Hexar RF - back-focus controversy continues…

[Spearhead]

The point was missed, not the lines.

[Allen Herbert]

Jeff Spirer

 

<p>

 

We all like the best quality image we can obtain it does not mean we

are obsessed with gear.I remember a post by a certain Mr Spirer who

only wanted to take a M/F to China to ensure he got the best quality

images.Yes, Mr Spirer.

 

<p>

 

Friend Regards Allen

[Spearhead]

That's not what I said at all in the China thread. Stop inventing

things, just like you did on that thread.

[Allen Herbert]

What did you say,i presumed you only wanted to take a M/F for quality

was i wrong to think that.You say, and i may be wrong that you would

only take a M/F TO CHINA.Perhaps you could point the way to this

posting as you are more savy on these things than me.

[Allen Herbert]

By the way i do not invent things.

[Allen Herbert]

Jeff Spirer

 

<p>

 

And what have i invented on this thread please tell.

[Allen Herbert]

Still waiting with interest.

[Spearhead]

Good God you're a moron. You said that I wasn't showing a

photograph taken while moving, when in fact, I had documentation

that I had.

 

<p>

 

I didn't say that I took medium format because it was "higher

quality," I said I took it because I could print larger. Those

aren't the same thing.

 

<p>

 

Take a break and learn to use a camera. Come back afterwards. You

obviously have little to do except play games on the internet.

 

<p>

 

As I said in that other thread, you're an ass. And you seem to

enjoy demonstrating it.

[Allen Herbert]

Good God you're a moron.

 

<p>

 

I will not demean myself to answer in the same way but once again

point to the post you are usually very good at that sort of thing.We

can all call names try to prove your point in sensible way if i am

wrong i will be the first to admit it.I am doing my best to be nice.

[Allen Herbert]

said I took it because I could print larger

 

<p>

 

Is not that something to do with a bigger neg which allows you to

achieve a sharper enlargement with less grain.Therefore the viewing

quality of the print would be better quality.Why do you feel the need

to insult folks if they disagree with you.Have i ever called you

names.The only other person who likes to call names and insult people

i have noticed is Phil,usually when he has a few beers.

[nicholas_rab1]

You know, there may be something true about this. I cannot seem to

get my pictures in focus. Look at that guy in the back, I can barely

see him....

<center>

<img src="http://66.180.228.135/images/sheri.jpg">

</center>

Hexar + 35mm Ultron

[lux]

Both pics sucks. That's what. Im with Allen on this one.

[manaboleh]

They looked ok. post some of yours.

regards/wong from malaysia

[Spearhead]

Lux, you are obviously a giant of the critical world.

[hadji]

Ah, another thread ends with name calling and "Your pix sucks"

comments. I love the internet!

[fotografz]

Come on guys, stop with the childish name calling already.

Jeff, you need zero validation from anyone here. You've the

courage to post images, and for that you are to be commended.

To my Art Directors' eye the images you showed on this thread

MAY have been improved upon with a little cropping to un-center

them a bit, or to increase the design dynamics. But that is a

purely subjective response I have based on my design training

and experience working with thousands of images in my job.

Hypothetically, If you submitted them to me for a job, I would

discuss such things with you, and reveal why they seemed

important to the image in context to it's use. I'd hazard a guess

that name calling would most likely NOT be part of that

exchange.

[dan_honemann]

I conducted a series of tests between my M6 and Hexar RF using the

35/1.4 asph wide open at infinity on Velvia (tripod, cable-release,

etc.).

 

<p>

 

I am able to detect the following differences under a high powered

(22x) loupe:

 

<p>

 

-- trees and houses on a hillside several miles away are indeed

sharper when shot with the M6 than the Hexar;

 

<p>

 

-- a line of bushes about 50 yards away are noticeably sharper in the

slides shot with the Hexar than the M6.

 

<p>

 

This would seem to corroborate a very slight back focus difference

between the two, causing the Hexar to focus short of infinity.

However, the difference is so slight that it requires the 22x loupe

to notice it (even then it takes quite a bit of scrutiny); under the

5x Leica loupe, no differences can be seen (to my eyes, at least),

nor can I detect any difference in the slides when projected to fill

my 50" screen.

