The Leica/Hexar RF Culture War

<p>I just finished a pretty exhaustive synthetic review of the Hexar RF (which

just came off to 10 printed pages), with notes on the current controversies.

My theory on all of this (explained in the review) is that the Leica M and the

Hexar RF are very different animals from a development standpoint, and that

this history, combined with the personality types of both groups of users, tends

to perpetuate a sort of holy war (which I'm sure you can identify with the Ford/Chevy

thing). Of course, growing up in a house that was Catholic on one side and Protestant

on the other, I am used to tension. And as both an M3 and a Hexar RF user, you

can imagine the conflict I must be feeling. The link is <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/hexarrf.html">here</a>.

</p>

Two Points. One: shutter and moter are same as one used in Contax G

series. Two: Only someone use to a typical AF/AE/SLR could overlook

the shutter lag. You also make note of the fact that the M3 is a

fifty year old camera. If film lasts, do you really think anyone will

be using a Hexar in fifty years? But I'd be willing to bet that there

will be those still using an M3. The Hexar people remind me of the

Apple people you continue to go to the Intel forum to attack the PC.

Only the Hexar people care about the so called Hexar/Leica war.

Funny, no body told me about it. I could care less about the Hexar.

I've used Contax G cameras, and they are a lot louder than the Hexar RF.

<p>

Shutter lag is generally associated with 2 things.

<p>

1. mirror flipping up in an slr

<p>

2. delays related to autofocus.

<p>

The hexar RF has neither of these issues.

<p>

I'm not sure where subjective perceptions about shutter lag come from, but

after shooting a hundred or so rolls with this camera, I have to say that I have

never noticed that it's a problem.

Thank you! A very interesting article to read. Whether that means

there is Hexar RF in my future I do not know.

look at my recent post, Photo Site. i shot with

both a leica and hexar and i bet anyone here that they cant

tell the difference...

Pete -

<p>

The Hexar shutter lag comes at least partly from the double shutter curtain.

Metal bladed shutters are usually not completely light-tight, so the Hexar (as

well as Contax G's, Hasselblad Xpan, Voightlander Bessas, etc.) have a second

curtain in front of the timed shutter. It must move out of the way before

exposure, which contributes to noise and delay. But for many people, it hardly

makes the camera less useful.

Dante; I like your "holy war" analogy!..And your site.. In

interchangeable lens RF cameras I own an beater grade M3; 1/2 year

old Bessa-R; and several Russian cameras; such as the spring driven

Lenningrad motor drive camera; 3 Zorki's; 2 Feds....It is interesting

to place the new 50 mm Summicron LSM on a 28 dollar Zorki... and get

great results..As tools go; I dont mind what people think ..It is

real funny to read all the hype and cult status given to some

cameras....<BR><BR>Around 1984 I bought a beat up Nikon F body; with

non-metered plain prism for 100 dollars at the cameras store in

downtown Ventura California.. One friend commented that I paid way

too much since it was a body that was modifed for a motor drive; and

had seen a hard life......Fast forward hundreds upon hundreds of

rolls of film to today; and I have not spent one dime on the old F

for repair; CLA or whatever..The camera has the faith to live

on..One person commented recently that "I should not be using a

classic camera; it will ruin its value" ...Kelly

Dear Dante,

Is it really a war?

I noted in your very fair comparative with the Leica M bodies the

use of the term emotional. It is just what I saw in the many answers

of my posts in defence of the Hexar RF versus the M7� Emotional

comments�

Perhaps the fact I transitioned from an M5 to an Hexar RF eased the

thing about the ergonomics (the M5 doesn�t feel so different to

hold).

I have also noted the fact the lag is less sensitive when the camera

is set to multiple frames than single one (and the motor noise

appears to be less discernible by the way).

My best guess in this alleged �war� is all the problem is linked to

what kind of subjects you intend to tackle with your camera. A fair

amount of the forum participants seems to use their M bodies the way

I use my medium format SLR� Don�t misunderstand me, you can use a

Leica M or an Hexar RF this way and obtain extremely good results.

