User Comments Hexar RF vs. M7

I responded to a thread over on the CVUG about the Hexar RF vs. the

M7, both of which I use. I thought this group might find it useful

and/or interesting:

 

This is a very user-based comparison and is not scientific. As

usual, it's my opinion, which some people may find not to their

liking.

 

Handling

- RF: nice rubberized body covering, making the camera easy to hold.

large shutter speed dial is nice, and the lock at AE/AEL helps. The

numbers are very close together though on the SS dial, a necessity

given the 1/4000 top speed, which makes them harder to quickly read

than the M7. I wish the turn-on/sequence select lever didn't stick

out when you turn the camera to Continuous (it does sit flush when on

Single). I find that I have turned the camera to self-timer. to S, or

OFF too many times when I thought it was on. Manual exposure with

the RF isn't the greatest, IMO. The camera will recommend the SS via

a steady red number.. You have to then move the SS or aperture until

the now blinking current setting merges with the camera-recommended

steady number.

- M7: typical Leica M feeling. When you have a softie on the shutter

release, the lower, post-AE-lock part of the release travel is a bit

notchy. It mostly disappears when not using the soft release. I like

the shutter-lock, camera turn-on lever how it doesn't protrude over

the camera's profile, but it works in reverse from the RF, which is a

bit maddening. Even to the extent that the M7 is locked when the "red

dot" is visible, whereas the RF is locked when the "red dot" is

covered. Manual exposure is just like the M6-TTL, with the arrows

recommending which way to turn the SS or aperture. I do wish the SS

was shown in the finder on Manual mode, but it's not.

 

Rangefinder: slightly dimmer on the RF, but on the whole, very similar

 

Display

- The two systems are quite different, with the M7 having the

floating red numbers and flashing dots, while the RF has the more

traditional left-side, red-lit numbers. I find that the M7's floating-

numbers-in-the-finder system is much easier to see quickly, but I

find myself having to think a lot when it says 640 (for 1/640 sec),

whereas I find the RF's display of both the 1/1000 and 1/500 numbers

simultaneously lit is easier to quickly comprehend. I'm used to both

systems, and in the end, I find that the M7's system is faster to use

as the RF's numbers are hard to see with any sort of glasses on. The

M7 has more versatility, as it can display times down below the RF's

limited fixed numbers. The M7 can also count down long exposures,

which can be nice as you know it's doing something during that time.

 

Metering

I haven't noticed that either one of the cameras is any better than

the other. They both produce fine transparencies. Also, I wish you

could lock the AE exposure until I wanted it turned off, like I can

on my OM-4t, but you only get one-exposure per half-press lock. I

guess I'd have to use manual for that.

 

Sound

- For outside work, the RF's motor noise is louder than the M7, but I

don't notice it. Interestingly enough, the continuous setting is

where most people that I know of keep their RF's set, as the camera

operates slower on Single. It's also quieter on C, as it only whirrs

once, as opposed to two sounds for S. (this sounds weird, but trust

me, the C setting is faster and quieter.)

- For inside or quiet-surroundings, the M7's click is much less

obtrusive.

- I also use an M-Motor on my M7, and its sound is of a lower

frequency than the RF, so I feel that it's less obtrusive. But an

M7+Motor is a much larger package than the RF.

 

DX & Exposure Compensation

- With both cameras, you either set the speed or set it to DX. The M7

will remind you that you've exercised your independent ability to

think constantly though with a flashing dot (which is very small,

IMO). In general, the very-Teutonic finder display of the M7 could

only have been designed by the Germans. You need two pages in the

instruction manual (which is very good) to explain the dots and

numbers. BTW, the RF's manual is horrible, much like the Hexar

AF's. When will they get something that doesn't' look and read like

it was written by a native-English-speaker?!

- The M7's rear-mounted DX/Film-speed setting is relatively easy to

inadvertently change, so you have to be careful there. But it will

tell you by the flashing red dot if you've screwed up here (that's

assuming that you're not rating the film at some non-DX speed). I

think that the RF's system with a top-mounted dial is more foolproof

and MUCH easier to lock into place and change the exposure comp. If

you've set the exposure comp, the RF puts a +/- indicator in the

finder.

