Hi all,

Dante’s articles, like the tests recently conducted on this board have, have, I think, amply proven that there is no practical incompatibility between an Hexar RF or a Bessa camera body and the use of Leica M lenses but those generated by EBF.

I think it is time now to stop arguing about this evidence. Any problem encountered is much more liable to be traced to an inaccurately aligned rangefinder or – as Dante insisted on – the inherent difficulty to focus properly a lens with extremely limited DOF by the operator.

One point, however, must be clarified: the Noctilux or 75 mm Summilux use on the Hexar RF, the Bessa R or R2 and, of course, the M6 or M7 x 0.58.

From answers to some of my posts here, some people seem to have succeeded using the Noctilux or the 75 mm Summilux with the Hexar RF. However, theoretically, the effective rangefinder base of the Hexar RF viewfinder is deemed insufficient to be sure to focus them properly wide open.

I think a conservative attitude should be to avoid the use of these lenses on an Hexar RF.

But one point should be clarified beforehand: If these lens focusing accuracy is not guaranteed this is due to the 0.6 magnification of the finder. One should know clearly the how the effective base of a rangefinder is determined.

The formula is as follows: distance between the center of the finder to the center of the rangefinder window multiplied buy the finder magnification.

For the Hexar RF the distance between the two window centers is exactly the same as on a Leica M body. This means the reduced accuracy of the rangefinder effective base is only caused by the lower magnification of the finder when compared to M 0.72 and M 0.85 finders versions of the current cameras currently produced by Leica, while the 0.58 version on the contrary has even a lower precision! …

On the contrary, despite a better magnification: 0.7, the Bessa R and R2 with a distance between the window centers which is approximately HALF the one of a Leica M or Hexar RF body, despite having a magnification almost similar to the one of a Leica M 0.72, is largely inferior in precision to the Hexar RF having only a 0.6 magnification.

One should not confuse the comfort of vision for the composition, due to a larger magnification of the finder and the accuracy of the rangefinder…

I remarked on a different thread, somebody expressed his desire Cosina produces a 0.85 version of the Bessa R2 which can replace its M x 0.85 body… This is not a good solution, as far as rangefinder accuracy is concerned. The image will be as comfortable as on the Leica M (or even more if as it is said to be the Bessa R finder is even better and not prone to flare) to compose, but the accuracy of the rangefinder will not be on par with the Leica M one.

Stephen Gandy estimates the Bessa R-R2 distance between the windows to 35.70 mm So an effective base of 24,28 mm (exact finder magnification x 0.68)

On Leica M and Hexar RF the distance between the windows is generally quoted as 68,5 mm

Hence, the Leica M6 and M7 versions have the following EFB:

M x 0.58 = 39.73 mm

M x 0.72 = 49.32 mm

M x 0.85 = 58.225 mm

And the Hexar RF: 41.1mm

Now let’s see what a Bessa R2 with a 0.85 finder will have as EBF: 30.345 mm

EVEN INFERIOR TO THE M 0.58 !

One should also remark to reach even the worst EBF registered in the M and Hexar RF range, the magnification should reach more than 1 to 1 !

It is very unfortunate for the very interesting Bessa R line but this camera would be extremely difficult to modify to reach even par with the M 0.58 rangefinder precision as the distance between the windows will be extremely difficult to increase due to the use of a modified SLR body as a base.

It also explain why the extremely accurate Bessa T with a base superior to the M 0.85 has been developed to be used with interchangeable finders separated from the rangefinder proper as it was once with Leica LTM designs of the past.

Finally it explains too why the Voigtländer lenses range stops at 90 mm with a f/3.5 aperture only.

