HI, everyone, does anyone out there has both the Hexar RF and M7? How does it compare between them, I know the Leica is better built and more exquisite, but what about functionally? The reason I am asking because I already have 2 M6TTL, with the M7 price stay above $2000( may stay there for while), and the falling price on the RF( I saw a new one on sale for $700 ), does it make sense to buy a RF for the time being and wait for the price drop on the M7 after one year or so? Thanks!!!

-- (mitchli@pacbell.net), April 17, 2002

Answers

why do you want the M7? what functionality are you missing with the M6? is there any thing the Hexar RF does, and the M7 doesn't do that you think is important?

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), April 17, 2002.

Where did you see the Hexar RF for $700.00 first. I'm looking for a second camera to my M6TTL. Thanks Scott

-- Scott Evans (scottevans@attbi.com), April 17, 2002.

I have both. Functionally the RF is better than the M7, as long as you can live with the slight extra noise from the shutter and motor. If so, the more accurate shutter, the higher top speed and the morized advance and rewind are definite advantages.

However - I hate the RF's viewfinder. It's dim and distorted, and the left side of the 28mm frame line is MIA. I've had more misloads with the RF than with my Leicas.

Leicas will last, and will be repairable for decades. Konica's commitment to their camera, and it's reliability, are unknown quantities. The price of the M7 will never fall far enough for it to make economic sense compared to a $700 (or even $1000) Hexar RF.

But in the final analysis, the RF isn't a Leica, so if the Leica M experience is important to you (the engineering, the feel, the simplicity) then the RF is no substitute. However, if you're a pragmatist who cares more about the pictures than about how you felt while taking them, the RF makes a lot of sense.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), April 17, 2002.

I'd easily go w/ the Hexar if you can live w/ the smaller (0.6) viewfinder. OK, it doesn't have the supreme feel of a M6/7, but it is darn close, specially for 1/3 of the price. Easy loading, auto fwd, AE, faster shutter - what is there not to like?!

I think it is a no brainer

cheers,

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), April 17, 2002.

Well, I know that the Hexar RF does everything M7 does plus more, but as a Leica fanatic, you always want something new that is Leica, my mean concern is the exposure accuracy between the RF and the M7, becasue I want to use the AE feature mostly. Thanks!

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), April 17, 2002.

I've seen no exposure inaccuracy with either camera. Given that the metering patterns are so similar, I wouldn't expect there to be much of a difference. I think exposure is a non-issue.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), April 17, 2002.

For me, the M7 wins because of the horizontally moving CLOTH shutter whereas the Hexar RF is made of metal. That's a difference there I appreciate.

And the brighter viewfinder and lack of compatibility issues with M- mount lenses make the M7 much better than the Hexar RF. After all, 2400 dollars isn't a bad price ya know.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), April 17, 2002.

Bless me Father, for I have sinned.....

I handled an RF last weekend at my Leica dealers. Neat camera in many ways, and probably more technologically advanced than the M7.

That said, there were some bummers though. Recall many posts mentioning the focus problems with M lenses. Never have liked the idea of autowind...In my photography I think of them as "film burners".

Don't like the .6 (or 0.58) finder. Too low a magnification for my shooting.

It ain't quiet by a long shot.

Faster shutter is nice, but I can always buy an ND filter a lot cheaper if I want to start shooting wide open in the sunshine.

I too worry about service down the road. Konica may have been around for quite awhile, but do they repair their 40 year old cameras?

All told, I'll probably wait awhile and get an M7 after things slow down and rebates can be combined with a Leica Day. Perhaps by that time they'll engrave the top covers with the Leica script, and not call it a limited edition collector camera. That would be nice.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 17, 2002.

I'd like to see anything that shows that you can't take a better photo with a Hexar RF than the M7. Or vice versa.

Cafe Trieste, Hexar RF, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer

That's what matters, what you can do with your camera, rather than what it is.

Grant Lamos and I went shooting in NYC a few weeks ago. Now speaking of quiet (which was brought up above), the Hexar AF was about one thousand times quieter than Grant's M6, which is something he observed. I took this photo without the subject's even noticing:

Mother and Baby, Copyright 2002 Jeff Spirer

In the end, people care about the house the carpenter built, not what tools he (or she) used.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), April 17, 2002.

I remember a lot of posts theorizing about focus problems with the RF. I don't recall many post from people who actually had problems, at least not any related to the hypothetical (and erroneous) back focus issue. Certainly all my lenses focus properly at all distances on my RF.

The desirability of low VF magnification is a very personal question. Given my use of the 28mm and my glasses, I think the .58 VF was one of the smartest moves Leica has made recently. I love the 35mm frame lines in that finder, and I think it's custom-made for use with the 3E. Others disagree, that's why Leica made three different ones. Those who disagree have a major disincentive where the Hexar is concerned.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), April 17, 2002.

Ah, Jeff, but the carpenter cares...

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), April 17, 2002.

I heard that Leica doesn't even own the script anymore. Is that true now?

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), April 17, 2002.

I'd like to see anything that shows that you can't take a better photo with a Hexar RF than the M7. Or vice versa.

There's nothing to see. That's why the "noise" clause is always invoked with this argument.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), April 17, 2002.

Bravo Bravo,Jeff Spirer.

-- Richard Brown (rubyvalentine@earthlink.net), April 17, 2002.

But can you focus a Noctilux well on a Hexar RF relative to a M7 .85? Don't think so.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), April 17, 2002.

Jeff:

Fully agree with your analysis.

It's also hard to see why one would have more misloads with the Hexar. After all, it shows on the film counter whether loading is successful: if not, you will see a blinking "0" instead of a "1". I can do this easily, even when I am chewing gum, as opposed to a Leica situation when I have to chomp on the baseplate.

