Hexar RF VS M7

[michel_vandeput]

Dear Leica friend,

Over two years, I bought a Hexar RF. Problems, the focus was never

accurate with my Leica lenses, especially at wide aperture. NO

SOLUTION, I tried another body, same problem. Konika's answer... I

just had to buy their lenses!

I sold the camera and will spend my money for a new M7.

IMHO, with your Leica lenses, you should prefer a second hand M6 or

spend your money for a M7.

Best regards from Belgium.

Michel

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Michel,

 

<p>

 

You're particularly unlucky... Or you got only the first series...

 

<p>

 

Mine is 100% perfect... An I'm not alone...

 

<p>

 

Konica won't correct the misalignement but any good repair shop will

through adjusting the rangefinder...

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

[Allen Herbert]

Are the Leica/Konica systems compatible.There seems to be yes/no

answers and buts depending on the series or the rangefinders being

adjusted.This would seem to me a serious issue before money is

wasted.The question needs to be answered by Konica/Leica or a

respected independent.I would have a big problem with any out of

focus issues(however slight)by mixing the two.

[scott evans]

François P. WEILL

Thanks for your comparison of bolth cameras. It seemed pretty

fair IMHO.

[richard_brown1]

HI everyone, My M6 is my mechanical backup to my Hexar RF. It's

been that way for almost a year. Taking a good look at the M7

there are two things that I Iike, the AE info in the viewfinder and

the two mechanical backup speeds 60,125. If i was going to

spend $2400 on a camera there is no way I want plastic for a

battery cover. What else is plastic in that body? When I think of

$2400 Medium format comes to mind: Hasselblad

501-CM/503-CW, Pentax 67 with AE prism. Quite frankly, the

marketing department at Leica have some nerve. I personally

hope that Konica sticks it to them and makes a rangefinder body

that is so good that we will never have to have this conversation

again.Best Regards, Richard Brown

[Robin Smith]

For what it is worth, if I wanted a second auto exp body and wanted

0.6 magnification (I might) then I would be quite prepared to "take a

risk" with an RF. However you look at it $2400 is really a lot of

money for an M7. If I had the money then I would probably go for the

M7, but the price differential is still enormous. I have to agree that

to me Leica M has always meant a manual RF camera - once you get an

electronic camera that takes M lenses then all bets are off.

[jerry_pfile]

Alfie,

 

<p>

 

I think you're correct in that Leica AG does not "own the rights to

use of the Leica script". Each time they use it on any body, like

their commemoratives they must pay a fee. Who gets that fee I

haven't heard though.

 

<p>

 

Francois,

 

<p>

 

The timeline relative to the demise of 35mm film is really anybodys

guess, and just that, a guess. The market will decide. However,

there are a few hundred million 35mm cameras out there and I suspect

the last of film as we know it, will be made for them. I think my

Grandchildren and perhaps their children, will be using it.

Hopefully one of them with my Fathers M3 and lenses, and the rest

with stuff I purchased. I would be far more concerned about anything

that uses 120 film. I've already noticed that it's rare in grocery

stores, K-Marts, Targets, etc. over the past few years. Even "real"

camera stores have nowhere near the breadth of emulsions they had 10

years ago.

 

<p>

 

I'm sorry, but I can't recall who made the comment on my using an ND

filter for whenever I wished to shoot wide open in the bright

sunshine. To answer that...

 

<p>

 

First of all, "wide open" for me is no quicker than f/2 as I own no

lenses faster than that. Secondly, I rarely shoot film faster than

100 ISO. When I do go out to shoot with a filter for color, it is

always a polarizing filter and it is on when I start to shoot, and

not removed till I pack up, so I don't think I'd be taking it on and

off missing shots.

 

<p>

 

Only when I'm shooting B&W do I swap filters much while shooting.

 

<p>

 

Best,

 

<p>

 

Jerry

[yuth]

Jay wrote:

Re: Value of Leica's long-term service support. Cost of new M7 today

$2400. Cost of complete overhaul in 15 years (in 2001 dollars, adjusted

for inflation)$500 and 30 years ($1000). TOTAL=$3900

[yuth]

Jay wrote:

Re: Value of Leica's long-term service support. Cost of new M7 today

$2400. Cost of complete overhaul in 15 years (in 2001 dollars, adjusted

for inflation)$500 and 30 years ($1000). TOTAL=$3900

 

<p>

 

The above implies that Jay is assuming an average inflation rate of c.

