If you can handle a DSLR you can handle an R4.

You've got to remember that with film, the camera is just a light-tight box. The R4 is Fred Flintstone compared to a digital.

The real question is, can you justify the exorbitant cost of the (admittedly brilliant) lenses, or would you be satisfied with the merely terrific Nikon line-up?

Unless you are shooting wide-open all the time I'll bet you would not see the Leica 300% premium in the pictures.

If I were going Leica, I'd go M, which has real advantages over the re-badged Minolta SLR.

Speaking of which, have you looked into Voigtlander?

Answer 6

There is nothing extra complicated with the R4 compared your DSLR's. In fact, using a good film camera would be a breath of fresh air, especially when comparing the viewfinder to that of your DSLR's.

The bad thing about R4 is the overpriced lenses and bodies, even in the used market. If you have that kind of money to spend, a Contax SLR with the accompanying assortment of excellent Zeiss lenses would make much more sense. Research on Contax RTS or Contax 139Q (for Quartz).

And finally, welcome aboard, more and more discerning photographers started to come back to film due to the lack of fulfillment using solely digital technology.

Answer 7

I have never met an unloved Leica. Usually, you can only get a hold of one when you pry it from the owner's cold, dead, hands.

As far as Pentax, I've had many but my fondest memories were of my Pentax MX.

And I still prefer film. It takes more discipline, and the resolution is based on the size of molecules.