It is why I doubt a 0.85 or more finder will eventually be developed by Cosina on the Bessa R due to the small EFB obtainable from the original design… But there is no reason, once the Bessa R2’s will eventually become a clear success the company should not develop an entirely new rangefinder camera designed from scratch…

The case of the Hexar RF is somewhat different, it would be rather easy for Konica to develop a higher magnification finder - though I doubt they will chose something like the M3 x 0.91 one due to the nearly standard use of 35 mm focal length as the main lens by a lot of SFRF users – a x 0.8 or 0.85 being much more probable. In so doing, they will probably have to eliminate the 28 mm frame.

Another option is to replace the present x 0.6 magnification by a 0.7 (or 0.72) magnification which is the old standard Leica practice. As the distance between the windows is similar to the one used on the Leica M’s, this will directly result in an increase in rangefinder precision which will permit accurate focusing of ALL the Leica M lenses.

An even better solution (both for the M and the Hexar RF) would probably be a variable magnification finder with three positions: 0.6, 0.8 and 1. Position will then be chosen by the user according to the focal length used and its maximum aperture. Bringing comfort of composition and necessary precision according to the situation. Another side benefit for the user of M cameras will be a unique and universal body instead of the choice between three different versions.

I personally regret the entry priced Bessa R2’s cannot rival in precision with the more expensive options available but this is understandable considering it is, after all nothing but a modification of an SLR body, something which surely contributes to its very affordable price level.

For the Konica Hexar RF, I simply regret Konica has not chosen the 0.7 option instead of the present 0.6 magnification. I hope this will be corrected in the future, even through the issue of an accessory magnifier as the Leica one.

I still do not understand both for the consumers and for the manufacturer Leica has chosen to issue three different versions of a single body instead of developing a multiple magnification ratio finder.

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), June 07, 2002

Answers

Francois, very interesting and informative. As I want to use rangefinders primarly for available/low light photography, the ability to accurately see and focus high speed lenses such as the 'lux 75/1.4 is critical, thus .85 M6TTL is my best choice. Currently.

Namaste,

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), June 07, 2002.

The evidence and theories mount - conclusions are still a way off IMO! .05mm is still a big distance in RF terms on certain critical applications.

-- Johann F (johannfuller@hotmail.com), June 07, 2002.

Konica Hexar RF is not a Leica therefore the Leica lenses will never be a complete match.The effects on final image quality are small (depending on whos views you are reading)however they are there.It is interesting that the manufacturers have little to say on this subject which must lead to certain conclusions.

-- allen herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), June 07, 2002.

Yes, that Leica wants to sell Leica bodies and Leica lenses, Konica wants to sell Konica bodies and Konica lenses, and Cosina wants to sell Voigtlander bodies and Voigtlander lenses. None of them have anything to gain by refuting the incompatibility scare.

I note with curiosity that Erwin has not accused Cosina bodies of being incompatible with Leica lenses even though there is the added variable of adaptor tolerances and how tightly the lens is screwed into it; interesting but perhaps simply coincidental, there are enough other features lacking (auto framelines, rangefinder baselength, cheap construction feel)on the Cosina bodies to make them perhaps seem like less of a threat to Leica sales than the Hexar RF, a camera with very useful and more modern features than even the M7, which perhaps some zealous Leicaphiles have viewed as a serious threat to Leica and would like to see stopped dead in its tracks?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 07, 2002.

fpw -- thanks for your post. however, there are a number of important factors that affect RF focus accuracy that you failed to mention: (1) first and foremost, it is not true that two RFs, one with a baselength of 1 and a mag of 10, and another with a baselength of 10 and a mag of 1 (to take an example) will have the same accuracy -- even though their EFB is 10 in both cases. the shorter baselength camera will be far less accurate in measuring distance, and the high mag will only magnify this error. the long baselength with the low mag will always perform better. for this reason, a high mag bessa will never equal a lower mag leica/hexar, even if EFB is the same for all three. (2) contrast performance of the RF is crucial. regardless of its theoretical accuracy, a low contrast RF will not produce consistently accurate results. it is for this reason that some people add contrast filters to the VF. (3) the RF type is also very important to accuracy. there are three varieties of RF, coincident image, split image, and combined coincident/split. contax/nikon RFs falls into the first group, most SLRs (that have a solit prism) fall into the second, and leica M (not barnack, they are in the first group) and the RF are in the last group. the combined split/coincident type is far more accurate in practice for most users. (4) finally, the design of the RF, in terms of its ability to be aligned accurately and STAY aligned is also key. thanks again for your info on the various finders.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 07, 2002.