But I don�t think it was the way small format rangefinder cameras

were developed for. This issue is particularly well illustrated when

you aptly pointed out the considerable difference in ergonomics the

use of a neutral density filter will bring versus a speedier

shutter. Assuming a small format rangefinder camera was conceived

and is still better fitted to capture fleeting instants than to be

handled like a MF or LF camera, there can�t be any doubt which

solution is the better suited for the user. What really surprises me

in the attitude of many M diehards is there strange (to me) denial

the Hexar RF is probably nearer �philosophically� speaking to the

original state of mind of Barnack than today Leica M6 TTL and to a

lesser degree the M7. The all mechanical v.s. electronic and battery

dependent (battery dependence being a typical no issue as there�s no

difference between battery dependence and film dependence so far)

camera issue has nothing to do here as during Barnack times, all

cameras were mechanical. The AE vs. manual issue is as irrelevant

again all cameras in Barnack�s time were manual. What is IMHO

relevant is the fact that to take the image of a fleeting instant

the Hexar RF is more efficient than any M bodies. Faster to load and

unload, faster than an M6 as it allows the use of AE mode (though

the Hexar RF and the M7 suffer of the same shortcoming here: they

both use an already obsolete technology instead of matrix metering),

faster than both an M6 and an M7 when it goes to minimize the depth

of field in a bright sunny day because of a faster shutter and

faster to take pictures without adding a cumbersome separate motor

when multiple image sequence becomes a must (this last feature being

sometimes unfortunately a liability too).

So what is left to the M range ? Very few indeed if you admit the

red dot is something not so useful in practice� TTL flash ? Yes but

up to 1/50th of a second, hardly an asset when dealing with the fill-

in issue. Less noise? Well the Hexar RF is noisier but much less

than any SLR around. The only really interesting feature of both M

series is the more important magnification of the finder for two

versions of the range (0.72 and 0.85). Something Konica should be

well inspired to listen to by the way (how about a finder with two

built in magnification ?).

But I will hardly be able to chose between the Hexar RF and a 0.72

M7 (0.85 is out of question for me as a glass wearer)in the

absolute. Both cameras have each some shortcomings which are

compensated for in the other, both cameras are IMHO not sufficiently

state of the art in metering capabilities (they are almost identical

in concept). Technically speaking, those who have to operate in a

very quiet way and use the fastest lenses from Leica range (Noctilux

and 75mm Summilux) will probably find a better suited camera with

the M7. Most of the others will have a better choice with the Hexar

RF because of its more modern shutter and more efficient loading

procedure. But this set apart, the best buy in economical terms is

without possible contest the Hexar RF. Leica fans can take heart in

defending the true superiority of Leica which is the unsurpassable

quality of their lenses. Many Hexar users will certainly prefer the

original to the copy here at least for their most used lenses.

I think there is no use waging a war between the M series and the

Hexar RF. These cameras are not suited exactly for the same role.

But the role the Hexar excels to perform is probably nearer to the

original one assigned by Barnack to the Leica.

Will I go back to Leica M one day? May be, but certainly not through

the M7. May be with an M6 0.72 bought second hand as a second body

(not the main, sorry Leica diehards) to use with the fastest lenses

and tele-lens with its more precise rangefinder and more

magnification for the use with long focal length. May be if Leica

issues a �M8� all electronic body with matrix metering in AE mode

and real spot metering in manual mode, 30s to 1/4000th shutter with

1/250th sync. speed TTL flash all the way and a revised loading

procedure, and, hopefully, a high point variable magnification

finder. Thus justifying a price more than twice the one of an Hexar

RF. But I sincerely believe there�s more chance Konica issues such a

modern SFRF camera than Leica. Even the second hand M6 might never

be bought if Konica issues a finder with more magnification.

<p>

Thanks again for that fair review

<p>

François P. WEILL

<p>

I added a Hexar body to my Leica bag some time ago for all the

reasons mentioned in your e-article: especially the faster film

loading, higher sinc, and 1/4000th top speed in combination with

Lux lenses. It all looked good on paper just as your findings do.

In real world practice ( professionally pushing a ton more film

than your test indicates), I have found the following: The Hexar

misloads more frequently than you indicate, including fresh pro

film not just discount versions. This is a disaster when shooting

something like photo-journalism or a wedding. I attribute this to

the fact that when shooting quickly, I have the film out of its

canister ready to instantly reload ( a necessary evil of time

sensitive conditions ). When, and if I'm using flash, TTL is more

valuable than 1/125th sinc. ( I'd prefer both ). Using 6 or 8X ND

filters on Lux lenses allows TTL fill flash in sunny conditions with

an M. Using NDs is not clumsy as you indicate, anymore than

using one with a SLR, and it's better than a SLR because the

viewfinder brightness and focus is unaffected. However, in

reality, this type of use constitutes about 2-5% of my use of a

rangefinder anyway. My SLRs cream every rangefinder made

when the loading, automation, flash sinc. and top shutter speed

criteria is applied. Most importantly, there is some sort of lag in

field use of a Hexar verses an M. It shows up in the split second

that means the difference of capturing a fleeting expression or

not ( my chief reason for using a rangefinder in the first place).

