I just finished a pretty exhaustive synthetic review of the Hexar RF (which just came off to 10 printed pages), with notes on the current controversies. My theory on all of this (explained in the review) is that the Leica M and the Hexar RF are very different animals from a development standpoint, and that this history, combined with the personality types of both groups of users, tends to perpetuate a sort of holy war (which I'm sure you can identify with the Ford/Chevy thing). Of course, growing up in a house that was Catholic on one side and Protestant on the other, I am used to tension. And as both an M3 and a Hexar RF user, you can imagine the conflict I must be feeling. The link is here.

-- Dante Stella (dante@dantestella.com), May 08, 2002

Answers

Two Points. One: shutter and moter are same as one used in Contax G series. Two: Only someone use to a typical AF/AE/SLR could overlook the shutter lag. You also make note of the fact that the M3 is a fifty year old camera. If film lasts, do you really think anyone will be using a Hexar in fifty years? But I'd be willing to bet that there will be those still using an M3. The Hexar people remind me of the Apple people you continue to go to the Intel forum to attack the PC. Only the Hexar people care about the so called Hexar/Leica war. Funny, no body told me about it. I could care less about the Hexar.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 08, 2002.

I've used Contax G cameras, and they are a lot louder than the Hexar RF.

Shutter lag is generally associated with 2 things.

1. mirror flipping up in an slr

2. delays related to autofocus.

The hexar RF has neither of these issues.

I'm not sure where subjective perceptions about shutter lag come from, but after shooting a hundred or so rolls with this camera, I have to say that I have never noticed that it's a problem.

-- Pete Su (psu@kvdpsu.org), May 08, 2002.

Thank you! A very interesting article to read. Whether that means there is Hexar RF in my future I do not know.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@shaw.ca), May 08, 2002.

look at my recent post, Photo Site. i shot with both a leica and hexar and i bet anyone here that they cant tell the difference...

-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 08, 2002.

Pete -

The Hexar shutter lag comes at least partly from the double shutter curtain. Metal bladed shutters are usually not completely light-tight, so the Hexar (as well as Contax G's, Hasselblad Xpan, Voightlander Bessas, etc.) have a second curtain in front of the timed shutter. It must move out of the way before exposure, which contributes to noise and delay. But for many people, it hardly makes the camera less useful.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), May 09, 2002.

Dante; I like your "holy war" analogy!..And your site.. In interchangeable lens RF cameras I own an beater grade M3; 1/2 year old Bessa-R; and several Russian cameras; such as the spring driven Lenningrad motor drive camera; 3 Zorki's; 2 Feds....It is interesting to place the new 50 mm Summicron LSM on a 28 dollar Zorki... and get great results..As tools go; I dont mind what people think ..It is real funny to read all the hype and cult status given to some cameras....

Around 1984 I bought a beat up Nikon F body; with non-metered plain prism for 100 dollars at the cameras store in downtown Ventura California.. One friend commented that I paid way too much since it was a body that was modifed for a motor drive; and had seen a hard life......Fast forward hundreds upon hundreds of rolls of film to today; and I have not spent one dime on the old F for repair; CLA or whatever..The camera has the faith to live on..One person commented recently that "I should not be using a classic camera; it will ruin its value" ...Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 09, 2002.

Dante; the first 35mm I used was an argus A2!

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 09, 2002.