The 2 latest Bessa are described by Voiglander as M mount cameras. For me they are compatible. As far as I know, Cosina has allways refused to make such an affirmation about the Hexar RF...

-- Xavier C. (xcolmant@powerir.com), June 07, 2002.

jay -- small incompatabilities will not matter with wide and normal lenses used at smallish apertures at moderate distances -- i.e. the way RFs are (or at least were designed to be) used. indeed they will be swamped by subject/camera movement, focus error, etc. and this, by the way, relates to a point where dante went astray. he rightly points out that back focus tolerances are the same for wide angles and long lenses, concluding that these two classes of lenses would be affected the same by any camera/lens incompatability. this is not true. although the defocus error will be the same, the long lens MAGNIFIES a lot more, and so will make the errors muc more visible. thus, incompatability, as a practical matter (i.e. where you are actually making prints), will be a much bigger problem with long lenses than with wides.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 07, 2002.

I don't want to start a new flame about the compatibility subject.

I think 0.05 mm is something which is probably beyond the factory tolerances in terms of aligning properly a rangefinder and morover a pressure plate mounted with springs at industrial level and in anyway probably something which will overtax the ability of the operator to focus a lens (I only whish to know the effect of the tolerances required by the helix of the lenses to operate and what is this tolerance after some years of intensive use)...

It is IMHO totally insignificant and the comparative purely academic. Even the support of the emulsions are never the same between brands and even within brands.

The only lens critical tests admitted are done on a mirror system or glass plates...

The EFB is much more important and critical in conditionning the accuracy of focusing. Pat's observation is much more relevant and his choice is the good one.

As to Allen, sorry my friend but a "Leica millimiter" is exactly the same as a "Konica millimeter"... It would have been perfectly stupid (moreover with negotiations taking place between the two manufacturers) to adopt a M mount and deliberately alter the dimensions to produce incompatibility. The early batches might have been not well aligned but the truth is they have ever been corrected by re-alignment of the rangefinder. The backfocus problem simply never existed.

Konica is not silent on that point. they simply state the proper focusing is not guaranteed but with M-Hexanon lenses... Why ? because a lot of Konica glass is taking dust on shelves because most Hexar RF users will prefer the better leica lenses instead... Interest guides Konica here, neither truth or respect of the customer.

Strangely enough, before the article in "Popular Photography" nobody ever said Voigtländer lenses cannot be focused properly on a M body. Though the adpater to M mount is another variable to introduce in the matching question.

All the shebang is nothing more than an attempt to keep consumers to go for other body brands... Dante put to pieces this article.

By the way did Leica ever publicly stated what are their factory tolerances ? I don't remember to have seen them published anywhere! ...

So I'm still waiting for a demonstration of the alleged superiority of Leica in this domain, particularly since Leitz has been replaced by Leica Camera AG and the manual precision adjustments once the rule in the industry have been superseded everywhere (but at Leica's) by very precise robotized and computer-laser controlled assembly procedures...

The rejection rate at Leica's is known to be very important and IMHO illustrates clearly their assembly procedure is not so precise by present standards...

Nothing is perfect in this world and tolerances are mostly given in photography by a large number of factors. I doubt the theoretical precision of a system will actually show when it might be necessary to SEE the difference to blow a negative something around 50 times which means a 1.20m x 1.80m print, as the normal distance of viewing combined with the separative power of the eye and the granulation of the best slow film will preclude this perception.