 

Film loading and unloading

- Clearly the RF's conventional film loading and auto rewind is

easier. And it has the film window so that you can see what's in the

camera. Rewind is a bit noisy though, and there's no option when it

reaches the end of the roll. Be careful if you're in a quiet place

near the end of a roll! I guess you can switch the camera OFF as it

starts to rewind to silence it; I haven't tried that technique yet.

- The M7's only concession is that when you turn the camera on, it

displays the film's DX coding in the finder for 2 sec, so you can get

a clue as to what's in the camera, but only a hint. "Now, which ASA

400 film am I using??" Loading is the old M 4,5,6 way, like it or

not. Unloading is a pain, as the DX springs tend to grab the film

canister pretty hard. This is a big pain vs. the M6. I hope it

loosens up, or Leica will have to offer a fix.

 

Other stuff

- The M7 hangs better from a neck strap, due to it's strap lugs being

on the sides of the camera. The RF tends to hang cockeyed backwards

as the strap eyelets are set far forward on the body. That's nit, but

one that bugs me often.

- I really like the 1/2000 and 1/4000 SS's on the RF, especially

outside. You really have to be careful with the M7 (or any other M

camera) that you don't peg the shutter speed with fast film.

- I'm not much of a flash shooter, but the 1/125 vs. 1/50 flash synch

speed is a consideration for those of you who use lots of flash.

- I haven't had an issue with the M7's battery cover coming loose,

but some have.

- The RF uses more expensive batteries, as it has the motor. Carry

spares for both or you'll be sorry. The RF is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD

without batteries.

- The M7 doesn't have a self-timer, which the RF has.

 

I action, I find that the two cameras are not significantly different

in overall handling. They are different; kind of like the difference

between a Nikon F2 and a Canon F1. Basically the same design, with

differences in implementation. The RF is close to the M7, but it does

not have the feel of the more substantial Leica. Is it worth the

extra $$? Probably not, but I wonder how long the RF's will last in

the long run. Only time will tell.

 

At least the lenses all turn in the same direction. :-)

 

Skip

 

 

Thank you for the info. As I am trying to save money for another rangefinder. Still don't know which one to choose yet between the M7 and the Hexar or another M6TTL.

thanks, Skip.

 

I would be baffled, to say the least, if a $2,350 rangefinder camera wasn't better in all aspects than a $700 one. Personally, I think the HRF offers tremendous value but I do wish it had a 0.9 vf instead of that rather small one.

 

The magical thing with Leica though is that one can buy a M7 today and probably resell in 10 yrs with relatively little loss. The HRF, on the other hand, if it still works properly would be close to worthless, i.e. total life cycle cost of camera equipment other than Leica is always higher.

 

nice review though

>>I would be baffled, to say the least, if a $2,350 rangefinder camera wasn't better in all aspects than a $700 one. <<

 

As owner of both, I'd say from a funtionality standpoint it's the other way around. The Hexar outclasses the M7 in most every way. That's why someone thought it was important to start the back-focus smear campaign. What the Leica gives you for the extra $1500 is its pedigree heritage, and though I consider myself a rational person, I get a bigger thrill out of shooting with the M7 and it shows in the end result.

 

 

>>The magical thing with Leica though is that one can buy a M7 today and probably resell in 10 yrs with relatively little loss. <<

 

Not if they introduce a new finder assembly and other upgrades next month at Photokina and don't offer free upgrades for the ones people bought in the last six months.

"That's why someone thought it was important to start the back-focus smear campaign."

 

Jay. It's only a smear if it isn't true. Erwin and Popular Photography say it is true. And I haven't heard Konica deny it.

 

But to me a bigger issue is Konica's essentially copying a Leica M camera and selling it as a "Konica Hexar-RF". The formerly proprietary Leica M mount was just copied for use on the Hexar RF. It's not the same as producing a SM camera or lenses, since the Leica SM has long been a universal mount. Not so with the M. Konica also essentially copied the Leica M VF-RF apparatus. They added their own integral motor and shutter system. Hey wait a minute - don't I remember reading something about the shutter being the same that in the Contax G?

