david_smith12

Marc,

Let's see if I get this straight.

A $1100 M6 (New price was $1500) is better than a $700 Hexar. (New price was $850) And the reason you give is that you aren't happy with, or unable to properly use the Hexar. So you blame the camera body and demean others that enjoy using it. And then generously/snidely offer to make a straight up trade.

I think I get it now. If the $1100 M6 takes better pictures than the Hexar, then I can't imagine how much better the picture quality would be with a "Black Paint" model, or a Rooster or Panda, or King of Thailand model would be. Those bodies are very very expensive, ergo they must take really really great pictures. Much better than even the M6 for $1100. Why not offer a straight up trade for one of those collector models. And why settle for a crappy mint- M6 when you know more expensive camera's take better pictures than less expensive camera's?

Allison,

You have the greatest luxury of all time. Your youth!!!!! Like Jack, I have teenagers to raise, and that's the most difficult and important thing anyone can ever do.

My day job consists of keeping people alive during surgery. (Berle and I were in the same class a zillion years ago) Important to the patients and their families, but my teenagers are more worried about how late they can stay out.

I took my youth for granted and it has blazed by, just like my parent's said it would. So instead of rapidly heading towards becoming the richest guy in the graveyard, I purchased some real quality camera gear. The lighting is real bad in a coffin. (That's where I plan on residing in about 30 years) Might as well avail myself of some good camera gear now.

Though I sold my M6 I must say, it was an extremely fine piece of machinery that I much admired. There is something to the experience of using a Leica camera that is very satisfying.

That's why us old geezers take up the finer "luxury" items. But if you have the chance to get married and raise a family, don't pass it up. And work hard at it. When the little one's come you will understand the joy of photography much more than you can ever imagine now.

Ben,

The Hexanon M 50mm f2.0 lens has filter threads of 40.5. A goofy size and the filters harder to come by. I switched to the Leica lenses because I also have a Leica 35mm f2.0 and it has 39mm filter threads.

I find the Leica 50 no better than the Hexanon 50. The Hexar RF body is better than the M6 except for the viewfinder brightness. I haven't seen or used the M7 so can't comment.

Yashica D with Yashinon lenses. You will need a light meter.

It's 6X6 and will tell you if you like the format.

50 yrs old. Gray hair on the edges. Bald on top. Cliche ridden doctor. (Anesthesiologist)Boise Idaho USA.

Leaving private practice after 22 years for the VA. I'm going to finish my last ten years as a government doctor. I won't miss the pissy surgeons, the bloodsucking lawyers, backstabbing and dishonest partners, the complaints about my bill, 30 hr days and the gruesome night call.

I look forward to being a little more rested and able to concentrate more on my kids and hobbies. (Like photography)

David S Smith

Hello,

<p>

I'd suggest a "Leikon" adapter for the back of any Leica lens.

Thereby making it compatible with my F3. Sort of an Adaptall II for

leica lenses. It would need to be AI compatible, and a set of Nikon

ears would be particularly stylish.

<p>

Imagine the possibilites of interchangeable screens, multiple

exposure capability, motor drive like greased lightning, TTL flash,

AE, and 100 viewfinder etc.

<p>

Then when you want to go completely manual, you put the lens back on

the M or R whatever.

<p>

They your camera would instantly be a Likkermat M, or a Neica R3.

Baloney Jack,

<p>

Kathy, in that pose, would look good taken with any camera. Except I

could't have got that shot. Would have been shaking too much!!!!

<p>

To answer the original question, I hated the loading enough to get

rid of the M6. I'm more interested in the pictures I get than the

process of fiddling with the camera. Leica M's are fun to fiddle

with, there's a lot of adjustments you can make, but when the

pressure was on and the opportunity of lot's of fast and furious

shooting presented itsself, I screwed up the film loading enough to

warrant firing the camera body.

<p>

I really like the DX recognition, the film identification window, the

autoloading and error code notification, the hinge back, of the Hexar

RF. When I misload with it, I immediately know it. Not after all

the guests have gone home.

Doug and Douglas,

<p>

In no way is the following in any way meant to be negative.... Both

pictures are wonderful.

<p>

Is it just me, but when I see Douglas Herr's wildlife in color, I

think Disney, and when I see Doug Ford's in B&W, I think Hitchcock?

