Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] RE: Konica fiction
From: Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:32:03 -0700

At 10:29 PM 5/9/01 +0100, leica@davidmorton.org wrote:
>
>"Erwin stated that Konica was his source.  Need we say more?"
>
>*Absolutely* we need more. Who at Konica said this, what is their position
>within the company? Was the statement made on the record or off?
>
>dmorton@journalist.co.uk

Which actually begs the question... does anyone care?

Since we are a Leica Users Group and like the precision mechanics and
advanced optics that LEICA offers, a second rate plastic Leica wannabe
seems, like, well... why bother with a second rate, plastic, non-precision,
not to Leica spec, camera.

If you are making happy snaps, the Hexar would be an OK camera. If you are
taking photographs that use the limits of Leica precision, the Hexar
doesn't cut it.

So why get all upset about whether Konica said this or that. The fact is...
the lens flange to film distance is different between Leica and Hexar.
This, for most purposes, makes them incompatible without any further knowledge.

They are different cameras. Have different lenses. 

Use Hexar lenses on Hexar cameras. Use Leica lenses on Leica cameras.

Dilemma solved.

Jim

Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] RE: Konica fiction)