Dear Dante, Is it really a war? I noted in your very fair comparative with the Leica M bodies the use of the term emotional. It is just what I saw in the many answers of my posts in defence of the Hexar RF versus the M7… Emotional comments… Perhaps the fact I transitioned from an M5 to an Hexar RF eased the thing about the ergonomics (the M5 doesn’t feel so different to hold). I have also noted the fact the lag is less sensitive when the camera is set to multiple frames than single one (and the motor noise appears to be less discernible by the way). My best guess in this alleged “war” is all the problem is linked to what kind of subjects you intend to tackle with your camera. A fair amount of the forum participants seems to use their M bodies the way I use my medium format SLR… Don’t misunderstand me, you can use a Leica M or an Hexar RF this way and obtain extremely good results. But I don’t think it was the way small format rangefinder cameras were developed for. This issue is particularly well illustrated when you aptly pointed out the considerable difference in ergonomics the use of a neutral density filter will bring versus a speedier shutter. Assuming a small format rangefinder camera was conceived and is still better fitted to capture fleeting instants than to be handled like a MF or LF camera, there can’t be any doubt which solution is the better suited for the user. What really surprises me in the attitude of many M diehards is there strange (to me) denial the Hexar RF is probably nearer “philosophically” speaking to the original state of mind of Barnack than today Leica M6 TTL and to a lesser degree the M7. The all mechanical v.s. electronic and battery dependent (battery dependence being a typical no issue as there’s no difference between battery dependence and film dependence so far) camera issue has nothing to do here as during Barnack times, all cameras were mechanical. The AE vs. manual issue is as irrelevant again all cameras in Barnack’s time were manual. What is IMHO relevant is the fact that to take the image of a fleeting instant the Hexar RF is more efficient than any M bodies. Faster to load and unload, faster than an M6 as it allows the use of AE mode (though the Hexar RF and the M7 suffer of the same shortcoming here: they both use an already obsolete technology instead of matrix metering), faster than both an M6 and an M7 when it goes to minimize the depth of field in a bright sunny day because of a faster shutter and faster to take pictures without adding a cumbersome separate motor when multiple image sequence becomes a must (this last feature being sometimes unfortunately a liability too). So what is left to the M range ? Very few indeed if you admit the red dot is something not so useful in practice… TTL flash ? Yes but up to 1/50th of a second, hardly an asset when dealing with the fill- in issue. Less noise? Well the Hexar RF is noisier but much less than any SLR around. The only really interesting feature of both M series is the more important magnification of the finder for two versions of the range (0.72 and 0.85). Something Konica should be well inspired to listen to by the way (how about a finder with two built in magnification ?). But I will hardly be able to chose between the Hexar RF and a 0.72 M7 (0.85 is out of question for me as a glass wearer)in the absolute. Both cameras have each some shortcomings which are compensated for in the other, both cameras are IMHO not sufficiently state of the art in metering capabilities (they are almost identical in concept). Technically speaking, those who have to operate in a very quiet way and use the fastest lenses from Leica range (Noctilux and 75mm Summilux) will probably find a better suited camera with the M7. Most of the others will have a better choice with the Hexar RF because of its more modern shutter and more efficient loading procedure. But this set apart, the best buy in economical terms is without possible contest the Hexar RF. Leica fans can take heart in defending the true superiority of Leica which is the unsurpassable quality of their lenses. Many Hexar users will certainly prefer the original to the copy here at least for their most used lenses. I think there is no use waging a war between the M series and the Hexar RF. These cameras are not suited exactly for the same role. But the role the Hexar excels to perform is probably nearer to the original one assigned by Barnack to the Leica. Will I go back to Leica M one day? May be, but certainly not through the M7. May be with an M6 0.72 bought second hand as a second body (not the main, sorry Leica diehards) to use with the fastest lenses and tele-lens with its more precise rangefinder and more magnification for the use with long focal length. May be if Leica issues a “M8” all electronic body with matrix metering in AE mode and real spot metering in manual mode, 30s to 1/4000th shutter with 1/250th sync. speed TTL flash all the way and a revised loading procedure, and, hopefully, a high point variable magnification finder. Thus justifying a price more than twice the one of an Hexar RF. But I sincerely believe there’s more chance Konica issues such a modern SFRF camera than Leica. Even the second hand M6 might never be bought if Konica issues a finder with more magnification.

Thanks again for that fair review

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 09, 2002.

I added a Hexar body to my Leica bag some time ago for all the reasons mentioned in your e-article: especially the faster film loading, higher sinc, and 1/4000th top speed in combination with Lux lenses. It all looked good on paper just as your findings do. In real world practice ( professionally pushing a ton more film than your test indicates), I have found the following: The Hexar misloads more frequently than you indicate, including fresh pro film not just discount versions. This is a disaster when shooting something like photo-journalism or a wedding. I attribute this to the fact that when shooting quickly, I have the film out of its canister ready to instantly reload ( a necessary evil of time sensitive conditions ). When, and if I'm using flash, TTL is more valuable than 1/125th sinc. ( I'd prefer both ). Using 6 or 8X ND filters on Lux lenses allows TTL fill flash in sunny conditions with an M. Using NDs is not clumsy as you indicate, anymore than using one with a SLR, and it's better than a SLR because the viewfinder brightness and focus is unaffected. However, in reality, this type of use constitutes about 2-5% of my use of a rangefinder anyway. My SLRs cream every rangefinder made when the loading, automation, flash sinc. and top shutter speed criteria is applied. Most importantly, there is some sort of lag in field use of a Hexar verses an M. It shows up in the split second that means the difference of capturing a fleeting expression or not ( my chief reason for using a rangefinder in the first place). Admittedly, my Instinctual timings may be tuned to an M verses the new-comer Hexar. But, when reviewing proofs, I could care less why, technical or otherwise. It seems that the debate arises when people look to a rangefinders to be more than what they were designed for ( or the nitch they have come to occupy ): That being a fast, candid, wider-lens, lower ambient light capturing machines. Add time-proven reliability, and IMHO you have an M not a Hexar. An opinion based on 15 to 20 rolls a week, 45+ weeks a year, year upon year. Frankly, I tried abandoning rangefinder use altogether in favor of smaller SLRs with more features. My people/candid work suffered, and I returned to that which showed results in the content and feeling of the end results. Holy War? Who cares? Can I get the picture or not is the only criteria that has any meaning to me what-so-ever. Ms continue to deliver, while the Hexar takes up space in my bag because I don't have confidence in its' loading or timing. The Hexar is a fine vacation/amateur camera or whatever, but on the job, in the field, in the real, hard-knocks world? No thanks.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 09, 2002.

