Hexar RF

Any views on the now discounted Hexar RF? I have chance of using one. I disagree with

cameraquest when it says Hexar's viewfinder is not as bright as modern M. I think the

coating is different, Hexar is cold while M is warm. Hexar's viewfinder looks a lot like my

Contax T3 (and no one says T3's viewfinder is dim, in fact KBCamera calls it the king of

viewfinder, for P & S at least). In any event, Hexar is much better than those aging M2/3/4

out there!

The Hexar body is also very well made, it weights 560g, quite close to a M body. The top

and bottom plates are made of titanium, every bit as good as M. The rubber cover also

grips much better than modern M.

Rumors has it that early model is not very compatible with M lens, that stems mainly from

Putts' site. But later model is reported to be fine. Even in Leica bodies, there is such thing

as tolerence, so the question is this: is this so called variance within Leica tolerance.

And surprisingly, I find Hexar's shutter vibrates less, especially in high shutter speeds, like

500s and 1000s, my MP has a vibration that I can feel, Hexar has none.

I think Hexar is a very good M second body. It deserves more attention. The below is an

excellent sites:http://www.dantestella.com/technical/hexarrf.html

It is a fine body if you can live with 1) the small VF mag, 2) the electronics are complicated and service needs to be done by Konica/Minolta since they are the only ones who have access to required computer programs, and 3) the increased sound of the film advance.

 

Having said that, the increased shutter speed, easy loading, reliability etc. makes it an excellent rangefinder camera. I don't think many people around here would disagree, so you are preaching to the wrong crowd ;-)

Karl,

 

I use the RF alongside my M6 and find it to be a great camera. It's more convenient

than the M6 simply because of the auto-aperture provision.

 

And, frankly, I've not found a problem with using my 35 or 90 crons on it.

 

Some people have said that the rangefinder goes out a little bit easier than the M

cameras but, again, I've certainly not found this to be the case.

 

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this camera to anyone.

 

Cheers

my point is this: instead of spending money on old m2/m4 as backup, hexar is a very

viable solution. but if you are collecting, then it is anothe story. elecronic camera is not

inherently unreliable than mechanical ones, I have spent enough money on CLA my old

M3/2 to buy a Hexar. you can again read articles on this issue on the Dantestella website.

I recently got a great deal on a mint used one. Unfortunately it focused past infinity (not

very much) with Leica, voigtlander and even its very own Konica lenses. I have given it to

my repairmen in town, and he is going to line it up properly. I will say that I agree that

"colder" is a good way to describe its finder. It has a bluer tone to it than the MP, but I will

say that Puts is correct when he says that the viewfinder patch has lower contrast than in

the leica. For all practical purposes it makes little difference, but I have found it a bit more

difficult to focus in low light. I don't think it is really a "backup" camera though. It can

more than stand on its own. When it gets back from the shop, I will probably mostly load it

with slide film and keep the black and white in the Leica. The high shutter speed, AE and

autowinding will be a nice balance for the all-manual MP.

The viewfinder is indeed slightly dimmer and bluer, but on the plus side, rangefinder flare is nonexistent. The AE and 1/4000 shutter speed are nice, but the real plus is the built-in winder. I used my RF along with an M6TTL and I preferred the Hexar for fast-moving receptions and fill-flash shots. The finish is pretty tough, but it seems to be a coating and will chip off rather than wear away like chrome. I mixed my Leica (35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 90 f2.0) and Konica (28 f2.8, 35 f2.0, 90 f2.8) lenses and never had any problems.

 

I sold mine to get an EOS-3, but I wouldn't mind having another one someday.

The motororized advance noise is much quieter if you shoot in continuous mode rather than single shot mode. At first you shoot a lot of duplicate frames by accident while you get used to it, but then it's no issue.

Quick question for anyone who owns both the RF and AF: how does motor

noise on the RF, continuous or otherwise, compare to motor noise on the

Hexar AF in normal (non silent) mode? <P>

spot on! and only M7 is quiet in the strict sense, since M3-MP do produce noise by their

mechanical shutter. M7 is truely silent in this regard.

<i>how does motor noise on the RF, continuous or otherwise, compare to motor noise on the Hexar AF in normal (non silent) mode? </i><p>

 

It's definitely got a whine that the AF doesn't have, and the shutter is slightly louder. However, it's not that loud, just louder.

I agree with Jeff. The AF in low noise mode is for all intents and purposes silent, while the

RF is not. It is probably pretty similar to a Hexar Silver or a black not in stealth mode. It is

louder than a M camera, but much quieter than an SLR.

Let me dissent- I found the high pitched winding noise on the Hexar RF I used to own to be very distinct, and louder than the sound of say the advance of the Nikon N80.

 

Dunno, maybe I had an especially obnoxious unit, but then I've never heard any other Hexar RFs to compare. Night and day from the Hexar AF advance, of which I've heard a number over the years.

It's quieter than my 10D, but of course that's about any camera.

I found the RF good in concept, poor in excecution. The VF is fine, the additional speeds are fine, the motor is fine. I found the rangefinder patches fuzzy, not as clear as the Leica ones (choose), and would go out of alignment during a bike ride.

 

I wouldn't buy another one.

I don't like the shutter lag and film winder noise. Because of the shuuter lag, it always worries me when I shoot at 1/15 or below, because I know I cannot hold steady that long. The picture could still come out alright but you just wouldn't know at the time of shooting. The film winder noise may sound subdued at the camera shop. But in real shooting it never fails to tell everyone in the room that you are shooting them. It would be perfect if the shutter is quicker and there is manual film winding.

the shutter release requires less force to press, unlike the Leica, which even with soft

release can sometimes be relunctant at best. and because of this, I am able to hold Hexar

more steady than M. the shutter release which require the minimum force. also, M has

more recoil force than Hexar, that anything beyond 125s, of course SLR is by comparison

an earthquake.

I had one. Got rid of it for a couple reasons.

 

Bought it from Tri-State. BIG Mistake. They "had one in stock" so I purchased from the web. Long story short, they didn't, and couldn't find one, and didn't want to refund my money, so got the credit card company involved, when they came up with a "demo model," carried by a rep for people to look at.

 

Rangefinder was WAY off, and there was a chip in the paint. Tri-State argued with my credit card company for weeks before returning some of my money (I paid for a "new" one)

 

So it had bad karma from the start.

 

Rangefinder adjustment done by the local expert went fine- thought I couldn't figure out how to do it myself.

 

Leica glass ALL focused past infinity. It was a VERY early serial number by all accounts.

 

Pictures with the 50mm it came with were very nice. I liked the automation.

 

Finally, I realized I didn't trust the camera at all, and spent much of my time while using it picking at faults (hard to focus for the low-magnification finder- the left side of the focusing patch would show "in focus" when the right side wouldn't- a slight thing, within a lenses DoF no doubt, but I coulnd't ever quite *tell* when something was in focus correctly), the frame preview lever wouldn't follow a Tri-E, little things like that.

 

Got rid of it to someone that's making far better images with it than I ever could (though I do have a few jewel negatives from it)

 

Indeed it's a nice camera. I'd like to own another, with the f/1.2 50mm.