Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:29 AM -0400 7/5/00, Craig Roberts wrote: >Regarding the rangefinder camera comparison article in June's "Practical >Photogrpahy" magazine, B.D. asked: "Just how superior was the M body to the >Hexar, and superior how - in what ways?" > > > >The article was written by Daniel Lezano and is entitled "Can't afford a >Leica M6?". The premise, obviously, is that there are now viable and >affordable rangefinder camera alternatives to the Leica. <snip> There are a number of strange things about this article, although I don't basically disagree with the conclusions. The cameras are all rated on a simplistic 10 pt system for Handling, Features, System Back-up and Performance. The Leica rated 8,7,7,9; the Contax 8,9,7,8; the Hexar9,8,7,8; and the Bessa 7,5,6,8. Things that jump out - - -Does the Hexar really have better system back-up than the Bessa? - -Does the Hexar's system with 3 lenses, a flash and a nice box really equal the Contax' or more obviously, the Leica's? Does the Bessa have significantly fewer features than the Leica? It doesn't have TTL flash, but it does have a 1/2000 shutter and 1/125 sync. Also, the photos that purport to show lens performance were done very loosely, and show total system performance, including, naturally, the photographer. For example, the Konica 90mm shot shown, if taken at f/8, is like a shot of an object at 8ft that was focussed at 12ft. The Hexar isn't _that_ bad. As with most such articles, it has as many bad points as good, and the best thing about it is that it may cause some people to go and try these cameras. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com