RE: [Leica] HEXAR RF vs. M5 vs. M6

["Jason Kie" <mijason@bossini.com>]

thankyou very much, Jay.  Great information which helps me to know more
about the different between Hexar RF & Leica M.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of
> goldman@math.umn.edu
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 2:10 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: [Leica] HEXAR RF vs. M5 vs. M6
>
>
> Let me throw in my two cents on the Hexar RF and compare it to the M5 and
> the M6.
>
>
> PART 1 --- HEXAR RF (vs. M5 vs. M6)
>
> 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
> am 60 years old).  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, I?e used
> SLR?, 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, used
> with the15 Heliar, 35M Sumicron, 50 Wetzlar F2, and 90 Tele-Elmarit.  I
> also have a classic Hexar (original), which has become my main camera for
> indoor available light 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
> haven? used for several years.
>
> What? 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
> what? 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 don? 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 I? 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
> framelines on an M6 is laughable (there I go again). The RF finder is a
> little dimmer than an M, which doesn? bother me.  Focusing was quite
> easy, but I haven?  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
> release is pressed half way down, the exposure is locked in.  I can?
> 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 outddors 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 centerweighted 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 with a little spread (maybe like the Nikon F3???).  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.  With the M5 I know
> exactly what I am metering. When I meter in manual, I love the M5.
>
> The 1/4000 shutter speed can be great, if you have too high a speed film
> in the camera to shoot in the F5.6 - 11 range or when I want to
> deliberately use the wonderful bokeh of Leica lenses.
> Yes, I believe in bokeh, no matter what the engineers say.
>
> 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 haven?  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.
>
>  If new rangefinder models appear, I will certainly be ready to consider
> them, but I pray they will use my Leica lenses.  I? love to see a Bessa R
> with an M mount (it? so nice and light).
>
>  AN ADD ON
>
>  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.
>
>
> PART 2 --- M5 vs. M6
>
> I used them side by side for about six years and finally settled on the
> M5.
>
> A lot of it has to do with personal shooting style.   I like to work in
> the aperture priority mode on my M?, i.e., choose the f-stop and depth of
> field ( if I? just walking around), and then use the meter to set the
> shutter speed.  This is harder to do with the M6 since the meter doesn?
> work when the shutter is set at intermediate stops.
>
> I also like to know what my settings are.  With the M5, I choose the
> f-stop and I SEE the shutter speed in the viewfinder (except under
> EXTREMELY low light levels).  Having the meter needles cross on a line is
> very quick and sure.  Moreover, the overhanging meter dial can be moved
> very easily with your shutter release finger.  With the M6, it takes a
> while to balance the two red arrows although there are tricks which can
> make it very fast, and you only know your setting by removing your eye
> from the finder (similar annoyance with my classic Hexar).  I?e never
> used the M6 TTL with the middle stripe to tell you when you are right on.
> Some people find the bright arrows on the M6 distracting in low light and
> they can sometimes be very hard to see in very bright light.
>
> The M5 has a narrower angle meter than the M6 and it is easier to know
> exactly what you are metering.   Ever since I acquired behind the lens
> metering, I also acquired the bad habit of metering every shot.  The M5 is
> quicker for this.
>
> The M5 has the old style frameline, which are much better than the M6, but
> maybe not so critical if you don? go longer than the 50.
>
>
> There is a much better way to load the M5 than the way Leica describes
> (which often leads to misloading).  The M5 feels larger in the hand than
> the M6 (it only weighs 3 ounces more) and some like or love it and others
> hate it. Before deciding, try an M5  .
>
> If the M6 had the M5 metering and overhanging shutter dial, I would give
> up the M5 in a shot.  I love the feel of the classic M2,3,4.
>
> The M5 uses the old mercury batteries.  I still have a supply for myself.
> I also have the MR-9 adapter which, is a tiny voltage regulator, this lets
> you put a 76 battery inside it and cuts the power to 1.35 volts (costs
> about $30).  Leica says that the Wien battery is better, but the adapter
> seems to work fine. Maybe it? more critical with slow slide film (which I
> not longer use).
>
> On a two week trip to Japan, I used the M5 and M6 on alternate days and
> saw no difference in the results, but the M5 was handling was preferable.
>
> Jay Goldman
>
> P.S.  I will be away for a couple of days, so don't expect any responses
> before Sunday.
>