Marc writes:

>> I added a Hexar body to my Leica bag some time ago for all the reasons mentioned in your e-article: especially the faster film loading, higher sinc, and 1/4000th top speed in combination with Lux lenses. It all looked good on paper just as your findings do. In real world practice ( professionally pushing a ton more film than your test indicates), I have found the following: The Hexar misloads more frequently than you indicate, including fresh pro film not just discount versions. This is a disaster when shooting something like photo-journalism or a wedding. I attribute this to the fact that when shooting quickly, I have the film out of its canister ready to instantly reload ( a necessary evil of time sensitive conditions ). <<

If you attribute the improper loadings of your Hexar to such a practice, just think a while how long it takes to pull out of a film from its plastic canister instead of loading a M… By the way an improperly loaded M won’t tell you anything but if you verify the tension of the film with rewinding crank… I consider taking care of the flatness of the lead is enough to prevent any misleading in an Hexar.

>> When, and if I'm using flash, TTL is more valuable than 1/125th sinc. ( I'd prefer both ).<<

It essentially depends on the use you have of a flash on SFRF camera… For me the only logical use (unless you’re really cornered) is a fill-in use… Unfortunately the M is unable to fulfil this requirement due to a very slow sync. speed. High speed sync. with the special Metz unit allowed by the M7 is no more TTL than with an Hexar… The only right way is to have a 1/250th of a second real sync. speed and TTL… Not a single SFRF has this feature.

>> Using 6 or 8X ND filters on Lux lenses allows TTL fill flash in sunny conditions with an M. Using NDs is not clumsy as you indicate, anymore than using one with a SLR, and it's better than a SLR because the viewfinder brightness and focus is unaffected.<<

If you prepare things in advance for a series no, but if you make a series of pictures with different lenses on a particular subject and wants to minimize DOF only for some, it is much more clumsy than to rely on a fast shutter…

>> However, in reality, this type of use constitutes about 2-5% of my use of a rangefinder anyway.<<

This one of the features a SFRF camera is worth to have… It might be not the main feature you appreciate in your work but it is nevertheless.

>> My SLRs cream every rangefinder made when the loading, automation, flash sinc. and top shutter speed criteria is applied. <<

But without having the specific qualities of an SFRF camera… Why would it be forbidden to, have everything the modern SLR’s have on a SFRF has long has it is relevant to the original concept.

>> Most importantly, there is some sort of lag in field use of a Hexar verses an M. It shows up in the split second that means the difference of capturing a fleeting expression or not ( my chief reason for using a rangefinder in the first place). <<

Try to use it in multiple frames mode…

>> Admittedly, my Instinctual timings may be tuned to an M verses the new-comer Hexar. But, when reviewing proofs, I could care less why, technical or otherwise. It seems that the debate arises when people look to a rangefinders to be more than what they were designed for ( or the niche they have come to occupy ): That being a fast, candid, wider-lens, lower ambient light capturing machines. <<

Gee, Leica WERE fast cameras for this use by the standard of the time their main features were designed… The fact is they are NO MORE… Is it really so difficult to understand we can beneficiate form modern technology (not modern gadgetry) yet incorporated in SLR’s ?

>> Add time-proven reliability, and IMHO you have an M not a Hexar. <<

Reliability of an M3 or an M4 or even an M5 may be… Reliability of an M6 or an M7 versus an Hexar RF, this is a thing to be actually proven…

>> An opinion based on 15 to 20 rolls a week, 45+ weeks a year, year upon year. Frankly, I tried abandoning rangefinder use altogether in favor of smaller SLRs with more features. My people/candid work suffered, and I returned to that which showed results in the content and feeling of the end results. Holy War? Who cares? Can I get the picture or not is the only criteria that has any meaning to me what- so-ever. Ms continue to deliver, while the Hexar takes up space in my bag because I don't have confidence in its' loading or timing.

