RE: [Leica] Konica facts

["Dan Honemann" <ddh@home.com>]

> But Dan, given the fact that there have been and apparently continue to be
> problems with using Leica glass on the Konica body, it seems kind of
> foolhardy to want to do so. The user is running the risk of putting, what,
> 1K into an electronic body that is not guaranteed to work with Leica
lenses
> though the mount is ostensibly *the same*.
>
> Not to open that ol' can o' worms again, but if the features you mention
> were truly important to me, I wouldn't be using an M6 in the first place.
>
> Guy

Guy and Mark,

I own a Leica .72x M6 TTL and love it.  I love it so much that after a year
of shooting with it (+ current 50 summicron)--and only it--I decided to make
a big commitment in that direction and bought the 35/1.4 asph and 75/1.4
lenses.  I wanted a second body so that I could shoot two different
emulsions and/or have two of these three lenses available without having to
stop and swap.

After much deliberation, it seemed that the Konica Hexar RF was the perfect
backup and complement to the M6: .6x finder, so I can actually see the 35
frames (I wear eyeglasses) plus all the other features I mentioned that the
M6 doesn't have.  Hey, if I owned an SLR, I wouldn't worry about a faster
flash synch or a decent motor drive for my M--but I don't (yet).

Now, if someone had told me back then that the Konica is in no way
compatible with my Leica M lenses, I wouldn't have done it.  I read just the
opposite: after some initial QC problems with the rangefinder adjustment,
all was well, and several folks here have posted glowing endorsements of the
camera used with Leica glass.

Am I sorry now that I bought it (rather than a .58x M6 TTL)?  Yes and no.
I'm disappointed that the focus accuracy is off at nearest distance--it IS a
pain.  I've been hopeful I can get that adjusted--though Erwin's post has me
pessimistic now.  But I have seen no evidence of focus inaccuracy beyond .8
m in any of my lenses on the Hexar--and I have tested them all (maybe not as
carefully as Erwin, but carefully enough for me: velvia shot from tripod,
examined with a Leica loupe).  And yes, I have gotten shots with the Hexar
that I could not get with my M6--usually when I needed faster than 1/1000s
shutter (it does happen).

Sure, the Leica M is an incredible tool, but Leicas are not flawless either
(IME).  My M6 TTL has screwed up electronics: it runs through batteries even
when I leave the shutter on "Off," and does crazy things with my SF-20
flash; I have to send it in to Leica NJ to get it fixed.  That's where my
Leica Universal Polarizer is now, for the second time in a few months,
because it keeps falling apart.  And my 75/1.4 won't focus accurately at
nearest distance on my M6, either--it's off by a few inches up close--it too
will have to make a trip to NJ to be calibrated.  And my 50 summicron
sometimes has its focus ring get locked up when I mount it and it is focused
to anything other than min. distance--I have no idea why.

I don't treat my equipment harshly--but I do shoot with it a LOT (for an
amateur, anyway)--maybe an average of 30 rolls per month.  Having suffered
all these equipment malfunctions (all purchased new), I can't say that I'm
any more impressed with Leica than Konica in the quality control department.

Of course, if anyone mentions equipment failures with a Leica, they're
branded a whiner and ostracized for publishing it on this list.  If they do
the same with a Konica, it's proof that Leica is the only brand worth
buying.

Dan