35 mm format is totally irrelevant for murals if these murals are to be examined from anything near to the eye. It's time to get to medium or large format instead.

So for me the point is definitively settled. It is conform to the what I see in my own practice with the Hexar RF. I doubt personnally the vast majority of M bodies today in service has a rangefinder perfectly aligned (even some new in the box one hasn't) but when just CLA'd by a careful shop.

I think it is better to concentrate on really important weak and good points of each camera to judge them... If I had to take pictures with a Noctilux or 75mm Summilux (and the budget to have these lenses and a M body) I will certainly chose the M (but the 0.58 and preferentially a 0.85), same applies if I had currently to take pictures of live entertainement where extreme silence is mandatory.

As I said more than once, when comparing the M7 to the Hexar RF, I consider both cameras of equal technical value when averaging their qualities and shortcomings. Neither one or the other can be considered inferior or superior technically. Each has its own good and bad points, and these are different in each camera. Neither one or the other is for me the perfect 21st century 35 mm rangefinder camera I'm dreaming of. The real advantage of the Hexar RF lays in its price, excepts probably for the equally low magnification M 0.58 which I consider inferior.

I liked very much my poor M5 but to have another one in France you would have to pay almost the price of the Hexar RF new to get a camera without any guarantee, something I consider intolerable for a camera which is at least 27 year old.

I'm not particularly attracted by AE of early 80's vintage as implemented both in the M7 and the Hexar RF.

I can easily obtain almost equivalent results with a manual exposure camera in terms of speed of operation, nor I'm particularly attracted by a built-in motor drive.

I'm not particularly satisfied with the magnification of the Hexar RF finder...

But all in all it is a much better value for money than an M7 or a second hand guaranteed M6 and a more secure option than a second hand M5 for the price to pay.

In practical use, the Hexar RF as so far never betrayed me.

I simply wanted to warn the eventual Bessa R2 (an excellent camera otherwise) buyers of the all true limitations they will be confronted with in terms of rangefinder accuracy. It seems to me an eventual source of pittfalls much more important than a probably totally imaginary backfocus problem in the Hexar RF.

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), June 07, 2002.

Roger,

It seems to me you are confusing the theoretical precision and the practical perception of accuracy to which the contrast is very important too...

As for the Tele-lens, my experience with a 135 mm f/4 Tele-Elmar has demontrated there is no focusing problem with it even at minimum distance...

So to say I'm confident the alleged backfocus problem is simply an imaginary problem.

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), June 07, 2002.

i am by no means confusing the concepts of theoretical accuracy and practical accuracy. my point is that the former is really irrelevant if what we are talking about is how these cameras will actually function. also, i guess it depends on how you define "theoretical," but even theoretically a short base high mag RF will never be as good as a long base, low mag rf where both have the same EFB. the theoretical margin of error will always be higher in the shorter baselength device.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 07, 2002.

Roger,

If you have a low magnification finder it will be more difficult to appreciate the defocus... Even if your long base will permit a more precise focusing...

I just suppose both things practically compensate to a certain extent.

Hence the use of the word "theoretical"

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), June 07, 2002.

François, I can defocus my 50mm F2 by .05mm and see a difference at infinity on a ground glass screen with 15x loupe and on a 100ISO tranny film - it's an error in theory and practice! Your tests with a 135mm lens will show no change as it's only realy a problem with wide lenses. A long lens will physicaly move a further distance than a wide lens from the film to focus between to different distances (say 3m to infinity) therefore a fixed amount of error in each case ( .05mm) is a bigger proportion of the total movement in the wide lens and thus a greater error.

-- Johann F (johannfuller@hotmail.com), June 07, 2002.

needless to say, if the mag is so low, you cannot see the coincidence, that will pose a practical limit on accuracy. however, assuming sufficient mag to see coincidence easily, merely increasing mag will not increas the accuracy of a short baselength RF. as i said, you will merely be magnifying error. it is a mistake to equate apparent ease of focus (which comes with very high mag) with accuracy of focus. in an slr, which is a direct focus device, these two ARE the same. in an RF, they are decidedly not. perhaps it is on analogy to an slr that people make this mistake. best regards, roger

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 07, 2002.