All the truth lies here: “I don't have confidence in its' loading or timing” Confidence (a very subjective thing)… I was totally confident with my M5… it quits definitively (broken bearing of a curtain roll) during a picture taking session… I have never full confidence in a tool whatever is the tool… But I use my Hexar the hard way to test it (I was a photojournalist for 15 years so I now what it means). The only real problem is in your brain…

>> The Hexar is a fine vacation/amateur camera or whatever, but on the job, in the field, in the real, hard-knocks world? No thanks. <<

The Hexar, nor the M, has a universal vocation (not a single camera system has)… I consider the Hexar RF almost as a backward technology camera when it goes to metering modes the M7 is. But it has nonetheless a better shutter and even more important it doesn’t cost the equivalent of an F5 or EOS1 SLR, which is a decisive advantage when covering the subjects you want to tackle means you need another system as a complement. But to tell it an “amateur camera” is totally irrelevant. It has the same use an m body has and fulfil the task exactly the same way (when accustomed to it) most of the time the percentage of situations it performs not as the M is exactly the same it performs better than it. The real difference comes when you take into account the price to pay. And there, the Hexar RF means more bang for the buck. None of them is the perfect SFRF camera we should be entitled to expect nowadays, so a modern equivalent, state of the art speaking, of an M3, M4 or even an M5, but the M7 is grossly overpriced and the Hexar isn’t…

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 09, 2002.

Dante, really nice and informative article. As stated before, I would buy a HRF in a heartbeat if it had a larger magnification viewfinder.

Btw, I wouldn't call it "holy war". I kind of agree of the assessment that Leica users mostly couldn't care less about the Konica, and Konica users keeps bugging the Leica crowd that their product/result is equally good.

Regardless, thanks for shareing.

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), May 09, 2002.

Dante

Like the others say I think it is only the Hexar users who want their camera to measure up to a Leica. Who cares? I would buy a Hexar myself if I was sure that there would be no focussing problems. Many people on this site have reported them, this certainly puts me off. If I genuinely believed this was a non-issue I would shell out $700, no problem, particularly as I would like a low mag v/f. When the camera costs less than $700-800 (say $450) then I might buy the camera anyway and risk the focussing issue. The Hexar is a very nice camera no doubt about it - but to pay $700+ and to have a dud is a real pain, particularly as they are not as easy to sell s/h as a Leica.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 09, 2002.

I have got a good one and all you nice people who try to put down a good thing, you don't know what you are missing. Regards/wong from malaysia

-- wong kh (dosi@pd.jaring.my), May 09, 2002.

just as i thought....you guys are all talk....

-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 09, 2002.

Interesting article.

I'm personally waiting for the next Voigtlander body...an R2 with aperture-preferred metering. Since they already manufcture the Nikon FE-10, this is the next logical step for their line, especially after the introduction of the M7.

In my opinion, Konica has abandoned the market. The Hexar RF was a one-shot gamble that failed. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fine body and I've considered getting one...but I don't see any future committment to this line. The same can be said for the Contax G line...nice stuff but a financial bust. And the bottom line is what counts to stay in business.

I hope I'm wrong. We all know what the perfect rangefinder would be, regardless of who makes it. Give me an M6-like body, with fast film- loading, matrix & spot metering, aperture-priorty operation, 250th. flash-sync with TTL exposure, and the ability to operate in full- manual mode, without a battery. All the manufacturers flirt with this, but always leave something out. The closest thing to this is Nikon's FM3a...but it can't use Leica's great lenses, and they left out the martix & spot meter.

Then again, if they give us the perfect camera, they have nothing else to temp us with in the future.

It's all madness.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 09, 2002.

Jim. What's perfect for you isn't necessarily perfect for other people. I would have no interest in an M mount version of a cheap plasticky camera like the FE10. I personally would appreciate a spotmeter but I think matrix metering is worthless. For extreme back or sidelit scenes these types of meters invariably give poor exposures. The meter in your head is the best compromise. For me, the nearly silent shutter, excellent build quality, and handling of the Leica M are a lot more important than features such as 1/250 sec sync speed. If I just wanted a lot of features, I would use an autofocus SLR like a Canon EOS. Now that has matrix metering.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 09, 2002.

the shutter lag in the hexar rf is approx. ten times as long as in the m6/7 AS MEASURED by erwin puts in his recent review of the m7 (90 miliseconds compared to 10). to me, this lag is very noticeable. i do, however, really like the hexar rf.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 09, 2002.

Dante - good review.

