At the suggestion of one of the other participants in this forum and the camera equipment forum, I would like to share my troubling experiences with a Konica Hexar RF I bought in July.

My overall assessment is that this was a good idea that was very badly executed. If this camera had been done properly, it would have been terrific. The problem is, it wasn't.

I was looking for a rangefinder to do discrete, close-in work: street photography, pictures of kids, etc. I find the Leica M's wonderful for their purity and craftsmanship, but a bit too fussy (I realize this may not be too popular an opinion on this site, so I apologize): too time-consuming to load, too much to do to take a properly exposed picture.

I use the Contax G2. It has wonderful optics, it's a good picture taking tool, and it is well thought-out and easy to use, but the AF is maddening -- there's no real way to confirm the camera is focused what you're aiming at. Indirect focusing is an element of all rangefinders, but with a camera that has an accurate mechanical rangefinder, you can at least know that you have focused the rangefinder (if not the lens) on what you meant to.

So the Hexar RF seemed (stress "seemed")ideal: a manual focus rangefinder with enough automation to make picture taking easier and more successful. Moreover, it would enable me to use Leica glass, and the body would be substantially less expensive.

The most serious flaw in the Hexar RF is what would seem to be a near total lack of quality control. When I got the RF home and popped on the lens, I got a shock: the rangefinder focused past infinity.

I took it back to the store, Camera Land in NYC. I compared it with a Leica; the Leica focused properly on infinity.

So, they offered to trade it for another Hexar RF. The next body I looked at focused even farther past infinity (I took it outside to check). In fact, I looked at SIX cameras before I found one that focused properly on infinity.

That's bad, very bad; I am not a fussy guy (you should hear the nice things I say about all the other camera systems I own), so my level of frustration and inability to find a suitable camera to walk out of the store with is troubling.

Still, I went home happy with my properly working Hexar RF, excited to start taking pictures with it. After a couple of weeks of use, a dark line appeared on the bright patch in the viewfinder running from the left hand side of the bright patch diagonally down to the bottom -- clearly a piece of dirt or a crack.

So, I sent in my new camera for service. Having been somewhat spooked by my difficulty in finding a working rangefinder, I (foolishly) asked them to check the accuracy of the rangefinder. However, I asked them to be careful, recounting the story about how many cameras it took me to find one that operated as well as this one.

I got the camera back yesterday, popped on the lens, and -- guess what -- it now focused PAST infinity. That is, they actually sent it back in worse shape than they got it. That's also very bad.

When I called them to express my concern and frustration, they asked me whether I was using a Konica lens or a Leitz lens. I told them I was using their lens, but I asked, "it shouldn't matter, right?" Then came this shocking news: they said the Hexar RF does not focus properly with Leica M lenses!! I said that I had never seen a word about this, and that this was a major problem: people (myself included) were buying this camera in large measure to be able to take advantage of Leitz glass. I told them that I certainly hadn't seen that info anywhere, and they vaguely claimed it had been in "magazine articles." They didn't divert from this company line; whether it is true or whether they are simply required to say this (either for licensing reasons or because their marketing people want to emphasize their own Hexanon lenses), it was definitely something I did not want to hear.

Other weaknesses: a stiff shutter release button and a good bit of lag between pressing the button and having the shutter trip; incomprehensible lack of TTL flash

I hope this is helpful. If anyone would like to contact me to discuss this in greater depth, feel free.

My advice would be to avoid buying this camera and, if you want more automation and easier film loading, wait for the M7

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), August 10, 2000

Answers

Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer, Hexar RF with Leica 35/2.

I have to say that after six months of using a Hexar RF, I have had none of these experiences. However, I believe that the comment about not working properly with Leica lenses is a legal disclaimer rather than a technical issue.