2.34% p.a. for the next 30 years (compounded annually).

 

<p>

 

Under 1st Scenario:

30 years from now Jay would be an owner of a recently CLA'd M7.

Assuming that Leica products continue to hold their value well and

assuming further that Jay's M7 tracks inflation rate say at 1% p.a. his

USD2400 M7 would be priced close to or above USD3200. If Jay so

desires, he could release his M7 and pick up this USD3000 after having

fully enjoyed the camera for 30 years.

 

<p>

 

Under 2nd Scenario:

Jay would have suffered a minimum capital loss of USD1600 as he

would have tossed two Hexars away. In returns, Jay would get to

enjoy his 1st Hexar for 15 years. His 2nd Hexar, however, is likely to

have shorter serviceable life expectancy than 15 years after having

been kept in Jay's cabinet for 15 years. His 3rd hexar would also likely

suffer the same fate.

 

<p>

 

Without having to calculate for a Real IRR, I'd say that Jay would be

much better off with his M7.

[andy_piper2]

There are so many previous responses that I can't keep in mind what was

said by who - so don't take this as argumentative with any of them.

 

<p>

 

I've gone through 3 RFs in ONE year - NOT because of mechanical

failure, unless you count wonky focusing as a mechanical...

 

<p>

 

I found the RF to just be - unreliable - when focusing anything longer

than a 35mm, unless I stopped down to f/8 or so. I had whole rolls with

a 90 that were out by 6 inches to a foot. And shots with a 50 1.4 where

at normal portrait distance the focus fell on the back of the subject's

head, not the face. IMHO it makes the Contax G focusing look competent

by comparison.

 

<p>

 

Infinity focus was fine - anything closer was a roll of the (loaded)

dice.

 

<p>

 

I kept hoping, but it just never panned out for me.

 

<p>

 

The RF is not substantially louder than an M6, but it does have a

higher pitched - and therefore more penetrating - sound. The M7 is

quite noticeably quieter than either a clockwork M or the Hexar RF even

at high speeds. It's the most startling feature of the M7.

 

<p>

 

The RF has a shutter lag compared to Leica Ms - not huge, and probably

slightly better than the average SLR (no mirror to move) but I had

occasions where the moment would happen and I'd mash the shutter

release and - - there'd be a pause - - and then the shutter would open,

well after the peak moment or point of focus was a thing of the past..

 

<p>

 

BUT - check some of the previous M7 reviews. Some users have had

instances where the M7 went sleepy-time as well.

 

<p>

 

The RF offers the following functional advantages over the M7 - motor

wind, easy loading, high shutter speeds, higher speed flash sync with

ANY flash. All of which I found (and find) attractive - but I need them

to work reliably with all my lenses at all apertures and 'right now'

when I push the button. It didn't happen.

 

<p>

 

I doubt the M7 price will fall more than $300 over the next 1-2 years

(if that) If you get an RF (especially new) as a stop-gap the value

will probably drop more than the M7 price. So you'll lose more on the

RF than you save by waiting on the M7 - but you will get 1-2 years of

use from the RF in the meantime.

 

<p>

 

The short version is I can't recommend the Hexar RF for general use.

 

<p>

 

But many folks have had good success using it with the Tri-Elmar 28/35/

50 lens - which does make sense. With a slow (f/4) wide-angle-to-normal

lens that only focuses to 1 meter the RF's sloppy focusing becomes a

relative non-issue - and you still get the benefit of all those nice

features lacking in the M6/7.

[Jim_Tardio]

Aside from the Hexar RF and the M7, it has to be only a matter of

time before Voigtlander produces an aperture priority model

rangefinder. They already make the Nikon FE-10, so it's not a

stretch for them.

 

<p>

 

Then we get to have this same discussion all over again.

[todd_phillips1]

Jim,

 

<p>

 

That is an excellent point! What do you think...7-9 months if they rush it into production???

[richard_brown1]

I don't have a problem with my Hexar RF focusing Leica lenses.

Example:35mm Summicrom Fourth Version (Germany) Film:

Agfa Scala 200x Auto Exposure lens set at F2.0 & 0.7minimum

focusing distance.

http://www.photo.net/photo/707825

[jsbc]

Thanks Mr Weill for your comprehensive answer.

 

<p>

 

The point about Leica being an inflation hedge does not make any

sense. In fact camera's are rarely good investments - someone once

remarked that in 1955 an M3 is 1/6 the price of a new Porsche. I

don't think anyone can claim that this is the case with the M6 TTL.

