i've been looking through some of the discussions regarding the konica RF and compatibility issues, and i'm afraid i'm going to bring up the question again: having used leica Ms for many years alongside nikons, (as a photojournalist it often makes sense to have the nikon for long lenses and the leica for closer, quieter work) i am seriously considering buying a hexar RF with their 50mm lens, in order to replace carrying the heavy nikon N90s much of the time, and take advantage of the motor drive and AE for action. a leica and a konica, with 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm lenses (along with the newly acquired canon G2 digital for deadlines) seems to be a good potential kit. BUT, all this talk of focus problems has me worried. SO: how big are these problems in dirty, real conditions, especially when focusing close at the maximum apertures, 30th sec f/2 inside a dark room, say? also, how well made is the konica? obviously it won't be a leica, but is it as rugged as, say, a nikon n

-- alan chin (rat101@aol.com), October 26, 2001

Answers

Alan:

All IMO... I think the Hexar body is probably as rugged as a Leica M, BUT the RF assembly seems to be very fragile and can go out of adjustment with a relatively minor impact to the camera. The meter is okay, but not anything close to Nikon's matrix... It is much like the meter in the M only covers a broader area, and does fine in AE with print films, but you must meter carefully for chromes. Motor is convenient, but the camera is not as quiet as the M. 1/2000th max shutter speed, 1/125th flash synch, and flip open film gate are blessings! All in all, relative to my Leica M's, I don't like my Hexar very much and want to sell it.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 27, 2001.

There are two separate issues surrounding the focusing of the Hexar RF. One is the factory misalignment of the rangefinder which seems to have plagued a good number of them. This affects focus no matter what kind of lens is used, but is easily fixed and then stays fixed as well as a Leica (which is not that hard to bump out of alignment BTW). The second issue involves the (supposed) difference in flange- to-filmplane distance of the Hexar vs Leica. This issue has been hailed by both Leica purists and Konica's marketing department as a reason not to use Leica lenses on the Hexar body and vice-versa. However I have not heard a single substantiating report from anyone doing this with a Hexar with a properly-aligned rangefinder. My experience with a Hexar RF and a bevy of Leica lenses including the 35/1.4ASPH and 135/3.4 is that focus is no different.

As to the Hexar's ruggedness, I can say that the finish is quite easily marred, and being a metal body it would translate impact shock to the innards more than a polycarbonate or hybrid body. I have not seen any literature attesting to the proposed logevity of the winder motor, nor anything about dust and moisture sealing. I would think it would be at least as rugged as a Nikon n90s (I gave mine to my son, and it still survives), but I wouldn't compare it to an F5. I doubt if the Hexar was designed with hard-beating PJ's in mind.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 27, 2001.

I use an RF and like it a lot.

Rhetoric about the supposed ruggedness of the Leica bodies is probably just posturing IMHO. I've handled both in the stores and if anything the Hexar is even denser and heavier than an M6. No matter what people say, cameras are not really meant to be dropped or used as weapons or hammers. In normal use I see no reason why a Hexar would be any more likely to break down than a Leica.

If you set the motor on C rather than S it is extremely quiet. Almost as quiet as the AF Hexar which is quieter than a Leica, so I don't see an issue there either. The motor is handy because it lets you keep your eye on the viewfinder to get to the next shot rather than needing to wind the film.

I find the meter workable if you know what you ar doing, even with slides. It's certainly fine for B&W.

Finally, I use mine with the Konica 50 and a Leica 35/2, and have no focussing issues.

YMMV.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), October 27, 2001.

alan,

Do you still use your Leicas when you work? I'm also a photojournalist for a newspaper and I've wondered if newspaper shooters still use Leica Ms. I've always used my Nikons, but I bought a M6 about a year ago (and then another body recently with another lens) and am starting to carry them around to use with wider stuff while my 80-200 and 300 stay on the nikon. I've only done this a bit, but it seems to work well. The one thing I'm not sure of (and the reason I still carry a wide lens for the nikons) is that I used to use a lot of fill flash. It's kind of silly to have two of the same focal length as I do now, so I was wondering how you deal with that. Outdoor fill just isn't happing with 1/50 of a sec.

I guess what I'm asking is what do you carry around with you on assignments. We seem to be in a similar situation - my work also has D1s for deadline and sports - and I was wondering how you work with it.