Johann,

I've had the same results with my Summicron F/2 35mm both at the shortest possible distance and infinity...

Of course if you defocus by 0.05 you may see a difference, but I have a lot of doubt you will focus so precisely in practice and in the heat of action. In fact it depends more on the angular displacement and the helix pitch of a precise lens (and the tolerance of this helix)... And the dexterity of the user...

I NEVER had any problem with my Hexar RF so far with any lens used. I paid a particular attention on the problem of focusing accuracy when I tested it before buying as the issue was already raised on the alleged incompatibility.

So for me the question is settled for all practical purpose.

As for the accuracy of an SLR I had some problems once with an Hasselbald as the ground glass was not exactly set where it has to be. It was corrected by Hasselblad and then everything went well. It is absolutely false a SLR is inherently more precise in focusing unless everything is perfectly aligned. The only "foolproof" way is to use a groundglass like in a view cameras as the image forms directly on it. So a well aligned rangefinder, because it gives you a binary indication instead of a subjective appreciation of focusing is liable to be more precise in practice than an SLR ground glass.

Effective film behavior in a camera is something which is hardly fully masterized by any manufacturer.

SHOW ME an example of a randomly chosen batch of Hexar RF constantly having focusing problem after every elements has been checked and properly aligned... Then I'll give some credits to the alleged back focus problem...

If you need extreme focusing precision for a particularly special application, I consider better to resort to a large format camera on a steady heavy tripod and a strong magnifier to observe the ground glass...

And then there will be one absolute limit: the separative power of your eye...

A SFRF camera is for me mostly a hand held tool and I don't intent to pay for something I'll never be able to see in practical use.

It is the same rationale I have when it goes to chosing a lens. For a 35 mm or a 50 mm which will often be sollicited to be used at full aperture I will chose a Leica lens (within the limits imposed by my Hexar RF finder magnification) but I won't really care for a 21 mm as I'll hardly use it at f/2.8 so a modest V-länder with a nonetheless modest f/4 aperture which will probably be actually used between f/5.6 and f/8 where it equals the performances of the splendid Leica aspheric will suffice for me.

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), June 07, 2002.

To quote; "Of course if you defocus by 0.05 you may see a difference" "there is no practical incompatibility between an Hexar RF or a Bessa camera body and the use of Leica M lenses" Come on - what's it going to be ?

-- Johann F (johannfuller@hotmail.com), June 07, 2002.

Also a large format camera is just as prone to focusing errors as it relies on the glass being in the same plane as the film - film holders and focusing backs vary from camera to camera and I have seen errors and had to shim out screens in the past. the only accurate focusing method today is a digital back where you are actualy focusing with the sensors that take the picture - oh no not digital! -one day there will be a leica digital back to fit in the film gate and we will all laugh at the good old days of curled films and back focus etc.

-- Johann F (johannfuller@hotmail.com), June 07, 2002.

Johann ; Our Large Acti Camera is focused by setting the lens board, and copyboard by the dial indicators on it...There are machined detents along the length of the cameras rail...One places the Reproduction ratio in the HP-97 Calculator; and inputs the reproduction ratio required; and which lens...the outputs are the lens board and copy board positions...the readings are to one thousand of an inch...One never has to focus this camera; and all the negatives are tack sharp..

When our camera was first purchased in 1979; a man from the Acti factory was flown in to set up the system.. each Rodenstock Apo-Ronar is placed on the camera and trial focusing tests are made at many Reproduction ratios; A special invar rule is used to measure the negative's images...After 2 days work; and the lenses individual focal lengths and nodal points are determined..These are input into the HP-97's memory as special constants for our system....We never have used a ground glass ever again....

