The scenario: Using my fe2 for street/candid photos is driving me to a RF. I wear glasses and can see at most 2/3 of image in the viewfinder when taking a quick shot. Needless to say this leads to a lot of "I don't remember that being in the photo" after the negs are developed. Plus the mirror black out, the slap, etc. My F3 has great viewfinder but it's about as discreet as a bazooka. I have about $1000 to spend and really only want/need one lens (a 35 or 40). So my options (and compromises) are:

- CL w/ 40: nervous about reliabilty/reparability of 30 year old camera - CLE w/40: now overpriced out of my range? / reparability if needed? - bessar r w/35: concerns about quality of rangefinder/body - hexar rf w/40 or v-lander 35: very limit of affordability

I only have try it out access to a Hexar at a local camera shop so I'm looking for user's comments about the strengths and drawbacks of these combos especially concerning the viewfinders for a glasses wearer.

aric blair

-- aric blair (aricblair101@earthlink.net), August 29, 2001

Answers

aric:

I'm sure few will agree with me but I would go for the Leica CL or Leitz Minolta CL. Good leica men will repair them. The Minolta CLE is almost unrepairable at this point. A few simple adjustments are available but no real replacement parts. I have two CLs and love them. The 40 is a great all around lens and super sharp. The CL packages are still affordable and let you get into RF for a lot less than most alternatives. I would bet the long term reliability of the CL is better than the V'landers. Also, the CL is the easiest of all leicas to load.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), August 29, 2001.

I completely agree with the above. I love my CL much more than I ever did my M6 (Although I'm sure I'll have another at some point). I have seen a couple different CL + 40/90 packages for $8-900 which would give you the extra to get a good CLA from Krauter or DAG. Or you could get just the body and a 40 for around $5-600 and use the extra to buy film and a nice small domke bag.

Otherwise, I'd just order a Bessa R and a voigt 35. Don't stress about the RF or body. They are good camera from what I've heard.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), August 29, 2001.

Be informed, though, of the meter reliability problems in the CL. We have several previous threads on that, worth checking out. With the understanding that a repair (preferably by Leica) may be in order, I think the CL a good choice for your purpose.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), August 29, 2001.

If you really only need a 35mm lens the best bet (IMO) would be the Hexar Classic (non-interchangeable lens). It has a 35mm F2 that is (admitted by Konica) a direct copy of the 35 Summicron (non-asph). The viewfinder is great, better than the Hexar RF or the Voigtlander, nearly as good (and not just my opinion, see the likes of Herbert Keppler) as the M6. I've owned an M4, CL, extensively used an M6 and now use a IIIg, so I have a fairly good idea of what the strong points are in each. The faults of the Hexar are 1)admittedly with A/F you have to be darned careful where you focus on. I didn't find it much of a problem though because according to Konica (and I believe them) you could accurately focus on a pencil at 3 feet, that's how narrow the sensor reads, and combined with the cross-hair type aid, it's a darned sight more accurate than the Contax G2. To the people that say you don't know if you've achieved focus till you get your film back - same thing happens when your M6 rangefinder is out of whack. 2) fiddly buttons for manual focus and manual exposure. It really is designed for aperture preferred auto, which is the way I used mine 90% of the time. 3) because of it's two bladed hybrid leaf shutter (not to be confused with its diaphram which is 16 blade and gives great bokeh) it has a maximum shutter speed of 1/250 sec - no using TMZ3200 during the day with this camera. The up side to this however is you have full fill flash capability upto 1/250 sec, and with the supplied flash it is easy to get great fill flash on program. I've owned a lot of cameras in my time and this is the one I regret the most getting rid of. It's not an M6 (or a IIIg for that matter, but that may be the snob in me), but if all you need is the 35mm, at a going price of probably US $400 or $500 for one in like new shape, you can't miss.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), August 29, 2001.

I tend to rave about the Hexar classic around here, so I won't... as much. ;-) The other thing worth mentioning is that it's really quiet- even in non-stealth mode. People not familiar with the camera are never sure if they really made an exposure. The parallax compensation indicator works very well to indicate focus, and I've yet to have one of my hundreds of shots come out incorrectly focused. Auto-rewind will leave the leader out if you want. I've come back with whole rolls of what could be nice postcards, never failing to impress. Photo.net has a big page on this camera.

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), August 29, 2001.

