The secret behind Leica’s R series is that their optical formulas for their SLR lenses are the same as their famous M mount lenses. A 50mm f/2 Summicron is made by the same people, with the same materials, in the same factories whether it is on an M6 or an R6. The R counterparts go for a fraction of their M equivalents, giving those who want to invest in the Leica system without taking out a mortgage on their home a viable option.
That being said, these are not cheap cameras, and they are not cheap lenses. They are simply cheaper than if you were to buy into the Leica M system.
The R6 is the only all-mechanical offering of Leica’s R series SLRs. The only mechanism requiring battery power is the light meter, which takes two LR or SR44 batteries (or one 357 battery). The light meter offers evaluative and spot meters, accessible at the flick of a switch.
Using the R6 feels natural. The viewfinder is bright and clear. The aperture and shutter speed settings show up in the bottom of the finder similar to Nikon’s F and FM cameras. The light meter is a simple design of two arrows and a dot, one arrow for either under or overexposure and the dot for spot on.
The shutter on the R6 is unique and takes a little time getting used to. There is what feels like a slight dampening on the mirror, giving the impression that there is a slight delay between when you press the shutter button and when the shutter fires. At first, I found this annoying, but after a while, I began to actually prefer it. The dampened shutter is significantly quieter, barely louder than my M3. Once I got used to it, every other camera felt loud and unrefined when I heard it’s mirror clap.
The only complaint I have with the R6 is in the film advance lever. The film advance lever is made out of cheap plastic and feels flimsy, with little to no tension holding it in place when it is extended between frames. It feels like an afterthought on an otherwise amazing camera. The rest of the R6’s construction is ironclad, everything about it begs to be taken into the harshest of conditions.
During the George Floyd protests in New York City, I had my R6 on hand. It was batted out of my hand and hit the asphalt. Nothing more than a few paint chips in damage, but the camera continued to fire as though nothing had happened. That’s one of the reasons why it was the camera of choice for Sebastião Salgado for a large portion of his documentary work.
The real reason for buying into the R system is, as mentioned up top, the lenses. As wonderful as the R6 is (and its electronic equivalents, the R5, R7, & R8), the price tags of each of these cameras are only justified by what you’re putting on them. The Leica R lenses are to SLRs what their M counterparts are to the rest of photography — the standard by which the rest of the industry is measured.
When comparing Leica R glass to Leica M glass, the price difference justifies the investment. When comparing the Leica R system to any other SLR system, the justification becomes harder. That’s because these lenses are still not cheap. My R6 ran me $400 and my 60mm f/2.8 Macro-Elmarit ran me $750. That’s $1,150 on a single lens manual film SLR. Which, understandably, is more than most people can justify.
For $1,100 you could buy a Canon EOS 1n, a 24mm f/1.4 L, and a 35mm f/1.4L — and those lenses autofocus and are native on Canon EOS digital cameras.
Since Leica ceased production of its R system, the lenses have been happily adopted by cinematographers modifying them for cinema use. With their perfect optical formulas, excellent coatings, and consistent renderings, they have made for an affordable option in comparison to traditional cinema lenses, which run in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Recommending the Leica R6 is kind of like recommending an Aston Martin to someone. If you must have the best, then accept no exceptions. But if you’re looking for a combination of functionality and quality, the Aston Martin will not do anything that a Toyota won’t, except drain your bank account.
The R6 is a camera for those who want nothing but the best. The Canon EOS system, the Nikon F system (specifically the F3, FM2n, FM3a, and F100), or Contax RTS system are for those who want to make pictures with the best quality at the best price, and do so over and over again.
Thanks for reading,
~ Alexander
Share your knowledge, story or project
The transfer of knowledge across the film photography community is the heart of EMULSIVE. You can add your support by contributing your thoughts, work, experiences and ideas to inspire the hundreds of thousands of people who read these pages each month. Check out the submission guide here.
If you like what you’re reading you can also help this passion project by heading over to the EMULSIVE Patreon page and contributing as little as a dollar a month. There’s also print and apparel over at Society 6, currently showcasing over two dozen t-shirt designs and over a dozen unique photographs available for purchase.
17 responses to “Leica R6 Review; Like recommending an Aston Martin”
I guess I’m going to be the type of person to comment on an article years later so here it goes.
I enjoyed a lot of what you wrote here as someone who has a lot of affinity for Leica’s SLRs, and I absolutely agree that R glass is something special. I also think the last couple lines read a little bit like Leica snobbery.