In fact, I doubt whether anyone made money on their M6's in the past

few years, when the DJIA has more than doubled since 1995.

 

<p>

 

M3 and even IIIf's are valuable because they are functional and still

use the same film as most conventional cameras (and even contemporary

lens in the case of the M bodies). Once film becomes a niche product,

it is hard to imagine them maintaining their value.

 

<p>

 

Though I consider the Hexar to be a good body, and that its critics

have exaggerated it limitations, it is perfectly reasonable for

someone to prefer the Leica for its tactile feel and ergonomics. The

investment value aspect that its adherents occasionally invoke, is

IMHO, completely misleading.

 

<p>

 

Johnson Cheung

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Hi Jerry and Johnson,

 

<p>

 

Jerry, you write:

 

>> Francois,

 

<p>

 

The timeline relative to the demise of 35mm film is really anybodys

guess, and just that, a guess. The market will decide. However,

there are a few hundred million 35mm cameras out there and I suspect

the last of film as we know it, will be made for them. I think my

Grandchildren and perhaps their children, will be using it.

Hopefully one of them with my Fathers M3 and lenses, and the rest

with stuff I purchased. I would be far more concerned about anything

that uses 120 film. I've already noticed that it's rare in grocery

stores, K-Marts, Targets, etc. over the past few years. Even "real"

camera stores have nowhere near the breadth of emulsions they had 10

years ago. <<

 

<p>

 

I think you consider too much the economy works like in the

textbook� Do you recall 127 films (4x4 image) ? They once were very

popular and sold by millions don�t they ? It didn�t stop the major

film makers to discard their production because of a dwindling

market. Between the millions of cameras using 35 mm film a very

limited percentage are due to survive more than say 10 years. Not

only because they are not made to work much farther, but also

because they will need servicing to be maintained operational. Most

manufacturers � even on professional models � do not produce spare

parts after say 10 years after the model is discarded from their

range and most 35 mm cameras won�t be repaired even if the parts are

still available just because they are no more economical to repair

(the repair cost is superior or equal to the market value of the

camera at the time it broke). Even my M5 fell into this category the

cost of its repair would have been the same as to buy another one on

the second hand market. So how long the existing 35 mm cameras will

be in widespread use after they won�t be any one in production to

justify the film makers produce 135 format? Besides we are not

facing today a change in format, 126, 127, 110 formats were once

popular and deliberately used in popular cameras (which are by far

the real market for film makers), all were discarded and they were

discarded on purpose even before the demand was really low on them

as popular camera makers wanted to sell new models using new

formats. Major industrial interests can (and will) influence the

market besides the theoretical rule of textbook market� Then, we are

not facing only a format question, but something like the quantum

leap from wet collodion to dry plates or even more. Digital imagery

means a complete conversion of all an industry as the plants

producing silver based emulsion today are bound to disappear. Do you

really think the major makers will hesitate a second to transfer

their assets from them to the much more promising digital one ?

Knowing you need very expensive technology to produce film

industrially and much more manpower, do you really think they�ll

maintain such plants? I don�t think so! � As soon as digital instant

photography will reach the definition of silver based image and be

affordable enough the final countdown for the silver based emulsion

will begin and the market will be put under the highest possible

pressure to switch to digital as soon as possible to close the film

factories (and the sooner the better)� Sorry to say that but only

the 35 mm (and other silver based film formats) of high quality

level (a thin minority in the world) owners will have any interest

in keeping their cameras operational, while the lack of spare parts

and the cost of maintenance will make their number dwindle fast. The

amateur market will disappear even faster as it has already accepted

even with entry level modern SLR�s a no more than 5 years or so of

service before any malfunction will lead their camera body to the

dustbin� We must face the fact the film will disappear completely

this can�t be avoided. How long will it take precisely is something

beyond our forecast but certainly no more than a decade or two (at

best half the time you referred to).

