Re: [Leica] Konica Facts revisited

[Stephen Gandy <Stephen@CameraQuest.com>]

Erwin,

If you had explained your sources yesterday, I doubt you would have got so many
questions on it.   Part of the questioning you are complaining about comes from
your own lack of  detailed reportage.    There is nothing wrong with wanting to
know your source on an issue very important to people who spent their money on the
Hexar RF.   This is not a trivial subject to someone interested in the Hexar RF.

Thank you for filling in the details.  Even so, I've had people behind the counter
at national photo distributors give me wrong info.  This information needs to be
confirmed by several Konica sources, to make sure you were in fact given accurate,
up to date information.  This is a big deal, at least to Konica Hexar RF owners.
It's also very odd that, so far as I know, no major magazine made mention of it in
their Konica Hexar RF reports.

Even if the information is true, you overstate your point in yesterday's post,  in
my opinion with "Most importantly however is the conclusion that Leica lenses
cannot be  used with any degree of confidence or performance on the Hexar." as
though  ALL Hexar RF's are at the outer limits of acceptable back focus, and
therefore suspect.

What about the Hexar RF's that were assembled with tight tolerances -- within Leica
specs ?  Yesterday a LUGer who did not want to post publicly measured his Hexar RF
against his M6.  Both were, according to his measurements, within Leica specs.
This helps explain why some people are very happy with their Hexar RF.

Hexar RF owners just need to have a good repair tech check the back focus, to see
if THEIR camera has the problem.    An unknown percentage are apparently within
Leica specs, and an unknown percentage are not.   Any good repairman can check the
Hexar RF back focus, and see how close it is to Leica standards.   We need data on
individual cameras to see how wide spread the problem is, and more research to see
how easily it can be corrected, and at what cost.   Is this a good thing? Of course
not, but neither were plastic M6 frame counters, M6 TTL's that eat batteries like
candy, or R8 motor problems.  Despite best efforts, some mistakes seem to make it
past the end of all assembly lines.

If enough Hexar RF owners complain to Konica USA, perhaps they will even correct
the problem under warranty - though at this time they don't seem so inclined.

As for me, although I've noticed no focusing problems with my Hexar RF, I'm having
it checked by 3 repair techs to make sure I am getting accurate back focus
measurement.   If the back focus is not within Leica specs, I will be exploring
what needs to be done, how much it will cost, and I will be sharing the serial
number.

Stephen Gandy

 imxputs@ision.nl wrote:

> I am always surprised that anyone on this list can make statements without any
> proof or with reference to that famous " highly knowledgeable and offiial, but
> anonymous sources" phrase, without being challenged or asked to substantiate.
> If I make a statement or do a measurement, my person is made suspect, my
> methods are challenged or I am forced, preferably by legal means, to dsclose
> sources by name, rank and position, I have to give quantities checked, any
> individual serial numbers and if I have to to obey to Stephen Gandy's demand I
> am not even qualified to make any statement unless I can proof I am a working
> optical designer with 20 years of practical experience and should have in
> addition an masters degree in mechanical precision engineering before my
> remarks gain a modicum of respectibility.
> Now if these in itself reasonable demands would apply to all members of the
> Lug, it would die instantly. But such is the force of demagogy that rules are
> for anybody but the person who makes the rules.
> Now on topic:
> The Konica facts have as source the Konica Headquarters Europe, in Germany. I
> spoke to the service people there, who reproduced wordly (from the English
> specification details) that the film register is 28.00mm plus/minus 0.03.
> He also noted that it is impossible for any company with engineering quality
> status as Konica or name anyone else, to depart from that figure significantly.
> He said that it is possible to match a Konica body to Leica lenses, BUT then
> you need to adjust the Rangefinder mechanism too. It is not enough to change
> the boyonet, if that could be done.
> He admitted that sometimes a user with a Konica body does not have problems
> when using leica lenses but that it not generally the case.
> End of discussion.
> To resume my remarks.
> I know of Hexar RF bodies that depart from the quoted specs. I do not know why
> that happens or whether these bodies have been adjusted individually.
> I do know that I do not trust the wellknown visiual inspection method: I shot
> pictures with a Hexar/Leica combo and see no problems.
> I know and again here Stephen Gandy will object, that handheld shooting will
> degrade te optical potential quality of a lens in such a way that no reliable
> conclusions can be based on this experience.
> To give figures: based on the formula to be found in any handbook of optics,
> that a defocus of 0.2mm will reduce the definition and contrast of a lens in
> the same proportion as handheld shooting can do.
> To be precise: if the optimum quality of a lens is 100 lp/mm, then a handheld
> shooting can reduce it to 20 lp/mm with low contrast. A defocus by .2mm will
> also reduce the optimum to 20 lp/mm. This being the case, any test with
> handheld shooting will mask the defocus reduction.
>
> Erwin