With the M6, (and I love it) every time after I load a new roll, and close the baseplate, press the shutter, I have to pray very seriously "Come on, rewind crank, turn" as I slowly and gently swing the winding lever.

Johnson

-- Johnson Cheung (jsbc1@yahoo.com), April 17, 2002.

Well, can you frame 28mm or 24mm with a .85 M7? or use a Tri-elmar? A moot point, I think.

Johnson

-- Johnson Cheung (jsbc1@yahoo.com), April 17, 2002.

OK, now it's all too obvious: it's Jeff, not the camera.

". . . Lo sospeché desde un principio !!" (El Chapulín Colorado)

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 17, 2002.

Hello Mitch,

I have not owned the M7 but did own the M6 and the Hexar RF. Sold the M6 because of misload issues. No misloads with the Hexar after one year of steady use.

The viewfinder is better with the Leica. I like everything else better with the Hexar.

Konica NJ still services their last two SLR's made. Still have an inventory of parts for the FT1 Motor, and the TC-X. Do a great job at a reasonable price. The last FT1 was made in 1989. Mine are from 1984. That's a long time to service a discontinued camera line. (12 years and running) I recently visited with the parts department people with Konica. They will keep a parts inventory for the Hexar AF for at least five years. That camera was taken out of production in 1999. I wouldn't be surprised to see them service the Hexar AF for longer than five years. The Hexar RF is still in production so parts and service will be available for a long time.

BTW--Does anyone know how long Leica services their discontinued cameras? Many people use non Leica people for service of their Leica's. Is this because Leica doesn't service them anymore? I'd like to know.

I found no picture quality difference with either body. I use Leica lenses and very much enjoy the picture quality.

It really is the cameraman rather than the camera.

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), April 17, 2002.

As far as I know, Leica still services all the M series. Not sure about the others.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 18, 2002.

To get impressions of Konicas excellent (current) commitment to service/support of the Hexar: www.camerareview.com

Ps. How do I hyperlink that?

-- Thomas Lofqvist (thomas.lofqvist@brevlada.com), April 18, 2002.

Hi all

Mitch writes:

>> HI, everyone, does anyone out there has both the Hexar RF and M7? How does it compare between them, I know the Leica is better built and more exquisite, but what about functionally? The reason I am asking because I already have 2 M6TTL, with the M7 price stay above $2000( may stay there for while), and the falling price on the RF( I saw a new one on sale for $700 ), does it make sense to buy a RF for the time being and wait for the price drop on the M7 after one year or so? Thanks!!! <<

Mitch, I owned in my life a M4-P, a M5 and now an Hexar RF. The idea the Leica is better built does apply to the M5 but IMHO is a myth for newer models. Functionally the M4-P was a pain in the ass for lack of TTL metering each time you have to take a picture fast with slide film. The M5 was a perfect picture taking machine and I rate it extremely high – in fact first place – in between the numerous all mechanical cameras I owned or simply used. The M6 and M6 TTL bodies I never owned but used were poorly built when compared to the M5 (and even my M4-P) though they were functionally equivalent to the M5… All the Leica M I used had a better finder than the Hexar and despite I wear glasses, I don’t like the 0.58 M6 either. But I can properly focus my 135 mm f/4 Tele-Elmar wide open even at short distances. I still have doubts about the perfect focusing of a Noctilux or a 75mm f/1.4 Summilux with the Hexar RF at full aperture and short distances, but I have the same reservations with the M6 0.58. But the real issue as far as functionality – so to say a user’s point of view – is concerned is to know which feature you feel needed for your own work. To say my camera has AE mode so it is superior to a manual one is irrelevant if you don’t need AE for the kind of pics you take.

Unfortunately, the more I read this forum, the more I feel the spirit of Barnack is gone from a lot of Leica users as it is gone from Leica altogether. Leica once made the most perfect small format camera in the world to take pictures in all situations, especially when it went to record life. Since the demise of the M5, Leica has produced camera bodies which hardly fit this definition. Nice for us this doesn’t apply to the lenses, still the best in the world. People here are still advocating Leica M bodies are the best just because they are still not used to the rangefinder small format camera revival we saw in recent years. Leica M sold (but scarcely what it would have, due to an outrageously high price) only because there were no other game in town. For years SFRF was synonymous of Leica M. This is simply no more the case today. Back in the 50’s, numerous manufacturers tried to imitate Leica M with their own system. Not a single succeeded whether for lack of quality or because they cannot compete with Leica lenses. Now you can use the magnificent Leica M lenses on two bodies and soon three (Hexar RF, Bessa T and soon Bessa R bodies). One can legitimately argue the Bessas are poorly built when compared to a Leica M, but this body is about 6 times less costly, so it is logical it isn’t built to the same standard. But this isn’t true for the Hexar RF which costs about half a M6 TTL, just because both the materials used and the way the body is assembled is at least on par if not superior to the present production of Leica. This is due to the fact the old fashioned manual way Leica still uses to produce their M bodies cannot rival with a modern computer controlled line. We are no more in the 60’s or the 70’s when mass production techniques were inferior to craftsman’s work. Hence the high rejection rate at Leica and the astronomical price of the body.

Now, when functionally compared to the M7 how does the Hexar RF performs ?

Loading: Advantage to the Hexar 100%. The unchanged awkward loading procedure of the M7 is something which had to go since years.

AE-AE lock functions: Same philosophy and certainly same accuracy… IMHO both are faulty there as when I need to use AE, I don’t want to have to re-compose to take an accurate measure this is counter- productive as an automatism is only required when you have to act fast… Both should have a matrix metering in AE mode.