 

Sorry, what Konica did may have been legal, but IMO, it wasn't right. If Konica lses money on this project, I won't lose any sleep. So much for the poor misunderstood Konica Hexar-RF.

>>It's only a smear if it isn't true. <<

 

Wrong. Truth is not a defense for libel. The test is whether there was malice intended, and it smacks to me of such.

 

>>Erwin and Popular Photography say it is true.<<

 

And of course their statements are always correct and never biased ;>)

 

>>And I haven't heard Konica deny it.<<

 

And eat all the Hexanon lenses they'll never sell otherwise?

 

>>But to me a bigger issue is Konica's essentially copying a Leica M camera and selling it as a "Konica Hexar-RF". The formerly proprietary Leica M mount was just copied for use on the Hexar RF.<<

 

False. How about the Minolta CLE (after the partnership split) and the Bessa R2, but nobody's smearing them. Why? Short-base rangefinders, not real competition for the M. And the M-bayonet patent expired before the CLE was manufactured.

 

>> not the same as producing a SM camera or lenses, since the Leica SM has long been a universal mount.<<

 

I think that argument is a bit too obtuse for me. If something is a patent infringement, there are lawsuits to stop it. Otherwise, what's in the public domain is fair game.

 

I have never disputed that some Hexar's might be outside the specs of Leica. I just don't believe it is more than a QC issue.

Jay. You make some good points, but in other cases, I don't understand some of your reasoning.

 

Re: smear. Are you saying Erwin Putts and PP deliberately set out to smear Konica? If Erwin or Pop Photo analyzes a Hexar-RF camera and finds a difference with Leica M and then publishes this, it is a 'smear campaign' or just someone publishing his findings? Do you think there was malice intended?

 

Konica denial: I don't understand the point on Hexanon lenses. If Konica copied the Leica M mount but didn't quite do it perfectly, people will be concerned about using Hexanon lenses on M cameras. If not, why shouldn't Konica say so and reassure its customers.

 

Konica copying Leica M mount. I never said Konica was the only one to do this. The Minolta CLE and Bessa R2 are examples of this, as you point out. But I'll admit that I am more forgiving of Minolta than Konica, since Minolta had previously collaborated with Leiuca on the CL and on CL lenses, which both companies manufactured. I look at the Minolta CLE more or less as a direct extension of the CL.

 

As far as the Leica SM, my point was not a legal one. Since this is a more or less universal mount for many years, i can't blame other companies for making lenses. the M mount is another story. I made it very clear my argument with Konica was not about what is legal but what in my opinion is right. I regard the Hexar-RF as nothing more than a Leica M copy, a one off with little or nothing original.

 

You state that the Hexar-RF specs might be outside of Leica M because of a QC issue. I think this is probably correct. I believe it too. I don't believe that this invalidates anything that Erwin or PP said. I don't remember them saying or implying that Konica deliberately designed their camera differently - but I'll have to check on that.

>Sorry, what Konica did may have been legal, but IMO, it wasn't right. (Eliot)

 

Eliot, although I own a M6ttl and love it, one thing to consider in the idea of "wrong

and right" in the patent and copyright area (in the USA, at least), is that patents and

copyrights expire and go into the public domain for good of all people vs. the good of

one company. Innovation and new ideas depend on this system. This rewards the

company by giving them a time period to make money and recoup their R&D costs,

but is balanced against the need of the public in general.

 

Lately, our wonderful congress has screwed up this system by extending copyright

protection again and again. This is why you don't see any Mickey Mouse in the

public domain.

 

Cheers,

>>Re: smear. Are you saying Erwin Putts and PP deliberately set out to smear Konica? <<

 

Of course not. That would be smearing them. But I don't think Erwin would shed any tears if people bought Leicas instead of Hexars, nor would POP win any brownie points with advertisers by affirming the viability of crossbreeding two competitive systems.

