Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/10/11

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

Subject: [Leica] Konica Hexar RF
From: dstella1 at ameritech.net (Dante Stella)
Date: Sat Oct 11 06:15:26 2008
References: <200810091932.m99JWoAx099993@server1.waverley.reid.org> <20CE2CCC03F74E449AC69E687E0C5E91@xyw>

Akhil:

Ok.  Got my coffee.  Now... there are four different things going on  
here:

1.      Camera RF - the Hexar's rangefinder is sensitive to eye position  
and difficult to adjust.  That said, I've seen plenty of "properly"  
adjusted Leica-branded lenses not quite line up at infinity in the  
viewfinder on a "properly" adjusted Leica body.

2.      Hexanon lens cams - are the same height and profile as Leica.  They  
are flat, and there is thus no difference in profile.  I have observed  
that some Leica lenses have contoured cams (cf 75 Summilux), but this  
seems to be more of an exception than a rule.

[By the way, cam adjustment on the 50 Hexanon looks like a DIY  
adjustment but requires a fixture to measure the cam height at  
infinity.  The tolerance for being too short is zero/100 of a mm.]

3.      Lens collimation - generally, it is not a problem interchanging  
Hexar and Leica lenses and bodies (and about 150 people wrote into my  
site a while back to discuss this...).  Putting M-Hexanons on an M8  
(digital) can require an optical focus adjustment (forward) to hit the  
M8's dead-flat imager surface.  But the same is true of many Leica  
lenses, such as the 50 Summilux (pre-asph), 75 Summilux and 90  
Summicron, all of which are the target of "back focus" complaints by  
M8 owners.

[What I have observed, though, is that "as originally delivered," the  
75mm Summilux and 90mm Summicron performed better on the Hexar than on  
my M8 - these lenses are prone to backward focus shift as you stop  
down, and the Hexar body's very slightly longer body focus apparently  
helps suck this up.]

[If your "52mm" theory were right, M-Hexanons optically recollimated  
at infinity would miss on the M8 at other distances.  They don't.]

4.      Camera body focus (register) - the Hexar has a wider film channel  
that puts the pressure plate slightly back, and if you think this is a  
problem, DAG can move it forward for very little money (by adjusting  
the lens flange).  He did this on mine when he was adjusting my M- 
Hexanons for my M8; it has not yielded any noticeable improvement on  
film (at magnifications of 15x).

To get upset about "orphaned" cameras is something that I just don't  
see.   I look at it like this: a used M7 costs 3-4 times as much as a  
used Hexar RF body.  There is nothing to suggest that a Hexar is three  
or four times as likely to fail (within whatever period film is still  
available or economically justifiable).  By the laws of large numbers  
you would have to have three or four total loss repair situations to  
come out behind.  And quite honestly, given some of my experiences  
with Leica service, even under new management, well... the cost  
effectiveness and practicality of using factory service for out-of- 
warranty items is not very good.  Leica may not be orphaned, but one  
could make the case that it has an absentee parent.

Unless of course you harbor the belief that an M7 is 3-4 times better  
than a Hexar.  I think the M7 VF/RF is a little better, and the M7 is  
quieter, but everything else accounted for, the Hexar exhibits better  
engineering and ergonomics.  Bringing an M7 up to motor drive creates  
a pretty clunky, heavy, and not-very-quiet package.

My comment on resale value is simply that the market apparently  
regards the Hexar as good enough that its residual value is better  
than that of more recent Leicas. Resale value in itself is not a  
reason to buy a film camera (at least I don't think so).

Regards,
Dante

On Oct 9, 2008, at 6:34 PM, A. Lal wrote:

> When offering advice to a fellow LUGGER I like to err on the side of  
> caution, hence my comments.
>
> 1.    The back focus problem is real enough, IME. Both of my Hexars  
> and one belonging to a friend - that's 3 out of 3 - did not line up  
> at infinity with three different 21mm Cosina, lenses. All three 21s  
> worked  just fine on two different M7s and one M6TTL. The 50mm Hexar  
> lens in my kit needed re-collimation (this is a DIY adjustment if  
> one is careful) to line up at infinity with my M7s.
>
> My friend's Hexar was subsequently adjusted to collimate properly  
> with a 21mm Super Angulon M that was known to be in good fettle.  
> When tested with a 90/2.8 Elmarit -M  that was known to be good this  
> body, after adjustment, did not track well at intermediate distances  
> when compared to our Ms. At distances of approximately 6-8 feet the  
> Ms and the re-collimated Hexar body were off by about 1.5 feet going  
> by the 90's focus scale.
>
> I urge anyone owning a Hexar RF  to try a few simple tests with  
> their Leica or CZ lenses on the RF body and report back to this group.
>
> I believe, and this is purely speculation on my part, that not only  
> was the back focus different on the Hexar bodies, but the RF cam  
> profile may well have been different too. Perhaps Konica did not  
> have the focus set up for the Leica default  focal length of 52 mm?   
> A similar situation existed back in the 1940s when Nikon and Contax  
> had the same lens mount and backfocus but different focus profiles.
>
> 2.    I would no longer recommend ANY orphaned electro-mechanical   
> camera - this includes the Contax G2 and SLRs - if an all mechanical  
> or un-orphaned body can be used in its place. The Plaubels, Rolleis,  
> or if you will, Alpas and Contarexes [had to get those in, :-)] are  
> mostly mechanical and my remarks do not apply.
>
> 3.  I made no comment on resale values. If resale is important a  
> black Leica IIIg or Nikon SP would be nice to buy and use.
>
> 4. Agree that the real issue is how much does one want to spend on  
> film cameras and systems.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dante A Stella" 
> <dstella1@ameritech.net 
> >
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 09 October, 2008 3:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Konica Hexar RF
>
>
>> To DAG will adjust the back focus for something like $35 or 55 (if  
>> you believe such a problem exists).  Not much of a gamble there.
>>
>
>
>> Being "at the mercy of independent repair people" is no different  
>> from owning a Contax G, a Plaubel Makina, a Rolleiflex (or a Leica  
>> for that matter, if time and money have any meaning to you).   
>> Leica's service prices are only really justifiable in reference to  
>> how much the equipment costs.
>>
>> And Hexars seem to hold their value a lot better than Leicas.   
>> Uncorrected for inflation, a Hexar sells for about the same price  
>> as it did when new. An M7 or M8, not so close.  I bought an M8  
>> because there was no digital Hexar.  But I knew long term, it would  
>> be depreciation hell.
>>
>> But the real question is how much you want to sink into a film  
>> based system these days.
>>
>> Dante
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: A. Lal <alal@duke.poly.edu>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:55 PM
>> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Konica Hexar RF
>>
>> Hi Philip,
>>
>> I had two Hexars at one time, sold them both, never regretted the  
>> sale. They
>> are now orphaned, neither Konica-Minolta nor Sony will support  
>> them, so you
>> are at the mercy of independent repairers should something go  
>> wrong. The
>> parts problem will only get worse with time. There may well be a  
>> problem
>> with collimation and focus of Leica M and Cosina lenses on some Hexar
>> bodies.
>>
>> TO summarise, if you are a gambler, and hope that the camera will  
>> not go
>> wrong, and that your particular specimen will focus properly with  
>> your M
>> lenses, then go for it; otherwise,  I'd recommend saving your  
>> pennies and
>> getting a user M7 if you need auto exposure.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Akhil
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Forrest" 
>> <photo.forrest@earthlink.net 
>> >
>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, 09 October, 2008 11:06 AM
>> Subject: [Leica] Konica Hexar RF
>>
>>
>>> How many LUG'gers use a Konica Hexar RF? The reason I ask is that I
>>> really want the features of an M7 or Hexar, yet the Hexar is 1/3 the
>>> price of the M7 and has back-door loading. I love my M4, but want to
>>> move into an M body with a meter and aperture priority ability.
>>> The case could be made for me to get an M6, but then I'm still in  
>>> the
>>> same price as the Hexar, but don't have the back door for much  
>>> quicker
>>> loading, nor the AE and high shutter speeds of the Konica product.
>>> Thoughts?
>>> Phil Forrest
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from dstella1 at ameritech.net (Dante A Stella) ([Leica] Konica Hexar RF)
Message from alal at duke.poly.edu (A. Lal) ([Leica] Konica Hexar RF)