I must say I've also been thinking of a konica RF sometime in the future for the same reason you are.

regards john

-- j locher (locherjohn@hotmail.com), October 27, 2001.

I've owned and sold 2 Hexar RFs. I never encountered any focusing imcompatability with Leica lenses as a result of 'back-focus' variations. The first one was out of adjustment from the factory (which I fixed myself, thanks to info from this forum). The first one's RF also 'disconnected' below .7 meters, but this is because the Leica lenses, while having a minimum focus MARK at .7 meters, actually focus a little closer, while the Konica lenses quit turning exactly at .7 meters.

The RF's killer flaw for me is that the focusing image in the RF wiggles around if your eye moves side-to-side behind the eyepiece. This means that where you are focused depends on where your eye happens to be, and makes it very unreliable for focusing anything longer/faster than a 50 f/2, IMHO. I got whole rolls shot with a 90 at f/4 and 5.6 that were just - off. I finally gave up - twice.

(Also IMHO this is an effect of the extra-wide-angle .6 optics needed to make the 28 frame so enticingly visible - I've noticed a similar wiggle, less pronounced, in the Leica .58 body, which has disenthused me from getting anything below a .72)

With a 50 or wider the RF was accurate enough for f/2 shooting, and had the additional advantage that with 1/4000th second I could shoot at or near f/2 even in daylight for 'bokeh' effects. The RF's viewfinder 'tunnel' is also substantially wider than even the .58 Leica - even with glasses you can use the entire visible area outside the frame lines for a reasonable approximation of a 21 view by peering around a little.

I found the RF metering area to be too narrow for 'point-and-shoot' autoexposure - any significant highlight or shadow falling in the small central oval could shift the exposure 3-4 stops. It has an AE lock, which is good, but it cancels the exposure lock after each frame, so you have to keep re-metering and re-locking. It won't lock at all for motor sequences.

In terms of overall shutter/body ruggedness I think it rates near the N90/F100. Rangefinder optics are always an Achilles Heel.

The fact I've bought two shows that the concept is very seductive - if I could get either a Leica view/rangefinder with the RF motor/AE/ shutter attached or an RF with a Leica view/rangefinder attached I would buy my third in an instant.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), October 27, 2001.

thank you to everyone who has so generously contributed their experiences! i still haven't made up my mind, but the consensus seems to favorable... for john locher: i usually carry a leica with the abrahmsson rapidwinder, with either a 35 or a 28 on it, and also a nikon n90s with a 24, a 28-70, and an 80-200. the digital canon G2, a tiny camera which delivers 4 megapixel images in 11 MB files, is a great emergency backup. sometimes i carry a second leica, to have both 35 and 28 at the same time. as is obvious, i shoot mostly wide and use the longer focal lengths only very rarely, and usually leave them in the car or at home. nor do i use outdoor flash much. to replace the second leica with a hexar is what i'm considering. so i do use leicas for work, almost every day. the quality of the lenses and the faster handling more than makes up for the loss of zoom and flash capabilities. i do have to admit, though, that if i hadn't had leicas for 12 years, i might have gone for the contax G2 or the original fixed lens hexar. though in the end, the batteryless dependability, cold weather reliability, and highest-quality construction all

-- alan chin (rat101@aol.com), October 27, 2001.

Alan,

I've had my Hexar RF since Feb, 2000 and I know its strengths and faults intimately. The focus can be a bit screwy--I find it problematic with the Leica 135 goggle-eyes lens. The finder is small and dark, making exact focusing a problem with telephoto lenses--from 75 up. Recently the frame preview lever fell off. The shutter release is slow. But I still love this creature because it takes Leica lenses, including the 35 / 1.4 Summilux, which won't fit the Minolta CLE and the Bessa T.

It is the only auto M camera in production, like it or not.

With the slow response shutter button you need to plan ahead (1/10 sec.) for your shots (unlike the lighting fast Leica M's) and with the not wonderful viewfinder you are best off with wide angle lenses. It is a great camera when you cannot fiddle with shutter speed dials. When dusk is falling and light is changing rapidly I am happier if my Hexar is in my bag. Recently I've been using it with Voightlander's ball grip. Fantastic!

All the same, I do wish Leica would come out with an auto M.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4u.or.jp), October 29, 2001.