I didn't want to sound like I'm just bashing the Konica company. Over the years, Konica has made some very innovative products and some really excellent cameras and lenses. I am only down on the Hexar-RF system because they copied Leica M without adding very much new or innovative of their own. If they had introduced major innovation in the RF, I wouldn't be criticizing them, but to me the RF just seemed like a grab for the Leica M market with no attempt at new development. After all, a lot of us (me included on some occasions) criticize Leica for lack of further development of the M camera.

It is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation that the alleged defamatory statements were substantially true at the time the statements were made. Superior Court of Delaware Jury Instructions, Section 11.12,Ramunno v. Cawley, Del. Supr., 705 A.2d 1029, 1035-36 (1998); Riley v. Moyed, Del. Supr., 529 A.2d 248, 253 (1987); Gannett Co. v. Re, Del. Supr., 496 A.2d 553, 557 (1985); Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., Del. Super., 543 A.2d 313, 317-18 (1987).

>The magical thing with Leica though is that one can buy a M7 today and probably resell in 10 yrs with relatively little loss.

 

I'm not so sure about this. I bought an M6TTL last summer. With the introduction of the M7, the M6TTL is now selling for $1100-1200 or so in mint condition. That's a 500-900 loss in one year depending upon what rebates/discounts were in effect when you bought your M6TTL.

On the other hand, I recently bought a new Hexar RF body for around $700. If it only lasts me 4-5 years before becoming completely inoperable (which I doubt) it will still be a pretty good deal.

 

Lastly, if you are worried about the "back-focus" issue it is easy enough to have a competent technician check and adjust the camera to Leica specs.

Libel: to misrepresent injuriously. In order for it to be libel it must misrepresent, in other words be untrue. As said above, truth is an absolute defense in libel cases.

Hi guys!

 

All this debate about bodies... Is'n it all about the quality of lenses, the reason that we buy Leicas? As long as Leica makes M-lenses as good as they do (and I know no better) I'll stick to Leica M bodies. I make social/cultural photodocumentaries. A lot of wide-open and close focus shooting in difficult and varying conditions. Last year I sold all my top-of-the-bill Nikon equipment (F5's and AF-S lenses) because the result is disappointing compared to Leica-M results. I think we will all be sorry if Leica cannot make a living anymore because of all the cheaper Japanese RF copies. I don't think other manufacturers then Leica are willing to invest the time, money, labour and craftmanship Leica does to produce glass of this quality. Remember, in the end it is all about (1) the skill of the photog, (2) the quality of the glass, and (3)the quality of the film. It is not about bodies. In the case of Leica, I think the pedigree has a value.

 

Don't collect Leicas, shoot with them!

 

Happy shootings,

Jan Dirk

I share the same experience with Skip. I have two M6's and two RF's. The two M6's are now my TRUE backup for my RF's. The only thing worry me is the dependency of batteries of using my RF's in a remote area for long period of time. Often I just carry one RF's with me since I can load/unloading films very fast(I used to carry two M6's). For these M (body) users, are you confortable to carry just one camera for any important event and not afraid of missing any photo ops in between your film loading/unloading? You will be slow down more if you are using M's auto winder. There is no proof that the bottom loading of M cameras are more rigid(or waht so ever) than that on the Konica RF or Nikon F cameras. It just slows thing down. How many M users can load/unload your film while you are standing up? Or while you winding the film and pull your next film from your pocket/camera bag?

This isn't a *moral* issue. I sold my M6 and now use an RF because it simply

works better for me. I successfully use all of my Leitz lenses on this body with

excellent results. All this argument about Konica doing something wrong is

just baloney. Konica and Cosina are helping to keep the Leica M system

viable by creating a larger market for M glass. They're doing it legally, at an

excellent value, and offering a unique camera.

 

If Leitz is suffering financially, it isn't because of the impact of Konica or

Cosina but because of their lack of innovation and the high cost of their

lenses. This is to say nothing of their total lack of meaningful digital

involvement.

 

Anyway, I'll keep buying Leitz glass but will hold off on an M body until they

deliver the features that I'm looking for (and the M7 is close.) In the meantime,

the RF is great.

 

Great balanced review, Skip.