Manual mode: very similar heavy centerweighed metering: both are easy to use but would have benefited of a true spot meter there.

Shutter: Advantage strictly to the Hexar RF. A much better shutter despite being totally battery dependent (hardly a liability in practice, what is the difference between being film dependent and battery dependent?). Not only because it permits 1/4000th of a second speed, but mainly because it is truly synchronized at 1/125th of a second. The M7 is really synchronized at 1/50th of a second and only a special flash unit will permit faster synchro speed at the expense of TTL feature, the only superiority in terms of electronics as far as the M7 is concerned when compared to the Hexar RF. Finder: superior in the M7 in luminosity but in precision only in the 0.72 and 0.85 versions. As far as I’m concerned despite being a glass wearer, it never really bothered me in practice excepts regarding framing (and not focusing) with a 90 or 135 mm lens. The more I practice, the more it becomes easy by the way.

Film advance: I still prefer the Leica manual advance for its discretion. However, I realized when the Hexar is used in repeating mode (and not single frame) it is actually more or less on par with the Leica in terms of noise; Curiously enough the single frame mode makes a high pitched noise which disappears in multiple frame mode even when you take only one shot (it seems too to have less inertia between the shutter release and the actual action too).

Resistance to obsolescence: the Hexar wins by far. Its loading procedure makes it a ready candidate to an eventual conversion to a full format high resolution digital back. It is very easy without altering the original design to correct its most obvious shortcomings: the finder can be made more luminous and have a more important magnification, a TTL flash would be easy to implement. It is an original design which will need much less work to go even farther with a true matrix metering in AE mode and a spot meter in manual and it is ready to receive a fully modern shutter with a 1/250th of a second synchro speed. If manual advance would require a redesign of the body, a silent advance mode and a more reactive shutter release button are not beyond the reach of today technologies. In front of this the M7 is no more than a hasty makeshift adaptation of the M6 TTL which is in fact a much more balanced body having at least all the (minor) advantages of a true mechanical body.

Price: The definite winner is without contest the Hexar RF… with less than half the price of the M7 it gives you far more for the buck than the M7. And you still benefit from the Leica M lenses.

Now Don’t let some bad arguments fool you:

Alfie writes:

>> For me, the M7 wins because of the horizontally moving CLOTH shutter whereas the Hexar RF is made of metal. That's a difference there I appreciate. <<

Sorry Alfie but I consider this argument void of any sense. You can criticize the Hexar RF for being a tad noisier than the M7 but not for going to a metallic shutter. ALL camera makers in the world have got rid of cloth shutter since years because they are fragile, prone to inaccuracy (no exact dilation law can be extracted from them) and unable to adapt to faster speed and high synchro speed excepts Leica and some eastern European manufacturers which are way back in technology. Be sure the only reason why Leica didn’t went to a metallic shutter is due to the fact it would have implied a major redesign of the M body. There is not a single advantage of using a cloth shutter. Even the level of noise is irrelevant as it is the nature of the noise and not the actual level of it which is necessarily altered.

>> And the brighter viewfinder and lack of compatibility issues with M- mount lenses make the M7 much better than the Hexar RF. After all, 2400 dollars isn't a bad price ya know. <<

Ok for the brighter viewfinder, but the compatibility issue of the M lenses is a myth. Only a few M lenses won’t be focused accurately wide open (50mm Noctilux, 75mm Summilux and – perhaps – 135 mm apo). As for the price it is astronomical when you consider all the main components but the few electronic ones are the same since the M4-P… You pay for a red dot and the lack of proper investment in manufacturing process… Nothing more… Should a M7 would be at the same price level as an Hexar RF, it would be a fair price. Twice the Hexar RF is a sheer non-sense.

Jerry writes

>> Faster shutter is nice, but I can always buy an ND filter a lot cheaper if I want to start shooting wide open in the sunshine. <<

The time you take your ND filter and put it on your lens and your subject can be long gone can’t it ?

>> I too worry about service down the road. Konica may have been around for quite awhile, but do they repair their 40 year old cameras? <<

If I were you, I wouldn’t bother too much about a 40 year old camera. We were lucky enough to have cameras which accepted the same film from Leica Nul up to today. That’s why some people still care about a 40 + camera reliability and serviceability. But let me tell you this won’t be the case in a near future. 35 mm film will be gone wihin much less than 40 years, in fact all silver based film will be. Nobody can forecast exactly when but it is more than certain digital technology will ultimately wins and as soon as you will be able to buy for a reasonable price a digital camera equal or better than a classical one in terms of definition. So who will be foolish enough to make a strictly silver based film camera works at great expense 40 years from now ? I use my camera now and will do so as long as possible if necessary but I have the feeling I’ll switch to digital as soon as it equals the silver film and be affordable and it will surely be before my Hexar RF dies.