The Acti camera is larger than most cameras; maybe someone else has one too; maybe one bigger....The majority of the camera is encased in a room that is 18 ft wide by 26 feet long...The main rail 23.5 feet long and has 234 detents one inch apart for the dial indicator ...

The "short" lens is a 360mm F9 ;

the "normal" lens is a 600mm F9 ;

the "long" lens is a 890mm F14....

The negative size is either 18x24 or 12x18 inches..........

Lighting is by a 230volt 30 amp pulsed arc lamp system...

The main camera rail is 23.5 feet long; 2 feet wide; and 20 inches off the concrete slab/floor...The cameras back is built into our building..Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), June 07, 2002.

Well François P. WEILL , how do you explain the following then (if the HexarRF and Leica M cameras do not have a difference in their focusing arrangements. All my Leica lenses 28 to 135mm focus perfectly on my M4-P (after much adjustment & testing), and my Hexanon 50/2 focuses perfectly on my Hexar RF. All the tests are done on same film of the same subjects, on tripod and manually scanned to x40. Tests carried at 1m (1.5 for 135), 2 m, 50m and 2km. When the cameras are switched, ie Leica lenses on Konica body and vice versa, all the lenses focus resonably well, on both bodies at 1m, but are well out at long distances. I have done the same tests with all my other nikon bodies as well, so I have a good library of tests, and know what to expect. As for Dante's claim that newer Hexar bodies have a different rf specification, he has not yet answered the question as to whether by that logic there are now two different ranges of Hexar lens cams or what ever.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), June 07, 2002.

Sait; Re "When the cameras are switched, ie Leica lenses on Konica body and vice versa, all the lenses focus resonably well, on both bodies at 1m, but are well out at long distances." Do your Konica lenses on Leica bodies and Leica glass on Konica Bodies focus long or short when focused on an intermediate distance; say 3 meters for a 50mm lens; or maybe 5 meters for a 90mm lens?

Have you photographed a meterstick, picket fence at an intermediate distance?

I am wondering what the results of this test would be with a mixed leica/konica body test...Regards Philip

-- kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), June 07, 2002.

Sait; are your KONICA bodies and lenses of a new vintage? I wonder amount the myths/rumors etc that KONICA may have changed there design a wee bit; from when first introduced.....

It is an easy matter to re adjust the rangefinder's infinity setting and cam length/system gain...

But the change of the lens cam's pitch would be costly if hard tooled...; but maybe easy if on a programable line......

Just stabbing in the dark; regards Kelly

-- Kelly P. Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), June 07, 2002.

This "question" contains considerable technical information that simply tends to fly right over my head.

However, I tend to take a very simple approach to this issue.

Rarely do I find rangefinders to be accurate. This is especially true for vintage units. I just had to have one adjusted on an antique Mamiya 6 folder, and I suspect It will be close, but not right on. Even the rangefinder image is so small that no one could get it exactly precise.

You really need to rely on SLR for precise focus!

My rule of thumb with rangefinders has become: make heavy use of the depth of field scale (zone focus), use the rangefinder only as a guide, and never use the camera at its wide-open aperture, unless you've thoroughly tested the rangefinder's accuracy (and your ability to match the double image exactly).

My Leicas seem quite good, however! ;>)

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), June 07, 2002.

...You really need to rely on SLR for precise focus! ...

Todd... actually, for wider lenses, from say 50mm down, the RF is more accurate than the manually focused SLR, even those with focuing aids like split image.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), June 08, 2002.

Sait,

I will first answer by another question:

How do you explain my only M-Hexanon lens (90mm f/2.8) does focus perfectly as do my 35 Summicron and my 135 mm Tele-Elmar ?

My best guess is there may be a problem of cam profile which IMHO was then rectified on newer lenses or some Hexanon lenses were built to inaccurate specifications or tolerance originally.

