Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/10

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] HEXAR RF vs. M5 vs. M6
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 13:05:17 EDT

In a message dated 9/10/00 12:46:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

<< First, and somewhat minor, the M6
 does not show as much of the framelines as M2's-M5's.  
    Second, and very major, is that half of the frame,to the right or
 left, tends to disappear completely. Moving your eye around sometimes
 helps a little.  There is also a tendencey for the frame to disappear in
 strong outdoor light.  >>

I share your view of the M6 view, so to speak.  I have not tried a .85.  I do 
mostly available light with RF bodies, and I have found that the almost 
flare-free, uncluttered .91 finder of the M3 is as good, and as accurate, as 
it gets.  For most available light work, I would just as soon use a hand-held 
meter, at times measuring incident rather than  reflected light.  TTL 
metering is therefore not a major consideration.   
I believe the Konica finder is .6, or so I have read.  For work at smaller 
apertures, such as street or even sports work in bright daylight, 
particularly if light on the subject is changing rapidly, I would tend to 
consider the merits of the more automated Konica.
Either way, the TTL .72 would be less than ideal with a 90.  It is, with that 
body/lens combination, tempting to consider using a Leitz bright frame 
finder, except where the distance between camera and subject is frequently 
changing from far to close.  In that case, parallax may become a problem.

Joe Sobel