Alfie again:

>> But can you focus a Noctilux well on a Hexar RF relative to a M7 .85? Don't think so. <<

Actually no more (and no less) than with a 0.58 Leica M… But who really cares… How many of us can afford and use such a lens ? Besides, buying a Bessa T (which has a more accurate rangefinder base than any M including the M3) in company with an Hexar RF will cost less than to buy a M7… By the way do you wear glasses ? I don’t think so, as the 0.85 exit image is strictly studied for non-glass wearers…

Finally, most of the pro-M7 posts reveals something of a hiatus between the original spirit around which the Leica rangefinder cameras were originally studied for and today users. They seem to be more collectors (I respect collectors but they should admit what they go for) or even speculators (these ones can… take a long walk to the pier) than users. I have manipulated and owned many cameras in my life, not a single one was perfect and obviously even less universal. Not a single one was unbreakable (my poor M5 included). I’m not the kind of guy who ever goes for any innovation and call it progress… I was fast to dismiss my Nikon F4S and recognize AF as a pesky gadget but for the long wide aperture tele-lenses in action photography. I got rid of every bit of 35 mm SLR I had for the present models are as cumbersome as a medium format and I had and still have no use for them ( I don’t practice wildlife or sports photography). For me rangefinder cameras are the quintessence of what a small format camera can bring and it is because of this I use them, not because it is glamorous. For all other purposes, I resort on a medium format SLR. Small format rangefinder concept was historically linked to Leica, but some people here (and elsewhere) seem to have difficulties to realize the identification of Leica as the only SFRF camera, hence THE rangefinder camera, was accidental. This relatively short period, covering the late 60’s up to the late 90’s has now ended. Many myths were born during it. Many myths should now be dispelled. Leica is still the best of the best in lenses but is no more as far as the bodies are concerned, moreover when you compare what they offer and the price you’ve to pay for. Only very special assignments will beneficiate from the very few points the M7 is still better than an Hexar RF… All counter arguments are only based on bias and subjectivity.

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 18, 2002.

Comparing Leica gears to any other brands in terms of cost of entry over the short-run would be a little bit unfair IMHO.

In the short term Hexar wins, but over say 20 years, I'd go for Leica. To me, Leica is not only a great photographic tool, but a pretty good inflation-hedge investment.

-- Yuth (nuchyut@asianet.co.th), April 18, 2002.

Re: Value of Leica's long-term service support. Cost of new M7 today $2400. Cost of complete overhaul in 15 years (in 2001 dollars, adjusted for inflation)$500 and 30 years ($1000). TOTAL=$3900.

Cost of three new Hexar RF's today @$800/ea= $2400 (same as one M7). Use one body for 15 years, toss it, use the second for 15 years, toss it, use the third. Net savings on RF over 30 years= $1500. And I didn't even add in the cost of a motor winder for the Leica, which you get at no extra charge with the Hexar.

Re: Leica vs Hexar build quality. Other than initial rangefinder alignment adjustments (which plague new Leicas as well) , I have heard *zero* reports of any other malfunctions with Hexar RF's (I'm on the RF list). Will the Hexar stand the test of time as well as a Leica? See above cost analysis for why I say "who cares?"

Re: viewfinder. You can only compare the Hexar to the Leica 0.58. You will see a difference in brightness and distortion only if you want to. But even if you don't want to, what you will see is that there is no 135mm frameline in the Leica. The 135 frame in the Hexar is not noticeably smaller than in an 0.72 Leica (14% of something already that small is hardly noticeable). And the Hexar focuses my 135/3.4APO wide open at 1.5m just fine.

Re: Back focus. I am convinced this "issue" is the invention of a misguided Konica marketing person who thought he had a brilliant way to bolster sales of Konica lenses, and only too willingly seized upon by a widely-quoted Leica zealot. All the "evidence" I've heard has been purely anecdotal and smacks of pilot error. My own Hexar, bought used, back-focuses Leica lenses (from 21mm-135mm, and 400mm with Visoflex) as well as any of my Leicas.

Re: sound. Has anyone actually put a decibel meter against the two? The Leica shutter is of a lower-frequency sound. The Konica motor is definitely quieter than the Leica motors (new and old)and definitely causes much less camera jolt. And it rewinds the film.

Re: functionality. A mixed bag. The Hexar has it all over the M7 in shutter and motor. Sorry Alfie, but the CLOTH shutter is a liability, not an asset. The Leica has TTL flash, but it doesn't sync above 1/50 vs 1/125 for the Hexar. The Leica can sync up to 1/1000 in HSS mode but that requires manual calculation and so is useless in fast-paced shooting. The M7 also excels in metering. The low-light sensitivity is greater, the metering area is more selective, and the 3-diode display for manual metering is more intuitive than the Hexar's blinking shutter speeds display. Loading is hands-down a Konica strength. It has a centered tripod socket and ISO setting that can't be accidentally easily disturbed, faults of the M7.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 18, 2002.

Dear Leica friend, Over two years, I bought a Hexar RF. Problems, the focus was never accurate with my Leica lenses, especially at wide aperture. NO SOLUTION, I tried another body, same problem. Konika's answer... I just had to buy their lenses! I sold the camera and will spend my money for a new M7. IMHO, with your Leica lenses, you should prefer a second hand M6 or spend your money for a M7. Best regards from Belgium. Michel

-- michel vandeput (michel.vandeput@ville.namur.be), April 18, 2002.

Michel,

You're particularly unlucky... Or you got only the first series...

Mine is 100% perfect... An I'm not alone...

Konica won't correct the misalignement but any good repair shop will through adjusting the rangefinder...

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 18, 2002.

Are the Leica/Konica systems compatible.There seems to be yes/no answers and buts depending on the series or the rangefinders being adjusted.This would seem to me a serious issue before money is wasted.The question needs to be answered by Konica/Leica or a respected independent.I would have a big problem with any out of focus issues(however slight)by mixing the two.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 18, 2002.

François P. WEILL Thanks for your comparison of bolth cameras. It seemed pretty fair IMHO.

-- Scott Evans (scottevans@attbi.com), April 18, 2002.