I STILL love the concept of the Hexar RF. I just found the M4-x rangefinders to be more reliable for focusing anything above a 35mm lens. I could care less about the nameplate. And I don't think there is significant 'back-focus' problem. I would L-UU-V an RF with a 1.00x finder for 90-135 sports action stuff if they can eliminate that darn wiggle.

All three of the RFs I had and traded in re-sold within a month - so SOMEBODY loves them!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 09, 2002.

I'm a photographer. I don't understand why I would care about "culture war." I don't understand why I care about resale value since the only value that really matters is what I can get out of the camera. I don't understand why I care about my cameras being serviceable in fifty years, or even ten, since I shoot every day, in the rain, in dust storms, in the city, and putting all that film through the cameras, I expect no more than ten years of useful life.

FWIW, I've put at least five hundred rolls through a Hexar RF and several thousand through a Hexar AF (which has a similar load mechanism) without a misfire after the first twenty rolls or so. I did find that I had a tendency to load it wrong initially, but that eneded years ago.

I'm a lot more concerned about managing all the negatives than I am about any of those other things. Maybe it's about vanity cameras, not photographers' cameras.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 09, 2002.

Sorry, that was "misload", not "misfire."

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 09, 2002.

Let me add my review of the Hexar RF to the interesting comments in this thread and to Dante's fascinating webpage. I sent to following review to the LUG over a year ago and, of course, it started a flame war. Before evaluating the Hexar RF, let me give my Leica background so that everything is in context. I am a serious amateur photographer and the Leica M camera has been my primary photographic tool since 1963 or 64 (I am 60 years old). I started with an M2 and 50 F2.8 Elmar and have also used the M3, 4, 5, and 6, as well as the CL and the CLE. Yes, I’ve used SLR’s, but not very frequently. The rangefinder way of seeing has always appealed to me.

My current system consists of Leica M5 (with a softie) and Hexar RF, used with the15 Heliar, 35M Sumicron, 50 Wetzlar F2, and 90 Tele-Elmarit. I also have a classic Hexar (original), which has become my main camera for indoor available light light in moderate size settings, the GR1, and a Canon QL17-GIII (which always gets thrown in my suitcase as a backup and gives nice images). My SLR is a Canon Rebel S with a 35-70 zoom which I haven’t used for several years.

What’s very important for me when using a camera is light weight and a good viewfinder. I also realize that EVERY camera is a compromise, so what’s important to me may not be to others. Now, onto the

RF HEXAR.

My scale says that it weighs about an ounce more than an M6 and a couple of ounces less than the M5. It has a very good solid feel in my hands. The control are very natural for a M user except that the location of the shutter release is a little different. The loading is easy and the rewinding automatic. With moderate background noise, I don’t hear the camera rewinding, and when I try to take a picture and get no response I can get momentarily confused. (The rewind on the classic Hexar is hard to hear at any time.)

VIEWFINDER: The RF viewfinder presents an interesting contrast with the M2,4,5 (I will refrain from my usual tirade on the crummy M6 framelines). I wear average thickness glasses. With M5, I can almost see all of the 35mm frameline by jamming my glasses against the window. The view is large and gives an interesting sense of being part of the picture. With the RF, there is the whole 35 frame floating with space around it (but a little smaller than the M). In fact I can see the 28 lines. This is a different feeling from the M and I’m not sure which I prefer; maybe it will depend on the situation. Framing accuracy is better with the 35 on the RF. The bigger 90 frameline on the M5 is a real plus. The 90 framelines on an M6 is laughable (there I go again). The RF finder is a little dimmer than an M, which doesn’t bother me. Focusing was quite easy, but I haven’t tested the RF yet in a spontaneous low light situation.

METERING (with B&W and color negative): I can manually meter with the best of them and often do with the M5 and the classic Hexar. But I like aperture priority automatic as long as I have an exposure lock. The RF has two automatic settings, AE and AEL. In AE I think it meters until the shutter starts to open. AEL is like most cameras - when the shutter release is pressed half way down, the exposure is locked in. I can’t understand why AE is even an option. It seems utterly useless, especially with the semi spot meter which I will get to next. My exposure with 25 rolls of B&W and color neg taken mostly outdoors in the somewhat tricky light in Greece was just fine. I only used AEL and never found a need for manual.

The RF seems to have a very heavy centerweighted system, which may really be a semi spot meter like the M6. The instruction book is very badly written, but a diagram in the advertising literature seems to indicate semi spot with a little spread (maybe like the Nikon F3???). The RF meter on AEL even worked very well when I had to shoot very fast with varied lighting and no chance to choose what to meter on. With the M5 I know exactly what I am metering. When I meter in manual, I love the M5.

