Minolta and Leica always had a love-hate relationship, with Minolta loving Leica cameras and designing several cameras after the Leica models -- and Leica hating the market share that Minolta was taking away from them with their "cheap" cameras. And as production costs continued to rise in Germany, Leica looked for ways to cut costs while expanding their market share. Over the years, Minolta produced several of Leica's cameras and lenses. Sure Leica made modifications to the cameras after they arrived in Germany or Canada, and they put the lenses through "rigorous" German quality control, but it's really the same gear. Leica owners that say their Leitz R3 with a Vario-Elmar 80-200mm f4.5 is better (or produces better pictures) than the Minolta XE-7 with a Rokkor-X 80-200mm f4.5 are living in a fantasy world. In reality, all of the cameras were made on the same assembly line in Minolta's factory in Japan and the lenses came out of the same vat of melted Minolta sand and had the same coating. At the time (mid '70's), the Leitz R3 with a Vario-Elmar 80-200 f4.5 cost FOUR TIMES as much as the Minolta XE-7 with a Rokkor-X 80-200mm f4.5. That's quite a high price for German "quality control". There are rumors that circulate claiming that Leica rejected over 70% of Minolta's lenses. Such a notion is ridiculous. No company would ever do business with another company where they had to reject such a high percentage of items. Another wild claim is that Leica made such radical changes to the items that they could be marked "Made in Germany". Absolute rubbish. If you look at any Vario-Elmar 80-200 f4.5 -- or any other Minolta-made, Leitz lens -- it clearly states, "Made in Japan". Yet another high tale is that Leica was unsatisfied with Minolta's quality, so they ended the relationship. This is just more garbage. Leica continued to buy Minolta cameras and lenses for many years (see below). Most of the APO elements in Leica lenses were made by Minolta, and Leitz continued to buy Minolta cameras until 1997. Eventually, Leica went one way in the photographic industry and Minolta another. Leica stuck to a more traditional path and Minolta ventured into unkown territory. So, of course, Minolta items were no longer of interest to Leitz. But to suggest that Minolta's equipment is less than the same gear with a Leica label is silly.
The first cooperative agreement between the companies was back in 1972. Leica decided to produce a compact Leica (CL) camera that would be less expensive than their existing models. But in order to keep production costs down to a minimum, they needed the camera to be manufactured by an outside company with hi-tech capabilities and low labor costs. Leitz was able to reach an agreement with Minolta, and the Leica CL was born.
(1973-75) It's basically a miniaturized Leica M3 with the same bayonet mount and lenses supplied by Leica. At the end of the agreement, Minolta did Leica one better. They took the CL design and developed the slightly larger, but much improved CLE.
(1973-75) Under the manufacturing agreement with Leica, Minolta was allowed to sell the new CL -- in Japan -- as the Leitz Minolta CL. It was the same exact camera but came supplied with a Rokkor lens and sold at a substantial savings. At the end of the agreement, Minolta did Leica one better. They took the CL design and developed the slightly larger, but much improved CLE.
(1976-79) Minolta and Leica had cooperated on various photographic projects. In fact, the shutter in the Minolta XE-7 was designed by Leica and built by Copal. While Minolta moved on to newer shutters and camera models, Leica opted to continue the XE-7 line in the Leica R3. Just comparing the two will make you think they are exactly the same camera, but they are not. The basic body parts were manufactured by Minolta but the camera was modified and assembled by Leica. There were some minor changes to the external body controls, and internally there were significant changes made to the metering system, for example. So while it cannot be called a "Minolta" camera, it can be labeled a cooperative camera, like the Leitz-Minolta CL rangefinder camera. Leica fans tend to downplay the similarities, calling the XE-7 and the R3, "cousins". Minolta fans, on the other hand, tend to downplay the differences, calling them, "brothers". Leica users will claim that while the camera parts may be largely manufactured by Minolta, the camera used superior Leica optics and German quality control. But, in fact several of the lenses that were designed for this camera were Minolta lenses, as well. For example, the 80-200mm MC Rokkor-X zoom lens, which sold under the Minolta label for $400 at the same time it was rebadged and sold as a Leica lens for $1200. That's a lot to pay for German quality control. (Just to be equitable, there were a few Leica lenses that were adapted and sold by Minolta -- see the lens lists for details). You can tell a Minolta lens in the Leica line-up because the lens is clearly marked "Lens made in Japan". The Leica R3 camera has a Leica mount, NOT a Minolta mount and is the cheapest way to get into Leica SLR photography -- especially when you use Minolta lenses. It's just too bad that you can't get them at Minolta prices!
(1976-79) Leica came out with a version that had a motor drive. Too bad Minolta didn't do this.
(1980-86) Leica found the agreement with Minolta for the Leica R3 so lucrative, they decided to travel further down the same road and announced the Leica R4. In this instance it is a modified XD-11, instead of a modified XE-7 as was the Leica R3. As with other Leica SLR cameras, it used a Leica lens mount, not a Minolta mount.
(1983-88) Leica found the agreement with Minolta for the Leica R3 so lucrative, they decided to travel further down the same road and announced the Leica R4s. In this instance it is a modified XD-11 minus the shutter-priority mode. As with other Leica SLR cameras, it used a Leica lens mount, not a Minolta mount.
(1986-91) Leica found the agreement with Minolta for the Leica R4 so lucrative, they decided to travel further down the same road and announced the Leica R5. In this instance it is a modified XD-11 with TTL flash metering and other improvements added. As with other Leica SLR cameras, it used a Leica lens mount, not a Minolta mount.
(1988-present?) Leica found the agreement with Minolta for the Leica R5 so lucrative, they decided to travel further down the same road and announced the Leica R6. In this instance it is a modified XD-11, stripped of it's automatic modes. As with other Leica SLR cameras, it used a Leica lens mount, not a Minolta mount. The Minolta XD-11 still lives!
(1988-present?) The R6.2 is an improved version of the R6. As with other Leica SLR cameras, it used a Leica lens mount, not a Minolta mount. The Minolta XD-11 still lives!
(1990-94) Leica found the agreement with Minolta for the Leica R6 so lucrative, they decided to travel further down the same road and announced the Leica R-E. In this instance it is a modified XD-11. As with other Leica SLR cameras, it used a Leica lens mount, not a Minolta mount. The Minolta XD-11 still lives!
(1992-97) Leica found the agreement with Minolta for the Leica R6 so lucrative, they decided to travel further down the same road and announced the Leica R7. In this instance it is a modified XD-11. As with other Leica SLR cameras, it used a Leica lens mount, not a Minolta mount.
We didin't want to do this, but since other websites have been stealing our
stuff, we have no alternative but to state:
COPYRIGHT@1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006 by
Joe McGloin. All Rights Reserved. The material on this website is protected
by US Federal copyright laws. It cannot be copied or used in any manner without
specific approval from the owner.