HI everyone, My M6 is my mechanical backup to my Hexar RF. It's been that way for almost a year. Taking a good look at the M7 there are two things that I Iike, the AE info in the viewfinder and the two mechanical backup speeds 60,125. If i was going to spend $2400 on a camera there is no way I want plastic for a battery cover. What else is plastic in that body? When I think of $2400 Medium format comes to mind: Hasselblad 501-CM/503-CW, Pentax 67 with AE prism. Quite frankly, the marketing department at Leica have some nerve. I personally hope that Konica sticks it to them and makes a rangefinder body that is so good that we will never have to have this conversation again.Best Regards, Richard Brown

-- Richard Brown (rubyvalentine@earthlink.net), April 18, 2002.

For what it is worth, if I wanted a second auto exp body and wanted 0.6 magnification (I might) then I would be quite prepared to "take a risk" with an RF. However you look at it $2400 is really a lot of money for an M7. If I had the money then I would probably go for the M7, but the price differential is still enormous. I have to agree that to me Leica M has always meant a manual RF camera - once you get an electronic camera that takes M lenses then all bets are off.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 18, 2002.

Alfie,

I think you're correct in that Leica AG does not "own the rights to use of the Leica script". Each time they use it on any body, like their commemoratives they must pay a fee. Who gets that fee I haven't heard though.

Francois,

The timeline relative to the demise of 35mm film is really anybodys guess, and just that, a guess. The market will decide. However, there are a few hundred million 35mm cameras out there and I suspect the last of film as we know it, will be made for them. I think my Grandchildren and perhaps their children, will be using it. Hopefully one of them with my Fathers M3 and lenses, and the rest with stuff I purchased. I would be far more concerned about anything that uses 120 film. I've already noticed that it's rare in grocery stores, K-Marts, Targets, etc. over the past few years. Even "real" camera stores have nowhere near the breadth of emulsions they had 10 years ago.

I'm sorry, but I can't recall who made the comment on my using an ND filter for whenever I wished to shoot wide open in the bright sunshine. To answer that...

First of all, "wide open" for me is no quicker than f/2 as I own no lenses faster than that. Secondly, I rarely shoot film faster than 100 ISO. When I do go out to shoot with a filter for color, it is always a polarizing filter and it is on when I start to shoot, and not removed till I pack up, so I don't think I'd be taking it on and off missing shots.

Only when I'm shooting B&W do I swap filters much while shooting.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 18, 2002.

Jay wrote: Re: Value of Leica's long-term service support. Cost of new M7 today $2400. Cost of complete overhaul in 15 years (in 2001 dollars, adjusted for inflation)$500 and 30 years ($1000). TOTAL=$3900

-- yuth (nuchyut@asianet.co.th), April 18, 2002.

Jay wrote: Re: Value of Leica's long-term service support. Cost of new M7 today $2400. Cost of complete overhaul in 15 years (in 2001 dollars, adjusted for inflation)$500 and 30 years ($1000). TOTAL=$3900

The above implies that Jay is assuming an average inflation rate of c. 2.34% p.a. for the next 30 years (compounded annually).

Under 1st Scenario: 30 years from now Jay would be an owner of a recently CLA'd M7. Assuming that Leica products continue to hold their value well and assuming further that Jay's M7 tracks inflation rate say at 1% p.a. his USD2400 M7 would be priced close to or above USD3200. If Jay so desires, he could release his M7 and pick up this USD3000 after having fully enjoyed the camera for 30 years.

Under 2nd Scenario: Jay would have suffered a minimum capital loss of USD1600 as he would have tossed two Hexars away. In returns, Jay would get to enjoy his 1st Hexar for 15 years. His 2nd Hexar, however, is likely to have shorter serviceable life expectancy than 15 years after having been kept in Jay's cabinet for 15 years. His 3rd hexar would also likely suffer the same fate.

Without having to calculate for a Real IRR, I'd say that Jay would be much better off with his M7.

-- yuth (nuchyut@asianet.co.th), April 18, 2002.

There are so many previous responses that I can't keep in mind what was said by who - so don't take this as argumentative with any of them.

I've gone through 3 RFs in ONE year - NOT because of mechanical failure, unless you count wonky focusing as a mechanical...

I found the RF to just be - unreliable - when focusing anything longer than a 35mm, unless I stopped down to f/8 or so. I had whole rolls with a 90 that were out by 6 inches to a foot. And shots with a 50 1.4 where at normal portrait distance the focus fell on the back of the subject's head, not the face. IMHO it makes the Contax G focusing look competent by comparison.

Infinity focus was fine - anything closer was a roll of the (loaded) dice.

I kept hoping, but it just never panned out for me.

The RF is not substantially louder than an M6, but it does have a higher pitched - and therefore more penetrating - sound. The M7 is quite noticeably quieter than either a clockwork M or the Hexar RF even at high speeds. It's the most startling feature of the M7.

The RF has a shutter lag compared to Leica Ms - not huge, and probably slightly better than the average SLR (no mirror to move) but I had occasions where the moment would happen and I'd mash the shutter release and - - there'd be a pause - - and then the shutter would open, well after the peak moment or point of focus was a thing of the past..

BUT - check some of the previous M7 reviews. Some users have had instances where the M7 went sleepy-time as well.

The RF offers the following functional advantages over the M7 - motor wind, easy loading, high shutter speeds, higher speed flash sync with ANY flash. All of which I found (and find) attractive - but I need them to work reliably with all my lenses at all apertures and 'right now' when I push the button. It didn't happen.

I doubt the M7 price will fall more than $300 over the next 1-2 years (if that) If you get an RF (especially new) as a stop-gap the value will probably drop more than the M7 price. So you'll lose more on the RF than you save by waiting on the M7 - but you will get 1-2 years of use from the RF in the meantime.

The short version is I can't recommend the Hexar RF for general use.