The 1/4000 shutter speed can be great, if you have too high a speed film in the camera to shoot in the F5.6 - 11 range or when I want to deliberately use the wonderful bokeh of Leica lenses. Yes, I believe in bokeh, no matter what the engineers say.

MOTOR: I am left eyed, so the motor is a godsend. With any non motorized camera, I have to take my eye from the viewfinder to wind the film.

The sound of the shutter and motor are a bit sharp compared to an M body, but not objectionable so far - the classic Hexar is the best. However, as I said before, I haven’t tested it in an intimate low light setting. As I was shooting the rear end of a burro (ugh) in Greece, he clearly heard the sound (about 25 feet away) and turned to look, which gave me a nice shot.

If new rangefinder models appear, I will certainly be ready to consider them, but I pray they will use my Leica lenses. I’d love to see a Bessa R with an M mount (it’s so nice and light).

AN ADD ON

My Hexar RF focuses a little past infinity, so I tested it very carefully closeup at F2 with both the Konica 50 and the 50 Summicron. with basically no depth of field, the focus was dead on. Yes it is annoying, but for all practical purposes, it works just fine. I have now shot about 30 rolls of film with it and no problems. The most annoying thing for me is not understanding the exact area being metered. The Konica ad booklet and the instruction book seem to contradict each other and the review in Pop Photography was useless.

2002 update: I just bought a Bessa R2. As it weighs about a half pound less than the RF (or my M5), it may become my perimary body - who knows?

-- jay goldman (jrgoldman9@yahoo.com), May 09, 2002.

Jim. What's perfect for you isn't necessarily perfect for other people. I would have no interest in an M mount version of a cheap plasticky camera like the FE10.

Please read my post again. I didn't say this.

I personally would appreciate a spotmeter but I think matrix metering is worthless. For extreme back or sidelit scenes these types of meters invariably give poor exposures.

That's why it's to your advantage to have a choice of meters.

For me, the nearly silent shutter, excellent build quality, and handling of the Leica M are a lot more important than features such as 1/250 sec sync speed.

Flash sync speed has nothing to do with a silent shutter, build quality, or handling...why can't a rangefinder have all these things plus a decent flash sync, and matrix & spot metering?

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 09, 2002.

Jim. My post was in response to your statement "We all know what the perfect rangefinder would be, regardless of who makes it." Your idea of the perfect rangefinder is not the same as mine, and I'm sure many others. The things I mentioned are a lot more important to me than some of the things you mentioned.

The point is you cannot have everything. At least not in a camera with the size and handling of a Leica M: a) there is not enough room in the camera body to add all of these features; and b) you would significantly alter the handling properties of the camera, making it unattractive to people like me.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 09, 2002.

Why do people place so much faith on matrix metering anyway?

-- John (johnlktan@yahoo.com), May 10, 2002.

Who cares about culture wars when there's a zombie invasion?

Night of the Living ..., Hexar RF/50mm, Copyright 2002 Jeff Spirer

Shot Wednesday night in San Francisco.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 10, 2002.

We all know what the perfect rangefinder would be

Yes we all do, but none of us agree on it.

I certainly know what a perfect rangefinder would be, but it would look nothing like you describe.

Joe

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), May 10, 2002.

We all know what the perfect rangefinder would be... Yes we all do, but none of us agree on it.

That's for sure, Joe, and Eliot. One person's dream is another person's nightmare.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 10, 2002.

"I'm a lot more concerned about managing all the negatives than I am about any of those other things."

Jeff - I hear ya, bro!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 11, 2002.

Hi John

You write:

“Why do people place so much faith on matrix metering anyway?”

First and foremost did you really ever used a matrix metering equipped camera?

Now what are the actual advantage of having a matrix metering? IMHO, AE mode is something you have generally absolutely no real interest to use. The problem lies in the fact that ergonomically speaking it doesn’t bring you any real advantage in speed above the manual mode. Why? Just because you need like you do with manual metering to point your camera to meter the right zone (assuming the meter has a metering angle sufficiently precise to do so, which is about the case of both the M7 or the Hexar RF). Then, of course, you just have to re-compose. Proceeding in manual mode, you will chose your shutter speed according to the subject in advance and will meter the appropriate zone and manually set the correct aperture, then re-compose… The practical difference in speed is almost negligible. So the advantage of AE lock mode (I don’t see any advantage of simple AE mode) is very thin, but the fact you set in advance the aperture (so you can control the DOF in advance precisely) and just get the right speed when pointing the camera to the right zone with more accuracy due to the electronic shutter. All in all AE lock mode doesn’t bring you much in terms of speed of operation. My point is when you need an automatism, whatever it is, you cannot justify to delegate your choice to a mechanic but when it brings you speedier operation.

