Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/12

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] HEXAR RF vs. M5 vs. M6
From: Jem Kime <>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:20:34 +0100

I wasn't arguing for or against sprockets. In terms of what might be more 
desirable in the future, lets head sprocketless and increase the available 
film size for a 'Super 35mm' format. Retaining the same ration one could 
envisage a 30x45mm neg size, increasing the negative area by over 50%!
Of course new lens ranges, enlargers, scanners and cameras would have to be 
built but that's what the industry thrives on, new products!

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Dennis Painter []
Sent:	12 September 2000 04:59
Subject:	Re: [Leica] HEXAR RF vs. M5 vs. M6

So why do sprokets have to drive the film? they could just measure the
movement. They would need a sensor to indicate one frame. A microswitch
would suffice. Would it be better than their ir sensor? would either be
better than an even more mechanical method?  I don't know and doubt
anyone on this list does know save Tom.


Jem Kime wrote:
> Dante,
> I see what you mean, having revisited the brochure.
> Having no sprockets to drive the film, the motorised collecting spool 
> to be told when to stop rotating.
> I suppose it's a moot point whether the optical/electronic route for the
> Konica will be of greater longevity than the mechanical route perpetuated
> by Leica. From the last 30 years of camera electronics one might be 
> to argue in favour of the tried and trusted formula, though where would 
> be without innovation?
> Jem
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Dante A Stella []
> It has a tiny sensor that counts the number of sprocket holes going by
> (instead of that double-toothed spool found in most cameras), so as the
> takeup
> spool gets more full, it doesn't have an effect on spacing.  I don't know
> how
> constant the spacing is with superwideangles - but the film rails do look
> relatively low, so I imagine it would be ok.
> Dante
> Jem Kime wrote:
> > Dante,
> > Can you illuminate me on this point please? Do you mean the Konica
> advances
> > the film precisely so as to present a constant width between each
> negative
> > irrespective of focal length used or other factors?
> > Jem
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:   Dante A Stella []
> >
> > ...the Hexar RF does its frame spacing optically - so there are far 
> > parts to replace.
> >
> > Dante Stella
> >
> --
> Dante Stella

Replies: Reply from Dennis Painter <> (Re: [Leica] HEXAR RF vs. M5 vs. M6)