The R6, while a very nice camera, doesn’t feel special in the world of SLRs. It’s one of many fairly well built mechanical SLRs that graced the world in the period of films dominance. Falling short in comparison to the build of an F2 or F3, and falling somewhere closer to an FM. In terms of performance and specs it also falls a bit short, by the mid 90s 1/2000th of a second was at best a middling shutter speed even for mechanical shutters.
Of course none of this is to say specs are everything. We love the cameras we love for a number of reasons, many of them ineffable. The same goes for glass. R glass is special like I said, but so is Nikkor glass, Zeiss glass, Voigtlander glass, Zuiko glass. While many wax poetic about the glass out of Wetzlar there are many unique qualities out of many lenses from the hands of many lens markers. What you’ll prefer is just that, preference.
I’m sure I read more than bit defensive here, but it just felt like a needlessly dismissive take on what’s one of many great cameras in a genre that’s full of them and I’ve always taken issue with the idea of definitive bests when talking about instruments that exist for the creation of subjective arts.
Hey Tyler –
Thanks for reading! I didn’t mean for the last sentences to come off snobby. What I was trying to communicate was there’s a difference between quality and function. An Aston Martin and a Toyota will both get you to the grocery store and unless you’re racing on the weekends, are effectively the same. It’s only when you start nitpicking details that you see the quality difference between them. My comparison was simply to say that the Leica R system is second to none in terms of lenses and build quality, but very few people would be able to say they needed it over something more accessible. I have tried to sell my R system a few times and can’t bring myself to do it, probably for the same ridiculous reasons someone holds on to an old sports car they rarely drive. That being said, when I’m shooting for jobs it’s almost always my Canon EOS or Leica M system, because they work how and when I need them to and they are the right tools respective to the job.
I’m not suggesting anyone should or shouldn’t use any specific camera gear. My reasons for writing this article were mainly because when looking into my R system years ago, I was frustrated that I couldn’t find any comprehensive reviews on it, so I felt like I was buying blind. I’ve had people ask me if they should buy one, and I usually respond that a better use of their money would be to buy an Olympus OM system (one of my favorites) and spend the remaining $1000 on film and processing.
Hopefully this review was helpful to someone looking to purchase.
alexander
Leicaflex SL2 is as good a camera as the Ms IMO. Prices are getting higher all the time though… which is a shame.
I’ve used various R bodies for years and really like them. The R6 is nice and compact, yet I find I often grab my nikon F3 instead. The R6, while nice, has its “peculiarities”. For one, there is the delay because of the dampened mirror. Something to look at when buying too, with age, springs seem to go weak or perhaps it is grease hardening, but I’ve seen a couple that would start to raise the mirror, but fail to raise the trigger point. Nothing a minor shake of the body would not sort, but who wants to play roulette and shake their camera for it to fire, introducing motion and changing the framing when it suddenly goes “click”. I do not quite get the choice for the cheap plastic film advance lever either. On my body it sort of holds in place when moved, I’ve seen many where it sort of flaps about (the first stage prior to the actual cocking). Anyway, it’s all about the lenses and I prefer my R6 over my SL and R-E. May end up converting the lenses to nikon mounts and use my F3 though. Not quite as refined, but it is built like a tank, modular and has never missed a beat.
Nice to see that a manual camera is appreciated…………… Love the manuals!
The advance lever of the R6 is made of METAL – just turn the camera upside down and you will see that the plastic is just a cover that fits over the metal lever. Regards Paul Macnamara
Adam, the meter is the weak spot of the Leicaflex trio. Many bodies are on sale with dud meters and the PX625 1.35v battery is not available and banned. A friend bought a black SL, circa 1974 from Germany two years ago with working meter.
It came with a Kodak PX625 1.5v alkaline battery in it. We compared readings with my R6, and a Gossen Lunalite. (9v) and found the ‘flex gave under exposure of around half a stop. I suggested that as the R lenses have half stop detents, he centre the needle then backed off half a stop.
However, he has been forgetting and when we looked at his shots they were great. He uses Ilford XP2 exclusively since I gave him a couple of rolls 15 or so years ago. Tremendous amount of latitude in that film. One can expose it from 50 to 800 iso so a half stop on the aperture makes sod all difference. The cameras and lenses are heavy and there’s something very satisfactory about using this superb gear. Happy shooting. DM.
I bought a Leica R6 last year as I’d used a pair of Leicaflex SL bodies with non working meters for the past 4 years. Hand held meters used as the mercury 1.35v battery unobtainable since 1980?