 

<p>

 

The disappearance of 120 Rollfilm from the popular sources is all

too real but have nothing to do with the digital photography. From

the 70�s, 35 mm was the only �professional� format to have a popular

diffusion as medium format market became strictly a professional

one. Most popular cameras using it are now at best collecting dust

as they are functionally very difficult to handle (no meter, no way

to meter distance but �guesstimate�) and many were never corrected

for color use. So 120 film was becoming increasingly confined to

professional use. I don�t know about the situation in the US, but

you can scarcely find some even in camera shops (but the ones from

the owner�s professional stock) if you don�t order them

specifically� Even the packages are more and more of the

professional variety (no less than 5 rolls), at least it is the

situation in France!� I don�t know how long they will be available

as most modern professional medium format cameras with

interchangeable magazines can be already fitted with high definition

digital backs (though beyond the reach of many non-professional and

even professional users because of their price). The day these

digital backs will be available at say the price of a standard

magazine (which is by no mean cheap) I think the 120 Rollfilm will

become History. So you�re right when you say you have more doubts

about them and they�ll probably go first.

 

<p>

 

Nevertheless, my observation about the usefulness of a Leica M

camera (or for all intent and purpose any other 35 mm camera) was

valid only for the 40 years or so delay you determined. The digital

switch is obviously not for tomorrow morning though the digital

switch is already there for the prints. Potentially you can have

better or equal in terms of quality to silver based prints already.

The reason why I got rid of my enlarger and do not intent to

reinstall a real dark room in my next home (as soon as I�ll get my

4000 dpi film scanner, I�ll be able to blow my 35 mm work in B&W and

color and print it in 30 x 40 cm format� If I happened to want more

then I�ll give the work to a professional laboratory). So to say we

have ample times to use our cameras but to see our grand sons and

daughter use it frankly I see not a chance.

 

<p>

 

>> I'm sorry, but I can't recall who made the comment on my using an

ND filter for whenever I wished to shoot wide open in the bright

sunshine. To answer that...

First of all, "wide open" for me is no quicker than f/2 as I own no

lenses faster than that. Secondly, I rarely shoot film faster than

100 ISO. When I do go out to shoot with a filter for color, it is

always a polarizing filter and it is on when I start to shoot, and

not removed till I pack up, so I don't think I'd be taking it on and

off missing shots.

Only when I'm shooting B&W do I swap filters much while shooting. <<

 

<p>

 

Jerry, I made the remark. You spoke about a ND filter not a

polarizing filter. But your description shows how we, rangefinder

users, can be different in our use of a camera. My �philosophy� of

the use of such a camera is more to capture an instant than a very

prepared and refined kind of photography (for the rest I have my

medium format SLR). I never use a polarizing filter on my RF camera

and I only use B&W contrast filters (mainly medium yellow) with it.

My standard B&W film is more the Tri-X than a slower film though 100

ASA is more my slide film standard. So to say, if I want to trick on

the depth of field I prefer to resort to higher shutter speeds than

filters� Conversely, I would probably proceed the same as you do

with my MF camera. This point is quite well linked to what I said in

the original post about the loss of Barnack spirit� Barnack didn�t

intend to produce a universal camera destined to replace everything

but to give the photographers a tool to be part of the

event �snapshot� was the target, something you can carry with you

every time (so small and fast). Hence the success of the Leica in

photojournalism. Though it is possible to obtain a very high

standard of quality with more or less staged images with a Leica M,

I don�t find that too appropriate to the way these cameras were

conceived. I saw some extremely good shots of models on this forum

for examples, but to say the truth, I think they would have as good

if not better and easier to take with a medium format SLR camera.

I�m stunned by the number of M users who used it more or less as

I�ll do with my MF, I think this is why they don�t see any interest

in AE not to speak about matrix metering mode� But for me Barnack

spirit is more illustrated by the work of Salgado, Cartier Bresson

and many others than with this kind of photography. And here the

photographer will beneficiate of a very good point and shoot kind of

camera to enhance its success rate. As fast as the eye can see it is

the rule.

 

<p>

 

Johnson writes:

 

<p>

 

>> Though I consider the Hexar to be a good body, and that its

critics have exaggerated it limitations, it is perfectly reasonable

for someone to prefer the Leica for its tactile feel and ergonomics.

The investment value aspect that its adherents occasionally invoke,

is IMHO, completely misleading. <<

 

<p>

 

For me any camera is a tool and as such must give me some

functionalities corresponding to my work. It is not an investment

nor a fancy that leads me. I like as much as any of us the feel of

the M but I got used fast to the Hexar RF and frankly it hasn�t a

better or worse handling, just a different one. I think many people

here are so used to their M�s they feel disconcerted when handling

any other camera and they confuse this original (and all too normal)

uneasiness with an objective judgement on the handling

characteristics of the unusual (to them) camera they get in their

hands. I was one of them� It took all the original persuasion of my

dealer and one week free lend to convince me to buy the Hexar RF new

instead of waiting for a good second hand M5 to replace mine. The

handling uneasiness was gone after a roll and half or so, but I took

time to verify everything was OK in terms of rangefinder accuracy

(a.s.o.) and body construction. I�m sure all of us M users or ex-M

users will feel equally uneasy if we had to handle a Leica III F or

III G, despite it is a Leica too.