Admittedly, my Instinctual timings may be tuned to an M verses

the new-comer Hexar. But, when reviewing proofs, I could care

less why, technical or otherwise. It seems that the debate arises

when people look to a rangefinders to be more than what they

were designed for ( or the nitch they have come to occupy ): That

being a fast, candid, wider-lens, lower ambient light capturing

machines. Add time-proven reliability, and IMHO you have an M

not a Hexar. An opinion based on 15 to 20 rolls a week, 45+

weeks a year, year upon year. Frankly, I tried abandoning

rangefinder use altogether in favor of smaller SLRs with more

features. My people/candid work suffered, and I returned to that

which showed results in the content and feeling of the end

results. Holy War? Who cares? Can I get the picture or not is the

only criteria that has any meaning to me what-so-ever. Ms

continue to deliver, while the Hexar takes up space in my bag

because I don't have confidence in its' loading or timing. The

Hexar is a fine vacation/amateur camera or whatever, but on the

job, in the field, in the real, hard-knocks world? No thanks.

Marc writes:

<p>

>> I added a Hexar body to my Leica bag some time ago for all the

reasons mentioned in your e-article: especially the faster film

loading, higher sinc, and 1/4000th top speed in combination with Lux

lenses. It all looked good on paper just as your findings do. In

real world practice ( professionally pushing a ton more film than

your test indicates), I have found the following: The Hexar misloads

more frequently than you indicate, including fresh pro film not just

discount versions. This is a disaster when shooting something like

photo-journalism or a wedding. I attribute this to the fact that

when shooting quickly, I have the film out of its canister ready to

instantly reload ( a necessary evil of time sensitive conditions ).

<<

<p>

If you attribute the improper loadings of your Hexar to such a

practice, just think a while how long it takes to pull out of a film

from its plastic canister instead of loading a M� By the way an

improperly loaded M won�t tell you anything but if you verify the

tension of the film with rewinding crank� I consider taking care of

the flatness of the lead is enough to prevent any misleading in an

Hexar.

<p>

>> When, and if I'm using flash, TTL is more valuable than 1/125th

sinc. ( I'd prefer both ).<<

<p>

It essentially depends on the use you have of a flash on SFRF

camera� For me the only logical use (unless you�re really cornered)

is a fill-in use� Unfortunately the M is unable to fulfil this

requirement due to a very slow sync. speed. High speed sync. with

the special Metz unit allowed by the M7 is no more TTL than with an

Hexar� The only right way is to have a 1/250th of a second real

sync. speed and TTL� Not a single SFRF has this feature.

<p>

>> Using 6 or 8X ND filters on Lux lenses allows TTL fill flash in

sunny conditions with an M. Using NDs is not clumsy as you indicate,

anymore than using one with a SLR, and it's better than a SLR

because the viewfinder brightness and focus is unaffected.<<

<p>

If you prepare things in advance for a series no, but if you make a

series of pictures with different lenses on a particular subject and

wants to minimize DOF only for some, it is much more clumsy than to

rely on a fast shutter�

<p>

>> However, in reality, this type of use constitutes about 2-5% of

my use of a rangefinder anyway.<<

<p>

This one of the features a SFRF camera is worth to have� It might be

not the main feature you appreciate in your work but it is

nevertheless.

<p>

>> My SLRs cream every rangefinder made when the loading,

automation, flash sinc. and top shutter speed criteria is applied. <<

<p>

But without having the specific qualities of an SFRF camera� Why

would it be forbidden to, have everything the modern SLR�s have on a

SFRF has long has it is relevant to the original concept.

<p>

>> Most importantly, there is some sort of lag in field use of a

Hexar verses an M. It shows up in the split second that means the

difference of capturing a fleeting expression or not ( my chief

reason for using a rangefinder in the first place). <<

<p>

Try to use it in multiple frames mode�

<p>

>> Admittedly, my Instinctual timings may be tuned to an M verses

the new-comer Hexar. But, when reviewing proofs, I could care less

why, technical or otherwise. It seems that the debate arises when

people look to a rangefinders to be more than what they were

designed for ( or the niche they have come to occupy ): That being a

fast, candid, wider-lens, lower ambient light capturing machines. <<

<p>

Gee, Leica WERE fast cameras for this use by the standard of the

time their main features were designed� The fact is they are NO

MORE� Is it really so difficult to understand we can beneficiate

form modern technology (not modern gadgetry) yet incorporated in

SLR�s ?