I own both the Hexar RF and several M6's M4-Ps, but not a M7. The Hexar is a quite different from the M's in terms of ergonomics, functionalities and tactile feel. Essentially I agree with Skip's assessment. Personally, I prefer to use the Hexar on some occasions (where AE is a great help), and the M's on others. To each his own. I can understand why some one would swear by their Hexar in terms of usability, while others eschew them. Different horse for different courses etc.

 

However, the Hexar must stand as a bargain at US$700 compared to a lot of other machines. As for resale price, who cares what the resale price is going to be 10 years from now? Just enjoy the camera over its lifespanIn the camera industry, we are seeing an unparalled paradigm shift, to digital, which would have rendered all past price trends useless. So far, the M's have kept their value because film-based photography has not change that much in the past 50 years. I bet you anything that the number of film-based photography adherents would be lower in 2012 than what it is now. Resale value of the M's will definitely decline in real value terms. Do not believe this? Just look at the resale price of IIIf's to M's and see how much people value usability over workmanship. Further, according to old records, back in 1954, a brand new Porsche 356 is equivalent in price to 12 M3+summicrons. Does anyone want to trade their brand-new 911 for twelve M7's??

 

Anyway, I find some of eliot's points incredible! The Leica M-mount is public domain, the patent long-expired. Its status is just like the screw-mount. Why is copying the screw-mount, like Canon and Russia back in the thirties when the patent is still in force OK, when using an expired mount not? Btw, if you consider that using M-mount to supply equipment to ardent Leica fans who are exasperated at the glacial progress at Solms to be unethical, I find it beyond belief but that's OK. Everyone has different values and you are free not to use any non-Leica M-mount product. I just hope you take a consistent line to this and you do not use any C/V or Konica or third-party lens, or indeed, even their L-to-M adapter.

 

Finally, how can anyone, with even a superficial knowledge of the Konica, say with a straight face that the Konica RF did not bring any innovation to the RF scene? Just look at the achievements, including motordrive, 1/4000s shutter which are still unique to the Konica. Other innovations at the time include DX-coding, 0.6x magnified VF, 1/250s flash synch and AE. One can argue whether Leica will introduce the 0.58x mag VF, or the M7 with AE so quickly had Konica not done so.

 

Indeed, I think Leica users benefit from the entry of C/V and Konica, not just in terms of more equipment to toy with, but also from the broadening of the user base. Many photographers, who initially balked at Leica prices, started to build their system around more reasonably priced alternatives. As we all know, once somebody has already owned some Leica-compatible camera and lens, who is he that can resist the 35 Summilux/ Summicron? In the end, this is what will bring new blood to the Leica user base, and ultimately sustain it.

 

Johnson

Eliot:

 

Gee... Leica introduced the M4, M4-2, M4-P and M6 without any major

improvements over the M3, M2 and M5, respectively. I think that the HRF

adds quite a bit of new material to the DNA - an electronic shutter, coreless

integral motor drive (which, BTW, Konica invented) and autoexposure. The

Hexar is still faster, lighter and smaller than an M6 with the new motor. It also

goes for 100+ rolls of film on a set of batteries, which neither the M7 nor the

M-Motor do.

 

As for the Leica patents, they are all long gone -- and Leica got far more

protection then (40+ years) than they ever could have gotten now. The whole

point of a patent is that the owner gets a regulated monopoly for some time,

with the item becoming public domain at the end of the patent. Do you

honestly think Rollei, Cosina, and Yasuhara are paying royalties on lens

mounts?

Good and reasoned review, Skip (and lively thread in

general...good thing there's real choice in M cameras now!). One

minor correction I'd like to make: If your comment about the

Hexar RF's film-rewind function ("...no option when it reaches the

end of the roll"), is in regard to the lack of a film leader-in/film

leader-out option, you are mistaken - when the RF reaches the

end of the rewind cycle, the leader is actually left out; if you wish

to take the roll out with leader exposed, you have approximetely

2-3 seconds to open the back and remove the film; otherwise,

after those seconds have elapsed, the camera rewinds the

leader into the cassette. I find this much more intuitive than

having to deal with some "custom function" option to do the

same thing, and, IMO, is more in keeping with the overall design

philosophy of the camera.