 

<p>

 

Unfortunately as relevant as might be your observation the tactile

feel and ergonomics, Johnson, there is also the budget question to

consider. My point is simple: I consider any Leica M user can easily

adapt to the different (not better, not worse) feel and ergonomics

of the Hexar RF, it will just cost him a few rolls. Now to be able

to spend more than the double on a M7 body will cost much more to

avoid some time to get accustomed to the Hexar RF as there is no

other significant features in an M7 which can justify the awesome

difference in price. I can understand the diehards of mechanical

bodies (but I don�t follow them either) who want an M6, I cannot

understand those who prefer to spend twice the price of an Hexar RF

to buy a M7 at the expense of a fairly good supplementary Leica lens

for example�

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

 

[nick_merritt1]

My compliments to all on a very interesting discussion, particularly

to François for his considered thoughts. I do not own a Leica; I own

a Hexar RF. I have been primarily an SLR user, which may help

explain why I like it. It's a terrific camera, and basically one

that has attempted, successfully I think, to incorporate the useful

design innovations from the past 40+ years of SLR development

(autoexposure, integrated winder, vertical shutter) and put them into

a rangefinder. The result is a camera that's sufficiently different

from the Leica paradigm to be something that depending on what you're

used to you may like better than the Leica. Not necessarily better,

just different. For me, battery dependence isn't something to be

desired, but it offers some terrific advantages in use. I love

manual wind cameras, but a 1/50 flash synch? It's pretty hard to

characterize that as an advantage, no matter how you look at it.

Likewise, I love film rewind cranks, but the Leica film loading is

just contrarian in this day and age. But if these features are what

you're used to, you may not give them a second thought.

 

<p>

 

Konica has definitely not helped itself with the back focus and

rangefinder misalignment issues. And the answer there, I think, is

just plain bad quality control -- not good, but curable. Some

cameras, mine as far as I can tell, have no problems whatsoever and

can focus any M lenses. Others do need adjusting. Whether these

problems are still manifesting themselves with the cameras now coming

off the assembly line, I don't know (can anybody comment?), but I'd

say it's well worth the trouble to get the camera fixed.

 

<p>

 

I do hope film will be around long enough for us to see whether the

RF is still working 40 years from now, but of course, if it isn't,

then the relative longevity of an RF or an M7 is academic.

 

<p>

 

(One last point: I'm 43 years old. When was 120 film ever sold in

grocery stores?)

[dave_bernard]

As Johnson Cheung speculates that not many have made money with their

M6s, while the DJIA has doubled since 95...

 

<p>

 

As an 'inflation hedge,' the M6 does not have a good record; much to

the contrary. In 1990 I bought an M5 with US Passport, discounted,

after rebates, to $1800.

 

<p>

 

By the time I sold my M6's in 95, they were retailing for $2800 with

US Passport (not a misprint) from the New York discount houses. So

when in 1995 I sold my then-5 year old bodies for $1900, I actually

made money.

 

<p>

 

Fast forward to today, when the discounted US price is again down

around $1800 after rebates, but the used retail price for the '90

models is probably, what, $1150

[dave_bernard]

>>In 1990 I bought an M5 with US Passport

My apologies, please make that an M6

[davidde_stella]

I suppose if you had always bought Fords your entire life, and

they worked well for you, you'd probably buy another one. I think

that most of these arcane "Leica mythos" arguments don't hold

alot of water with youunger photographers who did not grow up

with them (but at the same time exclusivity only feeds the Leica

monster). If Leica had never made a single camera before the

M7, and then simultaneously introduced it to the RF, would you

think that the former was any better?

 

<p>

 

We'll leave the various focusing problems and rangefinder

alignment issues aside (it seems that there were just some bad

batches) and concentrate upon the central issues. The RF is

twice the camera the .58 M6 was, and the RF still has a higher

top shutter speed, easy loading, exposure comp, and a motor

drive.