<p>

>> Add time-proven reliability, and IMHO you have an M not a Hexar.

<<

<p>

Reliability of an M3 or an M4 or even an M5 may be� Reliability of

an M6 or an M7 versus an Hexar RF, this is a thing to be actually

proven�

<p>

>> An opinion based on 15 to 20 rolls a week, 45+ weeks a year, year

upon year. Frankly, I tried abandoning rangefinder use altogether in

favor of smaller SLRs with more features. My people/candid work

suffered, and I returned to that which showed results in the content

and feeling of the end results. Holy War? Who cares? Can I get the

picture or not is the only criteria that has any meaning to me what-

so-ever. Ms continue to deliver, while the Hexar takes up space in

my bag because I don't have confidence in its' loading or timing.

<p>

All the truth lies here: �I don't have confidence in its' loading or

timing� Confidence (a very subjective thing)� I was totally

confident with my M5� it quits definitively (broken bearing of a

curtain roll) during a picture taking session� I have never full

confidence in a tool whatever is the tool� But I use my Hexar the

hard way to test it (I was a photojournalist for 15 years so I now

what it means). The only real problem is in your brain�

<p>

>> The Hexar is a fine vacation/amateur camera or whatever, but on

the job, in the field, in the real, hard-knocks world? No thanks. <<

<p>

The Hexar, nor the M, has a universal vocation (not a single camera

system has)� I consider the Hexar RF almost as a backward technology

camera when it goes to metering modes the M7 is. But it has

nonetheless a better shutter and even more important it doesn�t cost

the equivalent of an F5 or EOS1 SLR, which is a decisive advantage

when covering the subjects you want to tackle means you need another

system as a complement. But to tell it an �amateur camera� is

totally irrelevant. It has the same use an m body has and fulfil the

task exactly the same way (when accustomed to it) most of the time

the percentage of situations it performs not as the M is exactly the

same it performs better than it. The real difference comes when you

take into account the price to pay. And there, the Hexar RF means

more bang for the buck. None of them is the perfect SFRF camera we

should be entitled to expect nowadays, so a modern equivalent, state

of the art speaking, of an M3, M4 or even an M5, but the M7 is

grossly overpriced and the Hexar isn�t�

<p>

François P. WEILL

<p>

Dante, really nice and informative article. As stated before, I

would buy a HRF in a heartbeat if it had a larger magnification

viewfinder.

<p>

Btw, I wouldn't call it "holy war". I kind of agree of the assessment

that Leica users mostly couldn't care less about the Konica, and

Konica users keeps bugging the Leica crowd that their product/result

is equally good.

<p>

Regardless, thanks for shareing.

Dante

<p>

Like the others say I think it is only the Hexar users who want their

camera to measure up to a Leica. Who cares? I would buy a Hexar myself

if I was sure that there would be no focussing problems. Many people

on this site have reported them, this certainly puts me off. If I

genuinely believed this was a non-issue I would shell out $700, no

problem, particularly as I would like a low mag v/f. When the camera

costs less than $700-800 (say $450) then I might buy the camera anyway

and risk the focussing issue. The Hexar is a very nice camera no doubt

about it - but to pay $700+ and to have a dud is a real pain,

particularly as they are not as easy to sell s/h as a Leica.

I have got a good one and all you nice people who try to put down a

good thing, you don't know what you are missing.

Regards/wong from malaysia

Interesting article.

<p>

I'm personally waiting for the next Voigtlander body...an R2 with

aperture-preferred metering. Since they already manufcture the Nikon

FE-10, this is the next logical step for their line, especially after

the introduction of the M7.

<p>

In my opinion, Konica has abandoned the market. The Hexar RF was a

one-shot gamble that failed. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fine

body and I've considered getting one...but I don't see any future

committment to this line. The same can be said for the Contax G

line...nice stuff but a financial bust. And the bottom line is what

counts to stay in business.

<p>

I hope I'm wrong. We all know what the perfect rangefinder would be,

regardless of who makes it. Give me an M6-like body, with fast film-

loading, matrix & spot metering, aperture-priorty operation, 250th.

flash-sync with TTL exposure, and the ability to operate in full-

manual mode, without a battery. All the manufacturers flirt with

this, but always leave something out. The closest thing to this is

Nikon's FM3a...but it can't use Leica's great lenses, and they left

out the martix & spot meter.

