Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc, I agree there seems to be some sort of Hexar RF compatibility problem, but I am not satisfied what the cause is, or if the problem is systematic of all Hexars, or just some. I am suggesting we need more data before making blanket pronouncements, as Erwin did in his "Konica facts." He may well be correct, but millions of dollars of Konica RF sales to thousands of Hexar RF owners is a serious matter, with possible lawsuits if Erwin's claim is correct, or incorrect. I've been looking at this problem since February, and I certainly don't feel comfortable in being SURE about what is going on with Konica on this issue, other than there are reported problems while at the same time other owners report no problems. A single camera or a single Konica source does not reasonably prove Erwin's claim. On the other hand, a couple of hundred cameras spread over the Hexar RF production run certainly would seem to prove it. We probably have that many Hexar RF owners on the LUG. Suppose the Hexar RF owners have their cameras checked and report back the results ? Yes, Erwin is careful, but he is human and can makes mistakes like anyone else. Even if he is right on the back focus issue, he made a mistake in the same post by wondering why the back focus problem had not been discussed before, when it was discussed on the LUG in Feb. Stephen Marc James Small wrote: Stephen > > No one, save you, has mentioned anything about Konica's motives in making > the back-focus of their cameras different than the Leica M norm. But the > Leica M standard has been known since 1953, and it would be surprising if > Konica fell afoul of the problems which haunted Canon and others in the LTM > realm, where manufacturers were unwilling to acknowledge that the pitch of > the LTM is in inches while the width is metric. > > But the problem does exist, as well documented on the LUG and elsewhere. I > have great trouble believing Konica is using sloppy standards far lower > than the rest of the Japanese camera industry, as you have suggested. But > I don't have an alternate explanation as to why the disparity exists. > > But, if Erwin says it is there, it is there. He is too careful a > researcher, and too cautious a human being, to have posted his findings > unless he was certain of them. > > > Marc > > msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 > Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!