I've used mine with Konica, Leica, and Voigtlander (with an M adapter) lenses with absolutely no focusing problems. I have probably run 100 rolls at this point. I haven't heard any complaints from other users on this. To be perfectly honest, I don't pay much attention to where the focus mark lines up, I test cameras/lenses by taking them out and shooting at every distance at every aperture.

I'm a bit surprised about the shutter button comment, I think it's not stiff enough. This is a personal thing though. TTL flash is a monumental waste in my opinion, the flashmatic system, which unfortunately is no longer offered on any optical rangefinder cameras, is far more reliable.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 10, 2000.

I'm glad to hear Mr. Spirer's experiences; they encourage me about the camera.

Still, there's simply no getting away from the fact that out of 8 cameras I examined, only one focused properly (if it's not accurate at infinity, it won't be accurate elsewhere in its range).

One of my principal interests in this camera was being able to use Leitz glass; Mr. Spirer's experiences are reassuring. If it was, as he conjectures, just a disclaimer from the Konica people, that would be good.

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), August 10, 2000.

Maybe the store had gotten a bad batch all from the same run. I don't own the camera, but I played with one at my local store, and tried my Leica and Voigtlander lenses on it. Seemed to focus fine, and infinty lined up as well. Felt like a nice camera to me that would offer quicker shooting with the auto exposure mode and auto winder when needed. I do like the TTL feature that my good old Minolta CLE has, and I have a powerful flash with a remote cord that I can use off camera, or bounce into a diffuser, etc, without having to calibrate the light loss.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 10, 2000.

My Hexar RF focuses a little past infinity, so I tested it very carefully closeup at F2 with both the Konica 50 and the 50 Summicron. with basically no depth of field, the focus was dead on. Yes it is annoying, but for all practical purposes, it works just fine. I have now shot about 30 rolls of film with it and no problems. The most annoying thing for me is not understanding the exact area being metered. The Konica ad booklet and the instruction book seem to contradict each other and the review in Pop Photography was useless. Here is a general evaluation of the camera (compared to my Leica M5) which I sent to a fellow Leica user ___________

Before evaluating the Hexar RF, let me give my Leica background so that everything is in context. I am a serious amateur photographer and the Leica M camera has been my primary photographic tool since 1963 or 64 (I turn 60 tomorrow). I started with an M2 and 50 F2.8 Elmar and have also used the M3, 4, 5, and 6, as well as the CL and the CLE. Yes, Ive used SLRs, but not very frequently. The rangefinder way of seeing has always appealed to me. My current system consists of Leica M5 (with a softie) and Hexar RF bodies, used with 15, 35M, 50 Wetzlar F2, and 90 Tele-Elmarit. I also have a Hexar (original), which has become my main camera for low light in moderate size settings, the GR1, and a Canon QL17-GIII (which always gets thrown in my suitcase as a backup and gives nice images). My SLR is a Canon Rebel S with a 35-70 zoom which I havent used for several years. Whats very important for me when using a camera is light weight and a good viewfinder. I also realize that EVERY camera is a compromise, so whats important to me may not be to others. Now, onto the RF HEXAR. My scale says that it weighs about an ounce more than an M6 and a couple of ounces less than the M5. It has a very good solid feel in my hands. The control are very natural for a M user except that the location of the shutter release is a little different. The loading is easy and the rewinding automatic. With moderate background noise, I dont hear the camera rewinding, and when I try to take a picture and get no response I can get momentarily confused. (The rewind on the classic Hexar is hard to hear at any time.) VIEWFINDER: The RF viewfinder presents an interesting contrast with the M2,4,5 (I will refrain from my usual tirade on the crummy M6 framelines). I wear average thickness glasses. With M5, I can almost see all of the 35mm frameline by jamming my glasses against the window. The view is large and gives an interesting sense of being part of the picture. With the RF, there is the whole 35 frame floating with space around it (but a little smaller than the M). In fact I can see the 28 lines. This is a different feeling from the M and Im not sure which I prefer; maybe it will depend on the situation. Framing accuracy is better with the 35 on the RF. The bigger 90 frameline on the M5 is a real plus. The 90 frameline on an M6 is laughable (there I go again). The RF finder is a little dimmer than an M, which doesnt bother me. Focusing was quite easy, but I havent tested the RF yet in a spontaneous low light situation. METERING (with B&W and color negative): I can manually meter with the best of them and often do with the M5 and the classic Hexar. But I like aperture priority automatic as long as I have an exposure lock. The RF has two automatic settings, AE and AEl. In AE I think it meters until the shutter starts to open. AEL is like most cameras - when the shutter relaease is pressed half way down, the exposure is locked in. I cant understand why AE is even an option. It seems utterly useless, especially with the semi spot meter which I will get to next. My exposure with 25 rolls of B&W and color neg taken in the somewhat tricky light in Greece was just fine. I only used AEL and never found a need for manual. The RF seems to have a very heavy centerwieghted system, which may really be a semi spot meter like the M6. The instruction book is very badly written, but a diagram in the advertising literature seems to indicate semi spot. The RF meter on AEL even worked very well when I had to shoot very fast with varied lighting and no chance to choose what to meter on. When I meter in manual, I love the M5. MOTOR: I am left eyed, so the motor is a godsend. With any non motorized camera, I have to take my eye from the viewfinder to wind the film. The sound of the shutter and motor are a bit sharp compared to an M body, but not objectionable so far - the classic Hexar is the best. However, as I said before, I havent tested it in an intimate low light setting. As I was shooting the rear end of a burro (ugh) in Greece, he clearly heard the sound (about 25 feet away) and turned to look, which gave me a nice shot.

