Re: [Leica] Hexar RF

["Dan Post" <dwpost@email.msn.com>]

Erwin-
I have to admit, I think your observations seem really sensible in view of
the many fans of the current RF Leicas, and even earlier LTM cameras. Just
as "Newer" doesn't always translate to "Better", the pre-eminence of the SLR
doesn't preclude a steady and faithful love and use of RF cameras, now or in
the future.
My only desire is that the folks designing these cameras don't try to do it
from an SLR mindset, but rather look at the new breed of cameras as a
continuation of a 'style' or method of seeing that has held its own for all
these years.
Just as painters have their own styles, and methods, so too the
photographers! I know of at least one fellow who, when he painted (He's a
sculptor for the most part!) never used 'rounds' when it came to brushes-
"brights' and 'flats' were all I ever saw him use. This did not mean that
'rounds' didn't have a purpose, but not in his style. I am sure it is the
same with cameras- the 'style' of photography for which the Leica is best
suited may not be for everyone, but  that doesn't negate the validity of a
valuable tool.
I for one am glad that some camera manufacturers are beginning to realize
this fact of life!
Dan
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 4:23 AM
Subject: [Leica] Hexar RF


> The rangefinder accuracy (baselength 69,2 and viewfinder of .6) is
> good enough for a 2/50mm lens. The required baselength would be 21
> mm, assuming and this is the snag, that the rangefinder patch allows
> for vernier acuity measurement. Now first reports tell me that the
> rangefinder patch in the finder is difficult to see. If that is
> true, and adding  the 0.6 magnification, the accuracy might be well
> below what we expect from Leica bodies.
> I did take a long look at the MTF graphs, (which happily are analogue
> and not digital). I assume that the graphs are taken from the full
> aperture setting, and the character of the graphs do indicate this.
> Then we can expect an image quality well below the equivalent Leica
> lenses. Contrast will be much lower and I assume this is done
> intentionally. One to  get the bokeh characteristics Japanese users
> want and secondly a lower contrast helps cover up focusing errors.
> A  check on the Zeiss graphs for the Contax lenses indicate a
> performance slightly above the Hexanon-M.
> Based on this info I would expect that the Hexar RF, while having a
> body that resembles the M, targets the  photographer  who wishes to
> exercise his photographic craft in a less demanding environment. The
> rrangefinder accuracy would be overstressed when using the 1.4/75 and
> while providing this frame, Konica must be thinking that users will
> buy the Cosina version or will introduce a low aperture version
> themselves.
> The Konica is certainly interesting, but I cannot see this camera be
> the base of any new M. It is even debatable if the .6 finder can
> assist spectacle wearers to function as a high eyepoint finder as
> there is more to this than just a small magnification. Remember the
> CL.
> We have to wait and test this one, but for now I would assume its
> real competitor is the to be announced Voigtlander RF body.
> I think both Cosina and Konica look at the thriving second hand
> market for Leica products and try to persuade users who want a second
> hand older Leica to buy a Leicalike camera with more convenience and
> better price.
>
> Erwin
>