 

<p>

 

I shoot pictures pretty much every day of my life. The point of

street photography is NOT to "catch someone unaware because

your camera is so quiet." Most people do not appreciate having

their picture taken by strangers. My rule of thumb is that if you

can't take the picture with a loud clunky SLR, then you shouldn't

be taking it. Usually if you ask someone's permission

beforehand, they are a bit more willing.

 

<p>

 

At the end of the day, it is really a pointless debate. I use the RF

with a 21/35/50/85 with fine results close-up, far-away, wide-

open or stopped down. All Konica needs to do is fix the

occasional quality lapse and introduce a higher mag version as

well.

[stevep]

Re RF back focus

 

<p>

 

I have a Hexar RF(purchased as a demo from HK) that could not focus Leica

lenses. Not even the Tri-Elmar at f8. It also did not focus at infinity. Both

the RF and the back focus were off.

 

<p>

 

I sent it to Konica UK with a 50 Summicron, and for £140 about $200) they

adjusted both the RF and the back focus problems. I have tested it with the

Leica 90/2 AA @ f2 and it is now accurate.

 

<p>

 

I own and use quite a few M Leicas. Out of all the M-mount "others" (CL.

CLE, T, Hexar RF) I find the Minolta CLE to be the best option, and the one

I use the most (after the Ms).

[dante_stella1]

<p>My vote is for the Hexar RF. At the end of the day, even if you spend $1,100

on the kit (sheez, I spent close to double that and had one of the first ones

in the US) and even if you have to have the backfocus or RF adjusted ($275 total,

assuming out of warranty), you are still $1,000 less than an M7 and have functionality

that the M7 lacks. </p>

<p>I like being able to <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/nikoleic.html#10525">use

ultrafast lenses</a> without resorting to ND filters, like with the legendary

Nikkor 105/2.5.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/105example.jpg" width="300"></p>

<p>I like being able to squeeze off two shots in a row without removing my eye

from the finder.</p>

<p>I like being able to see the high and low exposure values (i.e., the contrast

range of a scene) graphically, rather than mentally averaging them.</p>

<p>In terms of the build, I am favorably impressed by the liberal use of METAL

on the Hexar - there are no plastic parts anywhere on the exterior of the camera,

just some neoprene grips. Even the battery cover is a lovely metal piece...

: ) The finish is a nice, flat black epoxy that is warm to the touch and very,

very hard hard enough to scratch the metal off a Jupiter lens. This is

in contrast to the ever-growing chorus of plastic parts on Ms. By comparison,

the M6's finish looks cheap, the Bessa-R feels like a toy (I get a kick out

of the <i>simulated</i> cap screw on the winding lever) and the Minolta CLE

is nowhere near as solid in the hand.</p>

<p>Maybe I'd have a different perspective had I an early Hexar RF with problems

(my first one actually bit the dust being dropped onto a bare cement floor),

but I haven't. My M3 is a good backup to the Hexar, not the other way around.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>  </p>

[jeffery smith]

While favoring the Hexar RF over the M3 may seem like heresy, it is

what has happened to me. I like the heft and quality of construction

of the M3, but I find the Hexar RF far easier and more convenient to

use. Inasmuch as mine focuses just fine with Hexanons or Leica lenses,

it and the new Voigtlanders end up going with me while the M3 sits,

mint-like, my drawer. I suppose I should sell it rather than not use

it, but mint M3s are not easy to come by. If I did sell and managed to

get over 2K for it, I would not invest the money in an M7. Too much

buck for the bang.

[msitaraman]

Dante,

 

<p>

 

How do you rangefinder couple your 8.5cm and 10.5cm Nikkor LTMs to

the Hexar RF?

[dante_stella]

Nikon made them in LTM mount. Actually, they made LTM lenses before they

ever made lenses in their own mounts. The Nikkor 5cm f/1.4, 8.5cm f/2 and

13.5cm f/3.5 in Leica mount were David Douglas Duncan's favorite lenses;

the 10.5cm f/2.5 replaced the 8.5 and popularized the focal length. You can

see my page on it at http://www.dantestella.com/technical/nikoleic.html

[Allen Herbert]

I'd like to see anything that shows that you can't take a better photo with a Hexar RF than the M7.

 

You will never see it on a low res computer screen thats for sure.Try doing a decent enlargement 15" x 12" then ask yourself the question.If you are still happy with your Hexar lucky you,just saved yourself a pille of money.My friend is very happy with his minolta zoom riva he is convinced it is good as a Leica(the salesman told him so).He is happy with that thought...be happy with yours.