Am I ready to give up the M? Definitely not! Tomorrow I will be shooting the rehearsal of a play in a poorly lit theater. The M5 with Neopan 1600 and all my lenses will be in the lead, with the Hexar as a backup. I need the larger frames for a 90 and the quick familiar spot metering of the M5. If new rangefinder models appear, I will certainly be ready to consider them, but I pray they will use my Leica lenses.

-- jay goldman (goldman@math.umn.edu), August 10, 2000.

Andrew -- you may be right, but 7 in a row would be an amazingly bad run of luck. I would be more inclined to a generous interpretation if they hadn't returned my RF from their facility with worse focusing than it went it.

I use rangefinders moderately often. In so many ways, they are terrific. particularly when hiking, you can bring a lot of camera with relatively little weight or bulk (esp true in med format; the Plaubel Makina, despite some crankiness, is a wonder for this). However, indirect focusing always leaves me a bit uneasy compared to SLR photography: I understand the theory of why rangefinders should be more accurate, but in practice, I have a lot of faith in my eyes to be able to see what's in focus when looking through an SLR viewfinder. I'm not a fussy guy -- if you ever saw my office, you'd really comprehend the understated nature of that assertion -- but I like to be precise about my focusing; for rangefinder focusing to really be more precise, the rangefinder mechanism itself has to be very precise. What I have seen in my dealings with the Hexar RF suggests it is not, and I find that very problematic and troubling.

I don't have a lot of dealings with Leica (I use an R8 for 35mm portraiture), but when I have, they seem to take an evident pride and seriousness in their craftsmanship. Given what I have seen, I think it is difficult to make that same argument for Konica.

John

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), August 15, 2000.

I was at a camera store today that sells both the new Voigtlander and Konica rangefinders. We checked the Konica they had on display, and guess what? The split image didn't line up. It was higher than the finder image. They did tell me they have sold a few and no one had complained yet, but that they have had some problems with the double images being out of allignment in the Voigtlander Bessa R's that they have sold. Maybe its like buying a new car the first year they come out. Hopefully they'll get these bugs ironed out, or they will lose their shirts on warranty adjustments.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 15, 2000.