But many folks have had good success using it with the Tri-Elmar 28/35/ 50 lens - which does make sense. With a slow (f/4) wide-angle-to-normal lens that only focuses to 1 meter the RF's sloppy focusing becomes a relative non-issue - and you still get the benefit of all those nice features lacking in the M6/7.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 18, 2002.

Aside from the Hexar RF and the M7, it has to be only a matter of time before Voigtlander produces an aperture priority model rangefinder. They already make the Nikon FE-10, so it's not a stretch for them.

Then we get to have this same discussion all over again.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), April 18, 2002.

Jim,

That is an excellent point! What do you think...7-9 months if they rush it into production???

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), April 18, 2002.

I don't have a problem with my Hexar RF focusing Leica lenses. Example:35mm Summicrom Fourth Version (Germany) Film: Agfa Scala 200x Auto Exposure lens set at F2.0 & 0.7minimum focusing distance. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=707825

-- Richard Brown (rubyvalentine@earthlink.net), April 18, 2002.

Thanks Mr Weill for your comprehensive answer.

The point about Leica being an inflation hedge does not make any sense. In fact camera's are rarely good investments - someone once remarked that in 1955 an M3 is 1/6 the price of a new Porsche. I don't think anyone can claim that this is the case with the M6 TTL. In fact, I doubt whether anyone made money on their M6's in the past few years, when the DJIA has more than doubled since 1995.

M3 and even IIIf's are valuable because they are functional and still use the same film as most conventional cameras (and even contemporary lens in the case of the M bodies). Once film becomes a niche product, it is hard to imagine them maintaining their value.

Though I consider the Hexar to be a good body, and that its critics have exaggerated it limitations, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to prefer the Leica for its tactile feel and ergonomics. The investment value aspect that its adherents occasionally invoke, is IMHO, completely misleading.

Johnson Cheung

-- Johnson Cheung (jsbc1@yahoo.com), April 19, 2002.

Hi Jerry and Johnson,

Jerry, you write: >> Francois,

The timeline relative to the demise of 35mm film is really anybodys guess, and just that, a guess. The market will decide. However, there are a few hundred million 35mm cameras out there and I suspect the last of film as we know it, will be made for them. I think my Grandchildren and perhaps their children, will be using it. Hopefully one of them with my Fathers M3 and lenses, and the rest with stuff I purchased. I would be far more concerned about anything that uses 120 film. I've already noticed that it's rare in grocery stores, K-Marts, Targets, etc. over the past few years. Even "real" camera stores have nowhere near the breadth of emulsions they had 10 years ago. <<

I think you consider too much the economy works like in the textbook… Do you recall 127 films (4x4 image) ? They once were very popular and sold by millions don’t they ? It didn’t stop the major film makers to discard their production because of a dwindling market. Between the millions of cameras using 35 mm film a very limited percentage are due to survive more than say 10 years. Not only because they are not made to work much farther, but also because they will need servicing to be maintained operational. Most manufacturers – even on professional models – do not produce spare parts after say 10 years after the model is discarded from their range and most 35 mm cameras won’t be repaired even if the parts are still available just because they are no more economical to repair (the repair cost is superior or equal to the market value of the camera at the time it broke). Even my M5 fell into this category the cost of its repair would have been the same as to buy another one on the second hand market. So how long the existing 35 mm cameras will be in widespread use after they won’t be any one in production to justify the film makers produce 135 format? Besides we are not facing today a change in format, 126, 127, 110 formats were once popular and deliberately used in popular cameras (which are by far the real market for film makers), all were discarded and they were discarded on purpose even before the demand was really low on them as popular camera makers wanted to sell new models using new formats. Major industrial interests can (and will) influence the market besides the theoretical rule of textbook market… Then, we are not facing only a format question, but something like the quantum leap from wet collodion to dry plates or even more. Digital imagery means a complete conversion of all an industry as the plants producing silver based emulsion today are bound to disappear. Do you really think the major makers will hesitate a second to transfer their assets from them to the much more promising digital one ? Knowing you need very expensive technology to produce film industrially and much more manpower, do you really think they’ll maintain such plants? I don’t think so! … As soon as digital instant photography will reach the definition of silver based image and be affordable enough the final countdown for the silver based emulsion will begin and the market will be put under the highest possible pressure to switch to digital as soon as possible to close the film factories (and the sooner the better)… Sorry to say that but only the 35 mm (and other silver based film formats) of high quality level (a thin minority in the world) owners will have any interest in keeping their cameras operational, while the lack of spare parts and the cost of maintenance will make their number dwindle fast. The amateur market will disappear even faster as it has already accepted even with entry level modern SLR’s a no more than 5 years or so of service before any malfunction will lead their camera body to the dustbin… We must face the fact the film will disappear completely this can’t be avoided. How long will it take precisely is something beyond our forecast but certainly no more than a decade or two (at best half the time you referred to).

The disappearance of 120 Rollfilm from the popular sources is all too real but have nothing to do with the digital photography. From the 70’s, 35 mm was the only “professional” format to have a popular diffusion as medium format market became strictly a professional one. Most popular cameras using it are now at best collecting dust as they are functionally very difficult to handle (no meter, no way to meter distance but “guesstimate”) and many were never corrected for color use. So 120 film was becoming increasingly confined to professional use. I don’t know about the situation in the US, but you can scarcely find some even in camera shops (but the ones from the owner’s professional stock) if you don’t order them specifically… Even the packages are more and more of the professional variety (no less than 5 rolls), at least it is the situation in France!… I don’t know how long they will be available as most modern professional medium format cameras with interchangeable magazines can be already fitted with high definition digital backs (though beyond the reach of many non-professional and even professional users because of their price). The day these digital backs will be available at say the price of a standard magazine (which is by no mean cheap) I think the 120 Rollfilm will become History. So you’re right when you say you have more doubts about them and they’ll probably go first.