Thanks for the responses so far. I've been leaning toward a CL w/40 (maybe just a "leica mystique" thing) and I'm aware of the meter problems but since if I had a larger budget I'd opt for an m4-2/p or m2, I'm not put off by them; a handheld meter is ok by me. (I'm constantly checking my in-camera meter anyway, may as well do so without peering through a viewfinder) That said, any problems seeing the entire 40 framelines and outside them for the bespectacled amongst us?

Bob, I'd consided a Hexar AF but the 250 shutter speed limitation is just too slow for a committed tri-x user. Spent last weekend photographing a KKK/anti-KKK protest at 12 noon and with sunny 16 and all ...

-- aric blair (aricblair101@earthlink.net), August 29, 2001.

If you think there is extranous material in negatives shot with a SLR, just wait until you see the surprise stuff from a Leica with it's 80% area coverage at real working distances (0.9x0.9=81). I suggest that you get an IMARECT finder and use it on your Nikons before spending a lot of money on Leicas. (PS, if you just gotta go Leica, the CL is terrific).

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), August 29, 2001.

I would also say a good CL would do nicely. I bought one with 40/2 lens from Tamarkin NY for around $700 in '99 that was in exc+ condition. There were various things I didn't like about it, but others that I really did (the size and the lens being primary). Overall, the rediscovery of how nice a Leica CL was is what brought me back to Leica M later that year.

You can occasionally find a good user M4-P body for $600-700 and a good, older 35/2 lens for $300 or so, so $1000 is not totally out of the question for a Leica M.

The Hexar Classic is a wonderful camera in many ways with an excellent lens, but I feel the same way you do about the slow max shutter speed and I'm not so crazy about the controls on the Hexar. They seem somewhat fiddly.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), August 30, 2001.

If you only want a 40mm lens get a Minilux. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool anti-P&S type guy and I really love mine. Aperture-priority auto, and you can set hyperfocal distance manually. Haven't had the Rollei 35S out of the house since the Minilux arrived. Only bad thing with the Minilux is the Miniviewfinder.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 30, 2001.

As much as I love my fixed-lens Hexar (not the RF) for certain things, I must disagree with some of the kudos heaped on it by earlier posters. While there is this widespread belief that the lens is a copy of the 35mm Summicron 4th version, I own that lens with an M6 and there is no comparison: the 'cron at f2.8 is much sharper than the Hexar at any aperture (and the Hexar does not really achieve critical sharpness at any aperture, in my opinion -- this may be an inadequate AF system rather than a bad lens, as there is no way to tell the difference), and the Hexar lens flares easily while the 'cron does not. Additionally, the Hexar's finder is NOT even close to the Leica's (nor to the Hexar RF that I looked at in a store); the Hexar's auto-focussing sensor is subject to significant parallax error at close distances (<3 feet); and its diaphragm does not have 16 blades -- I'm staring into it right now, and it has six blades, though they are very curved and form a nearly circular opening at settings larger than about f5.6; and the Hexar's meter cell, located next to the lens, is easily overwhelmed by bright light sources outside of the frame and tricked into gross underexposure. Oh, yes, and another thing: the Hexar's build quality is not too good -- you can expect the viewfinder to have loads of dust in it within about 3 days' use -- no joke.

With all of that said, I also love my Hexar, so I can understand the over-estimation of its capabilities! The finder is better than an SLRs if not up to other RFs; the auto exposure and AF systems are pretty reliable most of the time, and with experience you can know when to override them; and if you get one of the earlier versions with "stealth" mode you will have the quietest camera on the market, capable of making shots at <4 feet without your subjects even knowing they've been photographed. With the Hexar you can shoot very quickly, almost as fast as you can get the camera to your eye, and most of the time it'll work well. I've gotten shots with the Hexar that I simply would not have gotten with any other camera. BUT: don't expect a Leica-like experience, and don't expect Leica quality in the final product, the photos.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), August 30, 2001.

Aric

I use the CL and think it is a wonderful camera and can recommend it,. The 40mm Summicron or Rokkor are excellent lenses. However, it might be the easiest loading Leica, but it is still not exactly fast. As a glasses wearer I find there is little eye relief for the 40mm frame - in fact a 50mm would work much better for extended periods. I also think I may need a eyepiece correction lens, as the focussing is more tricky than on an M6 due to its small size. Eyepiece correction lenses for the CL are difficult to obtain!

If you get a 90mm, I suggest you make sure you get the lens made for it, or a Tele-Elmarit. My Elmarit-M, is just too big for it.

Personally, I think the CL is a great camera when you are not using it as your only camera. I think for a main camera it is a little too small, as it fits my hands less well if I am using it all day. But if you want to travel light, it can't be beat. O yes, I hate the vertical hanging straps!