Well, I'm glad to know they haven't been getting complaints back on the Konica; presumably the people buying them are pretty discriminating (they're probably already Leica owners). On the other hand, they may be so accustomed to rangefinder mechanisms that work well that they simply haven't checked. to the Hexar RF's credit, the people at Tamarkin seem pretty high on it, and the folks there are pretty good.

As to the Bessa -- I honestly don't get this one. If you were going to offer up a reasonable interchangeable lens rangefinder, why would you do it in the old thread-mount? The lenses Cosina designed to go with it seem to be getting raves, but I would think that existing owners of old thread mount cameras are a lot happier about being able to take advantage of reasonable, modern, top-flight lenses than Bessa-R buyers will be about being able to use old Leica lenses. By contrast, if they had designed the R with an M-bayonet mount, Leica and Konica would be in deep doo-doo now, I should think.

As to the problem you saw with both the Konica and the Bessa rangefinder mechanisms: I probably wouldn't feel quite so miffed if the Konica cost was the Bessa-R. I'm not saying the R shouldn't be up to high standards -- it's not like they're giving it away -- but you feel a little better and more forgiving if you have a problem when the product costs half as much

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), August 15, 2000.

A little follow-up: on Aug 18, Konica replaced the body (interestingly with a body with an earlier serial number); this rangefinder seems to work fine with the Konica 50 mm lens, but with a leitz 90 f/2.8 elmarit-m, it still focuses past infinity (sigh).

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), August 22, 2000.

Forgive me for asking, but why is focusing beyond infinity such a bad thing? Many high-quality SLR lenses are _designed_ to focus a bit beyond infinity to account for thermal expansion.

Could it be that Konica is doing the same thing with the Hexar RF?

-- mark (mark@westerickson.net), September 29, 2000.

Yes, many SLR lenses do focus beyond infinity... like mirror lenses. But you still have the focusing screen to verify that the part of the scene that you want to be in focus is.

In a rangefinder camera, you have to have confidence that the mechanism is in perfect alignment, since you can't visually confirm focus... it is right or it is wrong... depending on the accuracy of the linkage to the rangefinder optics. Additionally, lenses that suffer from thermal expansion are usually large lenses. The tiny RF lenses don't have the potential to change in size to any measurable amount.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 30, 2000.

Al answered awfully well, but I would only add this: it's pretty clear Konica didn't intend to have the camera focus beyond infinity; if they did, they wouldn't have replaced the body or done the repair.

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), October 02, 2000.

I recently purchased a Hexar RF body, used. When it arrived the rangefinder focused just short of infinity, using a series of current Leica lenses, sighting from my 3rd-floor office window at a radio tower a mile away. The following adjustment procedure is provided for information purposes only, and anyone using the information does so at their own risk! Pop off the little plastic cap on the top plate above the rangefinder (carefully, so as not to lose it or slip and scratch the top plate; I mask the top with electric tape first and use a small jeweler's screwdriver blade to pry the cap from various places all around to work it free slowly). Looking down inside the hole there is a toothed wheel against a bracket with two teeth at the top. Inserting a small jeweler's screwdriver through those two teeth and across the teeth of the wheel and turning slightly moves the wheel to or fro, and this adjusts the rangefinder. I adjusted the Hexar visually, then locked the shutter open via locking cable release, opened the back and verified focus with a loupe using a piece of ground glass in the film gate. Finally, using a sewing needle I placed a very small drop of clear nail polish at the intersesction of the adjustment wheel and bracket to prevent vibration from moving it out of alignment. I can't say whether the Konica and Leica lenses have different focus camming, since all I'm using are Leica lenses, but once adjusted to infinity the RF is consistent throughout all the Leica lenses I own (a *lot* new and old, I'm a bit of a collector too). Otherwise, the Hexar has been flawless.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 27, 2000.

Jay's posting is pretty helpful. I'll have to admit that although I like tinkering, I feel a little uneasy about doing this sort of work on a camera. I think it's a given that I am not going to put any glue in there. Nonetheless, it might offer a real solution to this problem.