A matrix metering is something quite different. In fact calling it a metering is an abuse… It is much more than that. First the metering elements of the matrix feed a lot of information into the computer included in your camera, then this information (different metering from different part of the subject) are compared to a library of examples so it is by no mean an average which is taken into account for the final treatment but a true computer analysis of the subject. Of course, this computer won’t make an artistic interpretation of the subject as you can do manually but the experience proves it will bring you a useable negative or slide according to the rules of exposure 90% of the time. And it will do that WITHOUT ANY NEED TO RE- COMPOSE… If you agree to the rule “never use an automatism when not absolutely needed” (a conscious choice) then a matrix metering will permit you to register many fleeting subjects the traditional guesswork won’t permit you to register and in a much higher proportion than with any other metering system. If used only with this subject it works 90% of the time (at least) EVEN IN HIGHLY BACKLIT SITUATIONS as the computer will recognize these situation (as it will recognize the presence in the image of a light source (sun or otherwise) and simply put aside this zone in the metering determination. I had this feature on my Nikon F4S and it is the only feature I really miss since I went to rangefinder cameras.

Now, if time allows, I prefer manual and spot-metering and decide myself.

For me, as a lot of small format rangefinder users (and I think it was the original spirit they were conceived for), these cameras are primarily destined to capture the instant so such a feature is sorely missed when a situation arise which will necessitate maximum speed in action.

Another use of matrix metering is when you can’t really shoot with the eye in the finder of the camera: hip or dissimulated camera shots or shooting the arm extended over a crowd. In these situations, provided you use a wide angle set to the correct DOF position you can anticipate a perfectly exposed (technically speaking) 90% of the time…

I agree most automatism are dumb… Matrix metering is just something less stupid than any other automatism I used on a camera… True a “lazy” photographer will certainly try to use it almost continuously, but do you think this lazy guy will learn how to expose properly in manual mode ? (not speaking of any kind of artistic interpretation of exposure). On the opposite a conscious photographer will use this automatism only when required and be rewarded by a higher percentage of usable (if not artistic) images and would be able to capture some very fleeting instants the older techniques would have missed most of the time (I say most of the time as these kind of instants might be captured before matrix metering but only by chance and with a high rate of failure)…

So that’s why I think matrix metering to be a necessary feature in a truly modern small format rangefinder camera and being totally optional in its use it doesn’t preclude anyone to go manual…

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 11, 2002.

Francois, all in all I do not disagree and yes I have on occasion used a matrix metering camera - in fact one with 1000+ color sensitive points (just don't tell anyone ok).

The problem or blessing ( depending on which way you look at it) with matrix metering is that one of the most important conscious/artistic decisions is being made for you through a "black box". In the hands of someone competent this is just another tool and a handy option. For a beginner ... well matrix metering might help flatten the learning curve a bit.

The problem with auto-everything in modern times is the reversion to the mean. The AF/matrix meter camera has done the same to photography what MS windows have done to computing or the automatic transmission to automobiles.

-- John (johnlktan@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.

Fancois, good point by point reply. I'll give the Hexar another go. I don't agree that the focusing is an unproven issue. To many articles and postings on the subject. As to setting it on multiple to improve the lag issue...? Whatever the setting, the M shoots exactly when I tell it to, the Hexar doesn't. It's a documented fact as mentioned in another post here. Admittedly, we're talking nano seconds, but it shows up in the proofs. As to loading, it may be in my head ( lack of confidence under fire ), but M or Hexar, I carry the film already out of the canister for space and speed reasons. Also, I travel and have to have the stuff visable-- or you have to open EVERY canister for the guard. Times that by 50 rolls and you miss the flight. I think after shooting an M6 for 15 years I can say it's reasonably stood the test of time. All that said, I WILL give the Hexar more time and effort. After all I already own it. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 12, 2002.

Hi John,

You write:

>> Francois, all in all I do not disagree and yes I have on occasion used a matrix metering camera - in fact one with 1000+ color sensitive points (just don't tell anyone ok). The problem or blessing ( depending on which way you look at it) with matrix metering is that one of the most important conscious/artistic decisions is being made for you through a "black box". In the hands of someone competent this is just another tool and a handy option. For a beginner ... well matrix metering might help flatten the learning curve a bit. <<

I agree 100% with you John… My requirement for matrix metering is just when there’s no time enough to consciously decide (and moreover execute the necessary actions)… Of course there will be no artistic interpretation there but I think in these very occasions matrix metering is a real advantage, the subject by itself has power enough to give feelings, emotion and sense to your shot. A shot you’ll generally miss completely otherwise…