I agree with others about the Hexar - a nice camera, but 1/250th seems to me a handicap. The Minilux has poor ( P & S type) parallax correction - the CL is fully covered in this department.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.

I recently bought a user M3 (SS PV) in fine mechanical condition for $550 (people tell me I got lucky), a 50mm f/2 Summitar for $100 + $65 for the SM-M adapter, an 85mm f/2 Canon Serenar for $175 (uses the same adapter) a 135mm f/4.5 Hektor (for M) for $100, and a wonderfully accurate MC meter for $65. Total: $1055.

I owned a CL years ago and was not crazy about it. Perhaps I'm nitpicking but (1) the lens release button just happened to be in a place where my finger rested on it all the time, (2) there's no ratchet on the film advance, (3) the non-standard 40mm viewfinder frame did not jive with a 50mm lens. And certainly no "Leica feel."

The Bessa R is undoubtedly a fine camera--although I've never owned one and cannot speak from personal experience. However, it is not a Leica. And the shutter is certainly louder.

There is no substitute for the M3--many Leicaphiles regard it as the epitome of Leica design. I've owned 2 M2s in my day and an M4 and, as beautiful as they were, they didn't quite come up to this standard. And even die-hard M6 owners admit that the legendary Leica quality has been compromised somewhat nowadays.

Disadvantages? Poor eye relief. A little finicky to focus. Loading is a BIT of a pain--though not downright maddening as in the Barnack cameras. No rewind crank.

I suggest the Bessa R if raw ‘practicality’ is of paramount importance to you; a user M if you want to have that special Leica something and are willing to put up with a few idiosyncrasies.

I should add that the M2, M3 and M4 take no batteries, do not have to be turned on and off, and have no LEDs anywhere on the camera.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), August 30, 2001.

the Hexar does not really achieve critical sharpness at any aperture, in my opinion

This is contrary to most tests of this lens, and my own experience. However, sharpness is just one possible character of a lens, and by the time you have dealt with processing and printing, if sharpness is the only thing noticeable, there's something missing in the image.

When I have shows, I mix images made with several different cameras. The only comments I get on appearance (other than obvious things like bleaching some prints) relate to format. Within a format, the prints generally don't look different enough (and this includes shots I've done with an old Olympus rangefinder I bought for $50) because of the film size. Printed and behind glass, it becomes irrelevant.

And coming back to the sharpness thing, this has been one of my most successful b/w prints to date, probably because of its Frank-like quality. I wish I could find the woman, I've had publication offers on it. It was taken with the Hexar wide open, it is not "critically sharp," but I've never had one comment on its lack of sharpness.

Woman Working, Copyright 1999 Jeff Spirer

I would agree that the Hexar has some ergonomics issues, but I've yet to meet a camera that didn't. I wish the buttons were bigger and there was a shutter speed display in the viewfinder. I've never had a problem with the speed, but Tri-X isn't too bad when overexposed (I don't shoot it at 400 anyway).

I'm also a bit surprised at the build quality comment. Does this come from experience? I use mine in the rain, it's been bounced down the sidewalk on a San Francisco hill, I've never treated it any more gently than any other camera (I use them, rather than amuse them) and it's held up well.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 30, 2001.

Jeff--

I agree with your comments on sharpness: it is only one aspect of technical photo quality and it is over-emphasized by many photographers, while relatively unimportant to many viewers. And like you, I have never heard anyone comment on the sharpness or lack thereof of any of my prints (and thank God for that, since I couldn't think of anything more depressing than to have a viewer look at a print and say "Oh, my, it's so sharp, I love it!"). BUT there were earlier comments on the quality of the Hexar's lens and some of its other features, and I felt compelled to offer my opinion after two years and about 100 rolls with the camera. If the Hexar's optics are supposed to be a copy of the 35mm Summicron 4th version, then Konica just did not get it right. Just last night I printed a Hexar shot which had a big flare spot near the middle of the frame, even though there was no light source in or near the frame -- that's something that wouldn't happen with the 'cron, nor with my Nikon 35's, for that matter.

As I noted in the comment, though, the sharpness issue may be a function of AF accuracy, since occasionally I do get a very sharp shot.

And the Hexar just doesn't seem very-well built to me. The viewfinder seems to actually suck in the dust, and it doesn't feel too sturdy to me. On the other hand, a recent head-on collision with a drunk at a music fest left my Hexar with only cosmetic damage, and no functional damage, which is the important thing.