I have found that if I have a lens focused to its closest distance when I mount it, the rangefinder seems to stay accurate. However, when I mount the lens focused at infinity, the rangefinder goes past infinity. This makes me think that perhaps the cam is sticky.

John

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), October 27, 2000.

Actually,a question. I need to retire my ancient Nikon FTn and my collection of Nikkors. I would like to go rangefinder for the sake of weight and simplicity. The M6 is too costly, and I want the option of automation. Any thoughts on the Contax G2 v. Konica Hexar RF?

-- Hal Ross (pel42@aol.com), December 21, 2000.

John, after all this fuss, do you still think a Leica is too fussy? Really, it's a simple camera. With a Leica you only fuss over things that count. Hopefully. The fact is, my M6 started focusing past infinity, resulting in a trip to the repair depot, only 3 months after I bought it. Ok since then, though. My M2, bought new in 1960 or thereabouts, has never had a focus problem. This brings to mind the "they don't make 'em like they used to" response. The M2, by the way, just went in today for its first CLA after 40 years of use.

I guess the point is that any camera could develop a problem, Leica or otherwise. But if I had to go off to some remote place to take the world's most important picture, and I could only take one camera, I would take a Leica. Based on your report, I sure wouldn't take a Hexar. For the peace of mind of knowing the camera will do its part of the job, and not let you down, if you want to use Leica glass, put a Leica behind the glass.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 22, 2000.

Allow me to add my 1 cent, gentlemen. In the case when the RF focuses past infinity it means that all the range of proper focussing is shifted in the direction of nearest distances. So, for example, if you focus on the eyes, the nose would be in the proper focus.

You could watch to see such shift of focus through a ground glass (with a loupe) placed on a film gate then compareing the image on the groundglass with the RF-image. In a practice the lens DOF covers such a shift in proper focussing in limits of the lens/aperture DOF. But in this case we lose the advantages of RF-camera when shooting with full-open fast lenses.

Colour Christmas.

-- Victor Randin (www.ved@enran.com.ua), December 22, 2000.

Bob -- I take your point. But, after considerable consideration over these past months: yes, the M6 is still too fussy for me.

I could probably live with a good RF camera that didn't have aperture-priority AE and that didn't have a motor drive; I'm not sure why I should have to at this point, but I could (I started out with an OM-1, which I happily used for many years).

But the film loading thing is totally goofy. It is the year 2000, almost 2001; the 35mm film cartridge has made life sensationally easy for photographers. Even for a camera as demonstrably excellent as a Leica M, why should we struggle with taking off the bottom plate, flipping up a part of the back, and threading the film through.

As I have said (elsewhere, if not here): I probably should have waited for the M7, which I bet will have a back that opens like all the others, film loading like all the others, and very possibly aperture priority AE

Victor -- fair enough, but two points: 1) I bought this camera to be discreet while working in close, so accurate focus matters; and 2) it is an expensive enough camera that I simply expect proper focusing

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), December 22, 2000.

John's right. For a high precision rangefinder camera like the Hexar RF (which retails for $1200 to $1400 for the body alone), the rangefinder should line up perfectly at infinity. This ensures that you can focus the Konica 50mm f2 lens at its minimum distance wide open at f2--- to derive the benefit of a precisely focused subject (ie. a person's eye is your point of focus), where other areas of the frame are feathered out of focus. If your rangefinder is off at infinity, then the person's eye you just focused on will probably be out of focus too. Yes, if you stop down the lens to f8 you'll be ok, but some photographers like to shoot at or near the widest aperture. A properly functioning rangefinder is a must.

-- Kenneth LaValle (klava77@aol.com), December 30, 2000.

The Hexar RF: One Man's Response.

This is a note on the Hexar RF "problems."