 

<p>

 

The Hexar RF is such a fine compliment to the M6 that I would not

part with it based on the miniscule differences I've seen with my own

tests. For my style of shooting--generally candid street shots--

these very slight differences disappear altogether, anyway.

 

<p>

 

If you are looking to substitute medium format equipment for 35 mm

rangefinder gear, I'd suggest you stick with Leica lenses on Leica

bodies; otherwise, don't worry about it. In any event, you can

always conduct your own tests with your own gear to determine if

there is indeed a problem--no need to take others' word for it.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

Dan

[Robin Smith]

What a fuss. I suspect that that even if the Hexar is not technically

able to focus, say, a 50mm Summilux close up at full aperture, most of

the time the error may well be compensated for by focussing inaccuracy

of the operator. Likewise when someone says their image taken with a

35/2 at full aperture is sharp, then probably the dof for the lens is

sufficient to cover that kind of innacuracy. The Hexar might still be

inaccurate though and this will worry some people. It is one thing to

be able to blame your technique, but being able to blame the camera is

worse for your psyche and peace of mind.

[dante_stella1]

Leica bodies are based on an assumption of a 27.95mm

distance to the pressure plate rails, a 0.20mm film channel, and

a 27.75mm front rail. Hexar bodies have a 28.00mm distance to

the pressure plate rails, a 0.24mm film channel and a 27.76mm

front rails. The question is what assumption is made about

where the film sits - front or back.

[kenny_c.]

There could many human errors possible to do the these kind of

testings.<br>

May I suggest the following testing methods to reduce human

errors:<br>

1. Use Leica M6 .58 vs Hexar RF. They have the closest VF Mag.<br>

2. Use slide film.<br>

3. Use Tripod, cable release.<br>

4. Use same lens 50 'cron or 35 'cron at same aperture/shutter

speed.<br>

5. Take 10 shoots for subject at about .7m, 2m, 3m, 5m, and inf.

Reset the distance to inf and then refocus for each shoot.<br>

[kelly_flanigan1]

An addition to Kenny's fine list is:<BR><BR>:(6)to vary the exposure;

ie bracket the shutter speed...

[octavio bustard]

Hello all- I recently bought a Hexar RF and 50mm f2 Hexanon. My idea was to sell my m6 and m3 and use the Hexar with my collection of leitz and voigtlander lenses and pocket the extra cash from the sale of my Leicas. Let me begin by saying I AM NOT a Leica snob; I'd be perfectly happy using the Hexar with its AE for as I get older and technology moves along I am gradually seeing its benefits. I've also missed my share of candid shots with my Leicas while I've been setting exposure etc. After buying my Hexar used from Ebay i sent it out to have the rangefinder adjusted (it was off) and had it CLA'd. Once returned, I started reading about the back-focus controversy and decided the do some simple tests to disprove what seemed to me to be an internet generated hysteria (i.e I was very skeptical about the whole idea that the Hexar was incompatible with my Leitz lenses and vice versa.). I set up a tripod taped a newspaper on a wall 8 feet from the tripod and mounted all my Leica SM lenses on the Hexar, the M3 and the M6. I shot at all at maxumum aperture. I did the same with the Hexanon on all three cameras. I developed the film. After viewing the negs on a light table with a 10x loup, I scanned the negatives on a Nikon 8000 and viewed them in Photohop, unsharpened. My results were amazingly consistent: Leitz lenses on both the M3 and M6 exhibited STRIKINGLY better sharpness, evident even to my eye under the loup. The Leitz lenses on the Hexar exhibited STRIKINGLY less sharpness than the same scene shot with either Leica. Additionally, the Hexanon exhibited STRIKINGLY better sharpness on the HEXAR than it did on the Leicas. I've seen it with my own eyes, and nobody will convince me otherwise. The Hexar gets sold and I'm reluctantly going to have to plunk $2000 down on an M7 to get AE. I sure wish Konica had built a compatible system, but they didnt.

[hil_niloy1]

>> the difference in focus point was corrected on newer RF bodies

 

People still don' get it. It's not just the flange distance problem. It's also that the Hexar's lens has to rotate exactely the same degree as the Leica's lens to match the focusing.

 

For people who loves Hexar so much should simply stay with both the Hexar's lens and Hexar body. At least if they want to get the most out of it.

 

For people who can't resist Leica's lens, but worries the price, go with used M6. It's cheaper than the brand new Hexar.