As I stated, though, I love the bugger and will probably eventually buy another, just as preparation for the day that it is discontinued.

BTW, that IS a nice shot! The kind of thing for which the Hexar is perfectly suited.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), August 30, 2001.

Douglas, Maybe your Hexar needs a CLA. I had one done about a year ago, after taking it down the Galopagos and the rain forest.

I don't have a whole lot of exp. with the 35 'Cron Asph- it just arrived recently, so I can't compare. But I have to say that I've had few flare issues with my Hexar, shots have come out dizzingly sharp, my viewfinder is quite clean (I would hardly characterize it as a dust magnet), and I've rarely had any wrong exposures. Indeed, any meter can be problematic.

But as a single focal length, sub $500 RF-style street camera, it's pretty darn good. I don't think anyone is trying to compare it with a full on M6 and 35/2 Asph. I don't know enough about the CL for the comparison, but issues about repair/adjustment, etc., seem problematic.

True, the ergonomics aren't the best- but I shoot it in "aperture biased" 95% of the time. If I need critical exposure work, I can use the spot meter in manual mode. And- this puppy rear-curtain flash syncs up to 1/250. As for top shutter speed, I have enjoyed having up to 1/1000 with the M6. But for that, you can bring a 2x or 4x ND filter- true, not very elegant. I have one, but haven't used it yet, and usu. shoot ISO 100.

On an upcoming 100 mi weekend bike trip up in the Lost Coast, I'd like to take the M6, but the Hexar will work fine, I won't worry about it getting scruffed up in my handlebar bag, I can do nice, easy fill flash stuff, and it'll be lighter.

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), August 30, 2001.

I totally disagree with the first couple of posts. The CLE is very easily repairable. I have both CLE and CL and its always the CL that has to go to a specialize Leica repairer, while the CLE can be managed by anyone who works on XG Minoltas. Mind you the CLE has only ever needed service proving far more reliable the the CL. Shutter speeds are more acurate, aperture priority, better finder and a meter that always works. Its better in ever respect to my CL and thats why the CL remains purely as a second body. People bag CLE's on here generally because they dont have the Leica badge. If your spending $1000 US you can easily get one on Ebay, the average on their for a CLE with 40mm is around $750. Well within your budget.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), September 02, 2001.

I've used a Hexar AF extensively over the last few years. Bought it used, never had major trouble with it. I have 11x14 prints on Tri- X that I would defy people to not call "sharp".

And, no dust in the viewfinder.

If you want to complain about the camera, complain about the wimpy 1/1250th top shutter speed, or the tiny buttons.

The Hexar RF or AF, IMHO seem to me to be better choices than a 30 year old item.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), September 02, 2001.

First off, thanks for all the responses. Really got me thinking about the plusses and minuses of each potential combo. Now for a follow-up:

Anyone use a 40 Rokkor on a M 4-2/P or M-6? Looking at various dealers/ebay it seems this combo is not much more expensive than a CL/CLE and alot more dependable/exandable. (I'm intrigued by the 40 length since I'm always finding a 35 just a little too wide but a 50 too long. And the bargain price is nice) I know that a 40 will bring up a 50 frameline and framing shots would be hit and miss at first. Any users have horror stories about such a combination?

-- aric blair (aricblair101@earthlink.net), September 03, 2001.

I totally disagree with the first couple of posts. The CLE is very easily repairable. I have both CLE and CL and its always the CL that has to go to a specialize Leica repairer, while the CLE can be managed by anyone who works on XG Minoltas. Mind you the CLE has only ever needed service proving far more reliable the the CL. Shutter speeds are more acurate, aperture priority, better finder and a meter that always works.

To pick up Joel's point. Anyone can repair a Leica CL, just as anyone can repair a Minolta CLE. The point is that there are no longer any spares for the CLE available from Minolta, so the spare availability is very spotty and gets lower all the time. If you need a new part for the CL then you can get them still from Leica. Also do remember that the CL predates the CLE by seven years and production was finished by the time the CLE appeared. Both are good cameras, but as the CLE is a Minolta, Leica (who are so good at maintaining their old cameras) are not interested in it.

Aric

The 40mm Rokkor works well on an M6, in fact I have heard it said that the 50mm frame actually gives the real view of the 40mm when focussed at infinity. Closer than this and you will have to visualise a frame wider than the 50mm. It shouldn't be too difficult. I also agree with you about the virtues of a 40mm lens.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 04, 2001.