First, I have had two of these bodies (the first died an ugly death from falling on a cement floor). At first blush, it may look like the RF is off at infinity. The Hexar RF, as described by the techs at Konica, has an infinity point in the RF that's about a mile away. I doubt a lot of people have that kind of view. Both of my bodies looked like they were off; but from my 34th-floor window were fine.

Second, the focusing itself is not what's beyond infinity - it's the rangefinder. If you had to have any error, it's preferable to have the spot move *past* infinity than stop short of it. In the former case, you are focusing a little short of the subject. Since DOF is 2x behind what it is in front, this makes no difference at infinity and probably makes little difference, even up close. If your camera RF falls short of infinity, you are focusing behind the subject, which even at infinity is disastrous. Most used Leica Ms I have seen are not properly adjusted. They all "fall short" of the long-distance targets.

Third, another factor no one is paying any attention to is the fact that the RF cams are ground differently on different lenses. The M39 and M mounts both have tolerances. A tiny bit in the RF cam of the lens can make the RF in the camera look like it's off. Konica's cams are very precisely ground, but not necessarily the same way Leica's are. The 35/2 Summicron I have "infinities-out" on a star. The 35/2 Canon I have "infinities-out" about two blocks away. The 35/2.8 Jupiter, one block. This is all with the same Hexar RF body. And the thing that is truly ridiculous is that the hyperfocal distance at f/2 with a 35mm lens is about 60 feet. Even with a 50/1.2, the hyperfocal distance is between 100 and 200 feet (if I recall). So much of this is taken care of.

Fourth, I have shot now 250+ rolls of film with my Hexar RF. I have tested the following lenses with it, all wide-open, all at close range and with no problems, whether M lenses or M39 lenses with the most egregious generic adapters: 35/1.8 Canon; 35/2 Summicron (4th gen); 35/ 2 Canon black; 35/2.8 Jupiter-12 black; 50/1.2 Canon black; 50/1.4 Nikkor chrome; 50/1.5 Canon Chrome; 50/1.5 Jupiter-3 chrome (2); 50/2 Summar collapsible; 50/1.8 Canon black; 50/2 Summicron (M3); 50/2 M- Hexanon; 50/3.5 Industar collapsible; 85mm f/2 Jupiter-9 (3, both versions); 85mm f/2 Nikkor chrome; 90mm/2.8 Elmarit-M; 90mm/2.8 M- Hexanon; 105mm/2.5 Nikkor black; and 135/3.5 Canon black. If these rangefinder "problems" don't manifest themselves with the 50/1.2, the 50/1.4, the 85/2 lenses and 105/2.5, they are not going to manifest themselves at all, despite the fact that what you *think* is infinity does not line up.

Fifth, the not-focusing-with Leica lenses is baloney. Konica tells you this because they can't control Leica's tolerances, not to mention the tolerances of other LTM and M equipment manufacturers. Why should Konica take the hit on warranty costs for other manufacturers' equipment? Does Leica guarantee compatibility with Konica, Cosina, Canon RF, Nikon LTM, Steinheil, Zeiss, KMZ, etc? No.

Sixth, TTL flash is no loss on a rangefinder. Leica didn't have this until four years ago. All it did then was make the batteries drain faster on the M6. In fact, it probably wouldn't matter to most users if it lacked a hot shoe. Rangefinders are not a flash vehicle. Witness 100,000 Canon 7 cameras with no flash mount at all.

Finally, there is no problem with the shutter release. The travel is shorter, and there is no mechanical linkage to push against. It is very smooth. I don't think there's any more of a lag, since your M's shutter release travel is about 3 times as long. That introduces a lag, even in a mechanical system.

In sum, I think that the RF makes a good mate to my M3, and although it is no M3 in build, it is a lot nicer than the newer M6s. When it comes down to it, having 1/10 stop exposure accuracy is great because you can "proof-print" a roll of 36 in about an hour at 8x10 without changing the exposure or contrast very much (if at all).