<p>

Then again, if they give us the perfect camera, they have nothing

else to temp us with in the future.

<p>

It's all madness.

Jim. What's perfect for you isn't necessarily perfect for other

people. I would have no interest in an M mount version of a cheap

plasticky camera like the FE10. I personally would appreciate a

spotmeter but I think matrix metering is worthless. For extreme back

or sidelit scenes these types of meters invariably give poor

exposures. The meter in your head is the best compromise. For me,

the nearly silent shutter, excellent build quality, and handling of

the Leica M are a lot more important than features such as 1/250 sec

sync speed. If I just wanted a lot of features, I would use an

autofocus SLR like a Canon EOS. Now that has matrix metering.

the shutter lag in the hexar rf is approx. ten times as long as in

the m6/7 AS MEASURED by erwin puts in his recent review of the m7 (90

miliseconds compared to 10). to me, this lag is very noticeable. i

do, however, really like the hexar rf.

Dante - good review.

<p>

I STILL love the concept of the Hexar RF. I just found the M4-x

rangefinders to be more reliable for focusing anything above a 35mm

lens. I could care less about the nameplate. And I don't think there is

significant 'back-focus' problem. I would L-UU-V an RF with a 1.00x

finder for 90-135 sports action stuff if they can eliminate that darn

wiggle.

<p>

All three of the RFs I had and traded in re-sold within a month - so

SOMEBODY loves them!

I'm a photographer. I don't understand why I would care

about "culture war." I don't understand why I care about resale

value since the only value that really matters is what I can get out

of the camera. I don't understand why I care about my cameras being

serviceable in fifty years, or even ten, since I shoot every day, in

the rain, in dust storms, in the city, and putting all that film

through the cameras, I expect no more than ten years of useful life.

<p>

FWIW, I've put at least five hundred rolls through a Hexar RF and

several thousand through a Hexar AF (which has a similar load

mechanism) without a misfire after the first twenty rolls or so. I

did find that I had a tendency to load it wrong initially, but that

eneded years ago.

<p>

I'm a lot more concerned about managing all the negatives than I am

about any of those other things. Maybe it's about vanity cameras,

not photographers' cameras.

Let me add my review of the Hexar RF to the interesting

comments in this thread and to Dante's fascinating webpage.

I sent to following review to the LUG over a year ago and, of

course, it started a flame war.

Before evaluating the Hexar RF, let me give my Leica

background so that everything is in context. I am a serious

amateur photographer and the Leica M camera has been my

primary photographic tool since 1963 or 64 (I am 60 years old). I

started with an M2 and 50 F2.8 Elmar and have also used the

M3, 4, 5, and 6, as well as the CL and the CLE. Yes, I�ve used

SLR�s, but not very frequently. The rangefinder way of seeing

has always appealed to me.

<p>

My current system consists of Leica M5 (with a softie) and Hexar

RF, used with the15 Heliar, 35M Sumicron, 50 Wetzlar F2, and

90 Tele-Elmarit. I also have a classic Hexar (original), which has

become my main camera for indoor available light light in

moderate size settings, the GR1, and a Canon QL17-GIII (which

always gets thrown in my suitcase as a backup and gives nice

images). My SLR is a Canon Rebel S with a 35-70 zoom which I

haven�t used for several years.

<p>

What�s very important for me when using a camera is light

weight and a good viewfinder. I also realize that EVERY camera

is a compromise, so what�s important to me may not be to

others. Now, onto the

<p>

RF HEXAR.

<p>

My scale says that it weighs about an ounce more than an M6

and a couple of ounces less than the M5. It has a very good

solid feel in my hands. The control are very natural for a M user

except that the location of the shutter release is a little different.

The loading is easy and the rewinding automatic. With

moderate background noise, I don�t hear the camera rewinding,

and when I try to take a picture and get no response I can get

momentarily confused. (The rewind on the classic Hexar is hard

to hear at any time.)

<p>

VIEWFINDER: The RF viewfinder presents an interesting

contrast with the M2,4,5 (I will refrain from my usual tirade on the

crummy M6 framelines). I wear average thickness glasses.