Nevertheless, my observation about the usefulness of a Leica M camera (or for all intent and purpose any other 35 mm camera) was valid only for the 40 years or so delay you determined. The digital switch is obviously not for tomorrow morning though the digital switch is already there for the prints. Potentially you can have better or equal in terms of quality to silver based prints already. The reason why I got rid of my enlarger and do not intent to reinstall a real dark room in my next home (as soon as I’ll get my 4000 dpi film scanner, I’ll be able to blow my 35 mm work in B&W and color and print it in 30 x 40 cm format… If I happened to want more then I’ll give the work to a professional laboratory). So to say we have ample times to use our cameras but to see our grand sons and daughter use it frankly I see not a chance.

>> I'm sorry, but I can't recall who made the comment on my using an ND filter for whenever I wished to shoot wide open in the bright sunshine. To answer that... First of all, "wide open" for me is no quicker than f/2 as I own no lenses faster than that. Secondly, I rarely shoot film faster than 100 ISO. When I do go out to shoot with a filter for color, it is always a polarizing filter and it is on when I start to shoot, and not removed till I pack up, so I don't think I'd be taking it on and off missing shots. Only when I'm shooting B&W do I swap filters much while shooting. <<

Jerry, I made the remark. You spoke about a ND filter not a polarizing filter. But your description shows how we, rangefinder users, can be different in our use of a camera. My “philosophy” of the use of such a camera is more to capture an instant than a very prepared and refined kind of photography (for the rest I have my medium format SLR). I never use a polarizing filter on my RF camera and I only use B&W contrast filters (mainly medium yellow) with it. My standard B&W film is more the Tri-X than a slower film though 100 ASA is more my slide film standard. So to say, if I want to trick on the depth of field I prefer to resort to higher shutter speeds than filters… Conversely, I would probably proceed the same as you do with my MF camera. This point is quite well linked to what I said in the original post about the loss of Barnack spirit… Barnack didn’t intend to produce a universal camera destined to replace everything but to give the photographers a tool to be part of the event “snapshot” was the target, something you can carry with you every time (so small and fast). Hence the success of the Leica in photojournalism. Though it is possible to obtain a very high standard of quality with more or less staged images with a Leica M, I don’t find that too appropriate to the way these cameras were conceived. I saw some extremely good shots of models on this forum for examples, but to say the truth, I think they would have as good if not better and easier to take with a medium format SLR camera. I’m stunned by the number of M users who used it more or less as I’ll do with my MF, I think this is why they don’t see any interest in AE not to speak about matrix metering mode… But for me Barnack spirit is more illustrated by the work of Salgado, Cartier Bresson and many others than with this kind of photography. And here the photographer will beneficiate of a very good point and shoot kind of camera to enhance its success rate. As fast as the eye can see it is the rule.

Johnson writes:

>> Though I consider the Hexar to be a good body, and that its critics have exaggerated it limitations, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to prefer the Leica for its tactile feel and ergonomics. The investment value aspect that its adherents occasionally invoke, is IMHO, completely misleading. <<

For me any camera is a tool and as such must give me some functionalities corresponding to my work. It is not an investment nor a fancy that leads me. I like as much as any of us the feel of the M but I got used fast to the Hexar RF and frankly it hasn’t a better or worse handling, just a different one. I think many people here are so used to their M’s they feel disconcerted when handling any other camera and they confuse this original (and all too normal) uneasiness with an objective judgement on the handling characteristics of the unusual (to them) camera they get in their hands. I was one of them… It took all the original persuasion of my dealer and one week free lend to convince me to buy the Hexar RF new instead of waiting for a good second hand M5 to replace mine. The handling uneasiness was gone after a roll and half or so, but I took time to verify everything was OK in terms of rangefinder accuracy (a.s.o.) and body construction. I’m sure all of us M users or ex-M users will feel equally uneasy if we had to handle a Leica III F or III G, despite it is a Leica too.

Unfortunately as relevant as might be your observation the tactile feel and ergonomics, Johnson, there is also the budget question to consider. My point is simple: I consider any Leica M user can easily adapt to the different (not better, not worse) feel and ergonomics of the Hexar RF, it will just cost him a few rolls. Now to be able to spend more than the double on a M7 body will cost much more to avoid some time to get accustomed to the Hexar RF as there is no other significant features in an M7 which can justify the awesome difference in price. I can understand the diehards of mechanical bodies (but I don’t follow them either) who want an M6, I cannot understand those who prefer to spend twice the price of an Hexar RF to buy a M7 at the expense of a fairly good supplementary Leica lens for example…

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 19, 2002.

My compliments to all on a very interesting discussion, particularly to François for his considered thoughts. I do not own a Leica; I own a Hexar RF. I have been primarily an SLR user, which may help explain why I like it. It's a terrific camera, and basically one that has attempted, successfully I think, to incorporate the useful design innovations from the past 40+ years of SLR development (autoexposure, integrated winder, vertical shutter) and put them into a rangefinder. The result is a camera that's sufficiently different from the Leica paradigm to be something that depending on what you're used to you may like better than the Leica. Not necessarily better, just different. For me, battery dependence isn't something to be desired, but it offers some terrific advantages in use. I love manual wind cameras, but a 1/50 flash synch? It's pretty hard to characterize that as an advantage, no matter how you look at it. Likewise, I love film rewind cranks, but the Leica film loading is just contrarian in this day and age. But if these features are what you're used to, you may not give them a second thought.