On a wider scale, people should stop looking to Leica for an answer for automation. They're not going to provide it in our lifetimes. Their answer to the Hexar RF was the M6 0.58, which provides all of the standard M idiosyncracies *and* a lower magnification finder. This is a little disappointing.

-- Dante Stella (dante@umich.edu), January 14, 2001.

Just to clarify - I load up and shoot rolls of only 20, so 250 rolls of film is only about 800 feet, about the same amount that you would shoot in about 125 rolls of 36.

DAS

-- Dante Stella (dante@umich.edu), January 14, 2001.

With the benefit of some time to think about it, I don't think I should have said that my M6 was focusing past infinity. What was happening was that the rangefinder never reached coincidence by the time the lens reached the infinity stop. If the lens could have focused past infinity, it would have been there by the time the rangefinder reached coincidence. It seems to me now that for the RF to focus past infinity, we would first see it pass through coincidence, and then back out again. This wasn't happening. Just setting the record straight.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 14, 2001.

Else 1 cent, please. In terms when the lens and the camera body (M- Leica working distance is 27.8mm) are adjusted perfectly, but the RF doesn’t, two case are possible: 1) The RF never reaches infinity, but the lens reaches the infinity stop. We are forced to focus the lens behind the object (for mid- distances). This is the worst case, so we can’t cover the focus discrepancy with the lens/aperture DOF. 2) The RF reaches infinity, but the lens doesn’t reach the infinity stop. We are forced to focus the lens before the object. In this case we can cover the focus discrepancy with the lens/aperture DOF.

However the best way is to adjust the RF :-) There is the screw – cover on the front panel between RF-windows. After unscrewing this, the adjusting screw is visible inside the camera. It is very easy to adjust the RF with a watch screwdriver when a normal lens is set. Unfortunately, the screw-cover(or the hole) is closed with red Leica label on the M6.

Regards,

-- Victor Randin (www.ved@enran.com.ua), January 15, 2001.

Dante -- Yours was a well reasoned response, and you make some good points. Still, I disagree with a lot of what you say.

Here's the thing -- the rangefinder went past infinity even when a Konica lens was on the camera; surely they must have a sense of the tolerances for THOSE lenses.

For my infinity tests, I have been focusing on structures about 1/4 mile away. When I can, I'll take it out and see if infinity means more 1/4 mile away, but I am dubious.

Konica clearly agreed with my assessment: that's why they gave me a new camera I'm sorry, but I don't think it is a lot to ask the following: before any camera goes out of the factory, make sure that infinity on the lens lines up with infinity on the rangefinder and that infinity is in focus; same thing for the near distance.

On TTL flash: I have this camera to be discreet, so flash is not a big part of my thinking. However, they clearly jammed a lot of electronics in this camera -- TTL metering, exp. compensation, autowind, ap. prioroity AE -- so I find the absence of TTL flash a little weird. And as to lowering expectations for automation from Leica -- I wouldn't bet the ranch on that. Leica will do what is in its commercial interests. If they see themselves losing customers to Contax or Konica or Cosina, they'll do what they have to, probably starting with adding some of the things that would have won them some of those customers in the first place. There are a lot of electronics in the R8, there are a lot in the Leica Geovid binoculars, and there are obviously a lot in that digital camera of theirs. The M-series is next, I would guess.

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), January 16, 2001.

I had a problem of using my Hexar RF body to match my Leica 135/3.4 APO lens. After shooting the first roll of slide, all slides came blurred. I think actually all of the slides were out of focus! I have no problem using Hexar RF body to match Leica wide angle and normal lenses. I don't know whether anyone using 135/3.4 lens on Hexar RF body has such a problem. I want to sell my Hexar RF, but the store keeper told me that he is still holding many sets in stock. He did not know why that suddenly all enquiries for this camera just stopped. Now I feel regret buying this camera.

-- Keith Lee (amslee@ms7.hinet.net), February 20, 2001.