With M5, I can almost see all of the 35mm frameline by jamming

my glasses against the window. The view is large and gives an

interesting sense of being part of the picture. With the RF, there

is the whole 35 frame floating with space around it (but a little

smaller than the M). In fact I can see the 28 lines. This is a

different feeling from the M and I�m not sure which I prefer;

maybe it will depend on the situation. Framing accuracy is better

with the 35 on the RF. The bigger 90 frameline on the M5 is a

real plus. The 90 framelines on an M6 is laughable (there I go

again). The RF finder is a little dimmer than an M, which doesn�t

bother me. Focusing was quite easy, but I haven�t tested the RF

yet in a spontaneous low light situation.

<p>

METERING (with B&W and color negative): I can manually meter

with the best of them and often do with the M5 and the classic

Hexar. But I like aperture priority automatic as long as I have an

exposure lock. The RF has two automatic settings, AE and AEL.

In AE I think it meters until the shutter starts to open. AEL is like

most cameras - when the shutter release is pressed half way

down, the exposure is locked in. I can�t understand why AE is

even an option. It seems utterly useless, especially with the

semi spot meter which I will get to next. My exposure with 25

rolls of B&W and color neg taken mostly outdoors in the

somewhat tricky light in Greece was just fine. I only used AEL

and never found a need for manual.

<p>

The RF seems to have a very heavy centerweighted system,

which may really be a semi spot meter like the M6. The

instruction book is very badly written, but a diagram in the

advertising literature seems to indicate semi spot with a little

spread (maybe like the Nikon F3???). The RF meter on AEL

even worked very well when I had to shoot very fast with varied

lighting and no chance to choose what to meter on. With the M5 I

know exactly what I am metering. When I meter in manual, I love

the M5.

<p>

The 1/4000 shutter speed can be great, if you have too high a

speed film in the camera to shoot in the F5.6 - 11 range or when

I want to deliberately use the wonderful bokeh of Leica lenses.

Yes, I believe in bokeh, no matter what the engineers say.

<p>

MOTOR: I am left eyed, so the motor is a godsend. With any non

motorized camera, I have to take my eye from the viewfinder to

wind the film.

<p>

The sound of the shutter and motor are a bit sharp compared to

an M body, but not objectionable so far - the classic Hexar is the

best. However, as I said before, I haven�t tested it in an intimate

low light setting.

As I was shooting the rear end of a burro (ugh) in Greece, he

clearly heard the sound (about 25 feet away) and turned to look,

which gave me a nice shot.

<p>

If new rangefinder models appear, I will certainly be ready to

consider them, but I pray they will use my Leica lenses. I�d love

to see a Bessa R with an M mount (it�s so nice and light).

<p>

AN ADD ON

<p>

My Hexar RF focuses a little past infinity, so I tested it very

carefully closeup at F2 with both the Konica 50 and the 50

Summicron. with basically no depth of field, the focus was dead

on. Yes it is annoying, but for all practical purposes, it works just

fine. I have now shot about 30 rolls of film with it and no

problems. The most annoying thing for me is not understanding

the exact area being metered. The Konica ad booklet and the

instruction book seem to contradict each other and the review in

Pop Photography was useless.

<p>

2002 update: I just bought a Bessa R2. As it weighs about a

half pound less than the RF (or my M5), it may become my

perimary body - who knows?

<i>Jim. What's perfect for you isn't necessarily perfect for other

people. I would have no interest in an M mount version of a cheap

plasticky camera like the FE10.</i>

<p>

Please read my post again. I didn't say this.

<p>

<i>I personally would appreciate a spotmeter but I think matrix

metering is worthless. For extreme back or sidelit scenes these types

of meters invariably give poor exposures.</i>

<p>

That's why it's to your advantage to have a <i>choice</i> of meters.

<p>

<i>For me, the nearly silent shutter, excellent build quality, and

handling of the Leica M are a lot more important than features such

as 1/250 sec sync speed.</i>

<p>

Flash sync speed has nothing to do with a silent shutter, build

quality, or handling...why can't a rangefinder have all these things

plus a decent flash sync, and matrix & spot metering?

Jim. My post was in response to your statement "We all know what the

perfect rangefinder would be, regardless of who makes it." Your idea

of the perfect rangefinder is not the same as mine, and I'm sure many

others. The things I mentioned are a lot more important to me than

some of the things you mentioned.

<p>

The point is you cannot have everything. At least not in a camera

with the size and handling of a Leica M: a) there is not enough room

in the camera body to add all of these features; and b) you would

significantly alter the handling properties of the camera, making it

unattractive to people like me.