C'mon Jeff,

<p>

Imagine how much better she'd have looked if you'd have used an M3

body. I can "see" the missing lines/mm from across the room.

Hello,

<p>

I guess that confirm's it! All the pictures I have ever taken and

ever will take with my Hexar RF and all the leica lenses I use are

CERTIFIED INCOMPATIBLE PHOTOGRAPHS.

<p>

No argurment here. No bickering. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to

take a CERTIFIED COMPATIBLE PHOTOGRAPH with this combination.

<p>

So don't anybody do it. Don't ever even think about using the 50mm

f2.0 summicron on the Hexar RF. If you will do, the picture will be

INCOMPATIBLE. There will only be 22 lines per millimeter. If you had

taken the picture with an M3 or Voigtlander, you will have a

CERTIFIED COMPATIBLE "57" lines per millimeter.

<p>

I'm starting right now erasing all the extra lines in all my

pictures. This will take a while; because thirty lines per

millimeter per lots of pictures will take a very long time. But its

worth it. If anyone ever found out that my pictures were CERTIFIED

INCOMPATIBLE PICUTURES, I would be drummed from the corps.

<p>

O the humanity! O the shame! Horror, O the Horror!

Golly Grant,

<p>

I've met and known a number of working photographers that have

multiple camera bodies for different focal length lenses. And others

have a different type of film or film speed in each of these bodies.

<p>

I do have a lot of money. And I must be stupid--because I haven't

figured out how to have both B&W and Color film in my camera at the

same time and make good pictures.

<p>

How'd you know about me?? You must be pretty smart. And thank's for

your helpful insights

George,

<p>

My results were with Konica Centuria (ISO400) and Kodak Royal Gold

(ISO100)print films. Processed at the local grocery store minilab.

I have yet to find anybody make 4X6 prints better than Margie and her

crew at the Franklin Fred Meyer store here in Boise. Seems odd, but

they do a wonderful job. I have used the local pro lab, the Kodak

mailers, the Fuji slide mailers, but none do a better job than these

people.

<p>

They send my black and white's for processing to the bulk lab in Salt

Lake city. T-Max 100 and Tri X 400. About every grocery store and

minilab in the region sends their stuff to Salt Lake from here. I

get good quality black and white prints back from them, though the

consistency of results does vary from batch to batch.

<p>

For quality enlargements, I use Media specialties here in Boise.

Godfrey,

<p>

I have looked at all your PAW shots. Questions. Did you use a leica

for all these shots? While all the shot's are nice, the color

pictures are vivid, and very pleasing. Your gallery represents

precisely why I prefer color pic's with my leica.

<p>

Check out Godfrey's gallery and see what I mean.

<p>

Please let us know if other than leica camera/lenses were used for

your PAW.

<p>

Thanks

Hello,

<p>

I use the Hexar RF with Leica lenses. I just love the Leica lenses for color photo's. The Hexar has a simple HX-18 flash that is wonderful for snapshot's and use you to 6meters. Very accurate and good range wide to 28mm lenses. I take better color pictures (more pleasing to me) with the Leica lenses than with my Konica SLR, or Nikon SLR lenses.

<p>

I have designated my Nikon F3 and Nikkor lenses (35mm f2.0 and 85mm f1.8) as my B&W camera. Excellent sharp B&W photo's. Easy to use yellow and red filters. (Inexpensive)

<p>

DO you have a preference? Color? B&W? or Both? A multi-user survey would help me decide if I "need/want" another M body/Hexar RF for B&W use.

<p>

Please contribute your preferences--if any.

<p>

Thanks,

Hello,

<p>

I just got off the phone with "Doug" at Cameraland in NY. He told me

he would sell me the Hexar RF body only for $699.00 Comes with the

one year Konica Warranty and you can purchase the Konica extra two

years warranty for $39.99.

<p>

He says these are not necessarily refurbished units, but most likely

returned units/unsold new merchandise. I purchased mine a year ago

as a kit from Kenmore Camera in Seattle area at it was completely new.

<p>

Class B stock is the actual refurbished camera's. "Doug" says the

Cameraland stock is the original stuff, not class B.

<p>

Anyways, the rumored price of $599 wasn't true as of this morning.