As most of my lenses were 3 cam, I was curious about the fully manual R6. It’s a great camera and I’m after a second body for International Photojournalism when the lockdown nonsense stops. WHEN? I thoroughly recommend this body, the meter is great and the lighter weight of the R body as compared with the’flexes is a boon.
I really do suggest interested parties do as I did and get cracking buying the lenses they need. Digital Johnnies are snapping up Summicrons and Elmarits and Telyts for their plastic Japanese crap to use this fine legacy glass with Chinese made adaptations. So far I’ve managed to find 16/2.8
28/2.8 35/2 50/2 90/2.8 135/2.8 180/2.8 250/4 and a Japanese made zoom 75-200/4.5. The 180 & 250 are reserved for cricket matches in England as they have tripod mounts. For foreign trips I’ll take 35/50/135. Someone said they were crap, compared with the Leicaflex. The battery dependent R4/5/7/8/9 possibly. The R6 & R6.2, no. They are a compact, sturdy and reliable alternative to the very heavy Leicaflex trio. Of my lenses, only the 16 will not mount on a ‘flex. Batteries are easily found – Boots, and are long lasting. The metering indications are bright and clear. I’m delighted with mine.
I see the ‘it’s basically a Minolta….’ comment all the time when talking about R3 to R7 cameras (I know this is not what you are saying here) and I always like to leap to Minolta’s defence, I have a couple of XD-7’s I use alongside my Leica gear and they are wonderful cameras and MC prime lenses are superb! Ok, the defence rests….
I understand that they also addressed the shutter button travel – this is so long in the R6 that I had to sell mine as it was driving me insane, with too many missed shots.
I still use an R5, SL2 (Leicaflex) and R9 without any issues.
So M3 or 2 £1000 ish +, plus lens, R6 £500 ish plus lens. I love my R6 had it since new back in the last century. However the cheap way into Leicadom is the first Leicaflex under £190, plus lens . Fabulous camera, M3 quality, with if you’re lucky a working meter, and then a 50mm lens is about £350, I got mine for £200. Took my prices from Red Dot and the Leica Shop in Vienna so you can find cheaper. So for half the price of an M3 body alone , you can be out shootng a very grown up Leica that more than equals an M . I love mine.
How I wish I had realised the point about the lenses ten years ago!
I have used Leica M for donkeys, mainly because of the lenses. However, there are times I prefer an SLR. I use Olympus OM, and while the OM lenses are good, they are not up with Leica. In about 2010, I bought a whole load of film SLR gear – all OM – that I still use today. Had I only put 2+2 together, I would have gone down the Leica R route instead. Ah, well!
I still have my M6, M9 and Summicrons, and an OM system I could hardly even dream of when I first had an OM-1 in 1976!
Great review, Alexander.
What is the difference between the R6 and R6.2? I’m curious.
The Leica R6.2 has an increased maximum shutter speed from 1/1000 to 1/2000 and an improved film counter. Other than that, they are generally the same.
Principal difference is a faster shutter speed of 1/2000. The rest is minor.
Leica R6.2 is improved successor to R6 and was produced from 1987 to 1990 – most noticeable modifications: top shutter speed of 1/2000s (vs. 1/1000s), improved light sensitivity of the metering system and round frame counter with magnifying glass. Bearing in mind relatively modest price difference between 6 and 6.2 I would opt for the later (1/2000!). I had also R9, which is by my opinion really beautiful, totally unique and one of the most advanced SLRs (up to Nikon F4/F5 and Canon EOS-1).
My experience with R6.2 is a mixed bag, it is a nice, small, reliable camera, but focusing is MUCH harder than with classic Nikons like F2, F3 or Fm2, which have far better, more contrasty focusing screens and 100% viewfinders (F2 and F3). Besides, to be honest, F2 and F3 give much more solid, dense feel in your hands than Leica R6/6.2. Leica R glass is really great, but compared to Nikkor’s much too big, heavy and expensive (e.g. my Summilux-R 35/1.4 ROM was a beast). Because of focusing problems and exaggerated R lenses I sold my Leica R system and I stick to Leica M rangefinder system and Nikon SLR system (Nikon cameras are outstanding, while Nikkor lenses relatively small, well built and optically excellent.
Best, Peter
Thanks for a comprehensive review! The R lenses are utterly fantastic, and yes they are more than other SLR systems, but they give superb results and are built to last for at least a century. I am not the biggest fan of the Minolta based Rs – I really don’t like the shutter lag and find it annoying, use doesn’t diminish it as my outing with my R7 reminded me today. But the R8 and Leicaflex SL2 I have are sublime. Long may they continue!