Konica has definitely not helped itself with the back focus and rangefinder misalignment issues. And the answer there, I think, is just plain bad quality control -- not good, but curable. Some cameras, mine as far as I can tell, have no problems whatsoever and can focus any M lenses. Others do need adjusting. Whether these problems are still manifesting themselves with the cameras now coming off the assembly line, I don't know (can anybody comment?), but I'd say it's well worth the trouble to get the camera fixed.

I do hope film will be around long enough for us to see whether the RF is still working 40 years from now, but of course, if it isn't, then the relative longevity of an RF or an M7 is academic.

(One last point: I'm 43 years old. When was 120 film ever sold in grocery stores?)

-- Nick Merritt (merrittr1@ing-afs.com), April 19, 2002.

As Johnson Cheung speculates that not many have made money with their M6s, while the DJIA has doubled since 95...

As an 'inflation hedge,' the M6 does not have a good record; much to the contrary. In 1990 I bought an M5 with US Passport, discounted, after rebates, to $1800.

By the time I sold my M6's in 95, they were retailing for $2800 with US Passport (not a misprint) from the New York discount houses. So when in 1995 I sold my then-5 year old bodies for $1900, I actually made money.

Fast forward to today, when the discounted US price is again down around $1800 after rebates, but the used retail price for the '90 models is probably, what, $1150

-- Dave Bernard (sapasap@aol.com), April 19, 2002.

>>In 1990 I bought an M5 with US Passport My apologies, please make that an M6

-- Dave Bernard (sapasap@aol.com), April 19, 2002.

I suppose if you had always bought Fords your entire life, and they worked well for you, you'd probably buy another one. I think that most of these arcane "Leica mythos" arguments don't hold alot of water with youunger photographers who did not grow up with them (but at the same time exclusivity only feeds the Leica monster). If Leica had never made a single camera before the M7, and then simultaneously introduced it to the RF, would you think that the former was any better?

We'll leave the various focusing problems and rangefinder alignment issues aside (it seems that there were just some bad batches) and concentrate upon the central issues. The RF is twice the camera the .58 M6 was, and the RF still has a higher top shutter speed, easy loading, exposure comp, and a motor drive.

I shoot pictures pretty much every day of my life. The point of street photography is NOT to "catch someone unaware because your camera is so quiet." Most people do not appreciate having their picture taken by strangers. My rule of thumb is that if you can't take the picture with a loud clunky SLR, then you shouldn't be taking it. Usually if you ask someone's permission beforehand, they are a bit more willing.

At the end of the day, it is really a pointless debate. I use the RF with a 21/35/50/85 with fine results close-up, far-away, wide- open or stopped down. All Konica needs to do is fix the occasional quality lapse and introduce a higher mag version as well.

-- davidde stella (davidde@umich.edu), April 20, 2002.

Re RF back focus

I have a Hexar RF(purchased as a demo from HK) that could not focus Leica lenses. Not even the Tri-Elmar at f8. It also did not focus at infinity. Both the RF and the back focus were off.

I sent it to Konica UK with a 50 Summicron, and for £140 about $200) they adjusted both the RF and the back focus problems. I have tested it with the Leica 90/2 AA @ f2 and it is now accurate.

I own and use quite a few M Leicas. Out of all the M-mount "others" (CL. CLE, T, Hexar RF) I find the Minolta CLE to be the best option, and the one I use the most (after the Ms).

-- Stephen Patriquen (patriquen@yahoo.com), April 20, 2002.

My vote is for the Hexar RF. At the end of the day, even if you spend $1,100 on the kit (sheez, I spent close to double that and had one of the first ones in the US) and even if you have to have the backfocus or RF adjusted ($275 total, assuming out of warranty), you are still $1,000 less than an M7 and have functionality that the M7 lacks.

I like being able to use ultrafast lenses without resorting to ND filters, like with the legendary Nikkor 105/2.5.

I like being able to squeeze off two shots in a row without removing my eye from the finder.

I like being able to see the high and low exposure values (i.e., the contrast range of a scene) graphically, rather than mentally averaging them.

In terms of the build, I am favorably impressed by the liberal use of METAL on the Hexar - there are no plastic parts anywhere on the exterior of the camera, just some neoprene grips. Even the battery cover is a lovely metal piece... : ) The finish is a nice, flat black epoxy that is warm to the touch and very, very hard — hard enough to scratch the metal off a Jupiter lens. This is in contrast to the ever-growing chorus of plastic parts on Ms. By comparison, the M6's finish looks cheap, the Bessa-R feels like a toy (I get a kick out of the simulated cap screw on the winding lever) and the Minolta CLE is nowhere near as solid in the hand.

Maybe I'd have a different perspective had I an early Hexar RF with problems (my first one actually bit the dust being dropped onto a bare cement floor), but I haven't. My M3 is a good backup to the Hexar, not the other way around.

 

 

 

 

-- Dante Stella (dante@dantestella.com), April 24, 2002.

While favoring the Hexar RF over the M3 may seem like heresy, it is what has happened to me. I like the heft and quality of construction of the M3, but I find the Hexar RF far easier and more convenient to use. Inasmuch as mine focuses just fine with Hexanons or Leica lenses, it and the new Voigtlanders end up going with me while the M3 sits, mint-like, my drawer. I suppose I should sell it rather than not use it, but mint M3s are not easy to come by. If I did sell and managed to get over 2K for it, I would not invest the money in an M7. Too much buck for the bang.

-- Jeffery Smith (jsmith45@bellsouth.net), April 28, 2002.

Dante,

How do you rangefinder couple your 8.5cm and 10.5cm Nikkor LTMs to the Hexar RF?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 28, 2002.