My RF and the 90 mm were bought in France last year and don't pertain to the early batches... The information here between Hexar RF users doesn't seem to circulate as well as it seems to do in the US so I cannot ascertain there were never any problems of compatibility reported here, but I never saw them reported by a USER on any forum or newsgroup but both the question of rangefinder misalignment and the hypothetic compatibility problems were it seems reported mainly in the US when the earliest batches were received, most of them though seem to have been traced to rangefinder misalignment.

The RF doesn't seem to have been available in France as early and I guess not a single early batch camera was (officially) imported here.

Stephen Gandy states in his site he even remarked a shutter noise level and a sound which were different in early batches than the later ones !

I suppose if something went originally wrong Konica never dare to acknowledge the fact...

Last remark, once a large bunch of SLR's had a standard in common the 42 mm thread mount... No compatibility problem were ever reported between the different brands when you mixed them...

It seems perfectly stupid a brand should adopt the same mount as Leica and deliberately put the things off to render its body incompatible. The best way to sell their own lenses would have been to use a proprietary mount.

I think there mught have been tolerances and cam profile problems early in the Hexar RF production which were then rectified to a full compatibility as many Hexar RF owners of newer batches seem to have encountered no problem at all.

Commercially speaking, it is well known Konica had and has a problem selling their lenses. This can explain why they still stick with a guaranteed compatibility with their lenses only.

At least in France, the Konica lenses are heavily priced when compared to the ones of Cosina without having an equivalent reputation of high optical quality though they are priced much less than the Leica ones of course. The result is second hand excellent Leica lenses are available approximately for the same price a Konica lens is new and for those who want to spend less V-Länder ones are considered not only a better value for money but of superior quality.

So the Konica lens are not sold at an equivalent rate their body is.

I suppose in most countries the same applies.

My best "guesstimate" is they had a production problem at Konica's early in the manufacturing process which was then fixed. With this original problem and with the failure of the negotiations with Leica they wanted to sell their lenses and guard against a potential demand of general exchange of their first batch(es)and did nothing then to claim a real compatibility because of strctly commercial reasons.

Recently, we had a test on this forum which was realized by one of our member which i its second attempt, when conducted with all the necessary rigor showed the result with HIS Hexar RF to be similar to the one obtained with an M body with the same Leica lens (I think a 28 mm). So at least some Hexar RF bodies are indeed Leica compatible... He added his Hexar RF was not from the first batches produced. My own use of my Hexar RF (again not being an early production sample) confrims this point.

Finally both from these tests and from a simple logical point of view, compatibility is the most probable hypothesis and incompatibility something linked to early production samples (both lenses and bodies).

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), June 08, 2002.

François ; I believe your statement is a very wise and probably true RE " I think there (might) have been tolerances and cam profile problems early in the Hexar RF production which were then rectified to a full compatibility as many Hexar RF owners of newer batches seem to have encountered no problem at all. "

Many other early consumer products go thru slight changes at the start of production; to hone the products quality..

In automobiles it happens alot at the introduction of a new car model year..The Ford Falcon arrived in Detroit in the Fall of 1959..Its engine was the Straight Six cylinder 144 cubic inch engine...It was a real dog when pushed hard; and it did not have enough main bearings ; (on the crankshaft.)..My neighbors in Birmingham Michigan had new one in 1959 (pre production/before available to the public)and drove it from Detroit to Kansas City where the engine threw one of its connecting rods thru the cast iron cylinder block....The 144 and 170 I-6 engines were redesigned I believe during the first or second year to have 7 main bearings..I rememeber our other neighbors dad was in Ford marketing; I believe they introducted the new engine in the more upscale Ford division of Mercury first; so that the Ford Falcon buyers would believe in the new motor...........Such is marketing............By the spring of 1964 the same engine was used in the new Ford Mustang; with its base engine either a 170 or 200 cubic inch I-6 with 7 main bearings......These where great engines compared to the first types that arrived in the fall of 1959; which had bearing problems......Our neighbor with the bad new engine worked for FORD motor too....it is critical to get products into actual usage to get the last bugs out...Marketing is never going to admit to any problems..