>> The problem with auto-everything in modern times is the reversion to the mean. The AF/matrix meter camera has done the same to photography what MS windows have done to computing or the automatic transmission to automobiles. <<

Well, I have quite a tendency to consider people who will rely on auto-all every time are anyway generally more “souvenir hunters” than really interested in Photography… I’m 48 now and my first automatic transmission car was bought about five years ago (they are not that common in Europe). I almost always use the selector (but I do appreciate the absence of the clutch pedal)… Most people who use the automatic transmission all the way and never move the selector I know were sloppy drivers with manual gears… I think the same applies with automatisms in cameras… But I hate AF (as I do not practice action tele-photography like a wildlife or sport photographer does) as the practical way this automatism is conceived doesn’t permit a perfect reversion to manual… I don’t think to be dominated by technology is something unavoidable, on the contrary we must dominate technology. It is more a question of will than anything else… If we refuse to use it, be sure as most people will accept to be dominated by it, we will be crushed in the process, because we will be forced to accept automatism without options which is IMHO the real danger…

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 12, 2002.

Hi Marc,

You write

>> Francois, good point by point reply. <<

Thanks for the compliment Marc

>> I'll give the Hexar another go. I don't agree that the focusing is an unproven issue. To many articles and postings on the subject.<<

Well it seems the focusing problem was something linked to the first series issued… It never manifested with mine. Besides, it can be fixed… However, I can understand the need for some people to have a larger magnification in the finder and a rangefinder effective base allowing them to use the Nocilux of 75mm Summilux wide open…

>> As to setting it on multiple to improve the lag issue...? <<

I experimented it and was surprised to find the lag is much shorter (besides the sound made by the motor is less perceptible ! …

>> Whatever the setting, the M shoots exactly when I tell it to, the Hexar doesn't. It's a documented fact as mentioned in another post here. Admittedly, we're talking nano seconds, but it shows up in the proofs. <<

I used for many years SLR’s which were plagued by a much more important lag… From what you said, I think your concern is in the capture of fleeting expressions of your subject (may be during an interview (correct me if I err)… I practiced more than often this kind of work. I came to the conclusion the most significant expressions, characteristic of a person are in fact recurrent… If you observe this person long enough you’ll be aware when this characteristic expression or attitude will surface again by analysing the first move in the face or the attitude which will announce the return of the interesting moment… This is how I overcame the lag problem with a SLR. I think it will be even easier with an Hexar RF. Besides, I’m not sure the lag will not be apparent with the M7 as it seems to have been indicated by some posts here. If this is really your main concern, I can also admit a M5 or M6 will be a better choice…

>> As to loading, it may be in my head ( lack of confidence under fire ), but M or Hexar, I carry the film already out of the canister for space and speed reasons. <<

Well, I never practiced like that (but I often had at least two bodies under fire)… I often experienced problems loading my M4-P or my M5 when compared to what is possible with a classical hinged door (and that darn base plate you have to maintain by whatever mean!). I don’t say the Hexar RF loading procedure is ideal (a more classical way would probably have given more certainty of avoiding misloadings) but I literally hate the M way of loading…

>> Also, I travel and have to have the stuff visible-- or you have to open EVERY canister for the guard. Times that by 50 rolls and you miss the flight. <<

My time as a photojournalist ended long before Sept. 11th and I never had to be searched so thoroughly… The misloadings I had with the Hexar were ever related to an improper flatness of the lead which in turn precluded the film roll to seat properly in position (difficult to explain with words but easy to see in practice)… Your need to stock films out of the canisters might not help to much to avoid the lead being not flat enough… I don’t see any practical solution to this problem… May be someone has already devised one…

>> I think after shooting an M6 for 15 years I can say it's reasonably stood the test of time.<<

Marc, I never said the M6 doesn’t stood the test of time… My point is we have no sufficient experience with the Hexar RF to say this body won’t stood it the same way (or even better). By the way, a comparative between an M6 and the Hexar RF is something I don’t think absolutely fit. For me the M6 is much overpriced because almost everything in it is amortized since a long, long time but it is an all mechanical camera with its own good points and its related shortcomings. I lived a long time with an M5 and I whish I would have lived even longer with it. The Hexar RF is something to be compared with an M7 and here I think most of your criticisms particularly the shutter lag will be relevant too… My point is the Hexar RF is a much better value for money than an M7 and I am really deceived by what Leica has done there…

>> All that said, I WILL give the Hexar more time and effort. After all I already own it. Thanks for taking the time to respond. <<

My pleasure Marc

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 12, 2002.