It's $699 for the body only. A very fair price, but not necessarily

a great price. I have followed the price of Hexar RF bodies on ebay

for a while and used one's fetch between $650 and $800.

Hello,

<p>

I've lost two of these now. Don Chatterton charged me $40 for the

first one. I purchased the second from B&H for under $20. You

should be able to find a new one at Adorama or B&H

Sorry to be a spoiled sport. I looked at and through all the high

end binoc's out there. Since my interest is primarily astro viewing,

I was interested in 10X50's, although 10X42's also excell when

viewing clusters, double star's, andromeda, M42, and the like. 50mm

aperature is somewhat a better light gatherer than 42mm.

<p>

To my eye, the best glass for this type of viewing was as follows:

<p>

Swarovski 10X50's, Nikon Superior E's, Leica Trinovid's, and Zeiss.

In that order. I purchased the Swarovski's and have been amazed ever

since.

Hello Mitch,

<p>

I have not owned the M7 but did own the M6 and the Hexar RF. Sold

the M6 because of misload issues. No misloads with the Hexar after

one year of steady use.

<p>

The viewfinder is better with the Leica. I like everything else

better with the Hexar.

<p>

Konica NJ still services their last two SLR's made. Still have an

inventory of parts for the FT1 Motor, and the TC-X. Do a great job

at a reasonable price. The last FT1 was made in 1989. Mine are from

1984. That's a long time to service a discontinued camera line. (12

years and running) I recently visited with the parts department

people with Konica. They will keep a parts inventory for the Hexar

AF for at least five years. That camera was taken out of production

in 1999. I wouldn't be surprised to see them service the Hexar AF

for longer than five years. The Hexar RF is still in production so

parts and service will be available for a long time.

<p>

BTW--Does anyone know how long Leica services their discontinued

cameras? Many people use non Leica people for service of their

Leica's. Is this because Leica doesn't service them anymore? I'd

like to know.

<p>

I found no picture quality difference with either body. I use Leica

lenses and very much enjoy the picture quality.

<p>

It really is the cameraman rather than the camera.

Ollie,

<p>

I like your website and pictures. The lighting inside the tulip is

interesting. I don't know enough to make salient criticism about

photography, but I do like your photo's very much.

<p>

BTW. Copy/paste/go just isn't that hard to do. Sorry this thread

deteriorated from it's original intent to a "how to make clickable"

rant.

<p>

I encourage site reviewers to look at Ollie's stuff. You will find

it interesting...

Call them.

<p>

When I was in a similar situation I called after five weeks. They

told me they had been very busy.

<p>

Make sure they have your camera. If they do be patient. They seemed

very honest but slow.

Hello Allen,

<p>

Heck with the electrobabble. Now the important questionss:

<p>

How was the bokeh of the pictures? Was it as good as the pre-

ASPH 'cron, and how does that compare with the Canadian 'lux?

<p>

Natural lighting?

<p>

B&W film, chrome, color neg? What?

<p>

Any of Dixon's model's on the sofa? Any naked?

<p>

Please give us the rest of the story!!!

Max,

<p>

That's a stunning picture. I was a high school sophomore when the

war was raging and this picture was taken. I was unable to

comprehend what was really happening in Viet Nam.

<p>

I don't suppose I will ever understand or comprehend the trials of

all the brave who served the USA at that time.

<p>

Thanks for sharing the insights, and thanks for your service to the

country.

I have the same lens. I use it 85% of the time. The 50, 90, and 28

for all the rest.

<p>

Great lens that should last a lifetime. Can't imagine how they would

improve it.

My guess is that the faucet pix was taken with a Leica and scanned on

a Nikon scanner. Leica scanners really suck. Ever since they

started making them in Portugal the qc has tanked.

<p>

Older pre-ASPH Leica scanners were the cat's meow. Except for the

double stroke model which was very fussy.

<p>

Now that the Leica scanners have batteries, the world will surely end.

<p>

I'd scan everything with a Nikon if I owned one.

<p>

The real question is whether Ralph can guess the type of monitor I

use to look at the picture.

<p>

Answer--Optiquest.

<p>

But Ralph probably already knew, since he won't post to an inferior

monitor.

<p>

As GW Bush Sr. says--just wouldn't be prudent.