The early Nikon F2's had some really bad problems; but they were quickly fixed too.....

Early TV's here had channel 1 thru 13 on their dials; quickly they changed all sets to 2 thru 13.....,BR>
My vivitar 202 flash ; would melt down when used with NiCads; after 2 warranty returns the new circuit was ok...

Early RC paper I bought in 1970 had its share of problems; the darkness or density varied alot from pack to pack...

Many of the early C and D mount movie camera lenses had some interchange problems; the thread depth would prevent some from fully seating on ones camera..

Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), June 08, 2002.

Franasois, your over simplifying the connection of the Bessa R2 to the SLR's cosina make, there is virturally nothing of the SLR now on the R2's, to say that the body is an SLR body, wheres the mirror an the SLR finder prism. You also should consider rangefiner parralax (not confused with viewfinder parralax). Certain cameras like the Leica CL have less ranefinder parallax the the M4's and 5's which improves focusing acuracy if your eye isnt straight on. Its all about making the best use of what you have. Any lens that I have thats works with my CL at its widest aperture has never produced better results on my M3, dont buy lenses outside the cameras usable range, hence as you have already pointed out Voigtlander doesnt make lenses that cant be used on their cameras. People arent beeing fooled like you seem to imply, I think people know not to use a 75 f1.4 on a Bessa R2 wide open and those that can afford that lens are smart enough to have done some research.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), June 08, 2002.

I just want to clarify one thing: the spec for the Hexar RF is 28.00mm, and that is exactly what MY body measured to when I sent it to Konica for a rangefinder (re)alignment. That is why I find it odd that the evaluation samples sent around in 1999 either have (or are alleged to have) much different body focus (so much that it had to be intentionally different - or the testing methods very flawed).

On the issue of M-Hexanon lenses, you will probably never know what their back focus really is. I interrogated at some length an outside Konica tech who has seen the machine they collimate lenses on (about the size of a Volkswagen bug), and he told me that (1) that machine has specific settings for specific lenses (SLR vs rangefinder) and (2) that the factory in Japan collimates lenses mounts and lens groups (they don't provide replacement elements) so closely that you could interchange whole lens groups and 99.9% of the time never have to recollimate the lens. So what's the number they set the lenses? Your guess.

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

Dear Kelly & Francois, thank you for your comments, to my question. I am in the middle of a very consuming commercial job at the moment. I will email you both next week when I have had a good look at your postings. Cheers.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), June 08, 2002.

Konica is not silent on that point. they simply state the proper focusing is not guaranteed but with M-Hexanon lenses...

Mmm makes you think.

-- allen herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), June 10, 2002.

Allen,
Same as silent. Would you expect Nikon to guarantee the use of Sigma lenses on Nikon bodies? Why should they guarantee use of a competitors products -why should they take that liability?
No reason to wonder.
Cheers,
Niels

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), June 10, 2002.

Niels H. S. Nielsen

Sigma lenses designed for Canons etc,Leica lenses are designed for Leicas not for other brands.The Hexar RF was designed for Hexar lenses.The fact that they will work on other brands does not mean the they will operate correctly and offer the same image quality.It has been pointed out by many on this Forum that they do not ,it would seem to be a question of degrees.To some a slight loss of image quality is of little importance to others it is all important(why buy a Leica in the first place).To those with who have invested in none Leica bodies will of course have a bias view,but commen sense will tell you what is the right body for a brand.Silence maybe golden but it also tells a story...Hexar would have a lot to gain if we all went out and bought their bodies for our Leica lenses.

-- allen herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), June 11, 2002.

Hi Allen,
I basically agree with your arguments.
All I am saying is that manufactures rarely guarantee compatibility with other manufactures products. Leica do not endorse Cosina products, Nikon don't endorse Sigma and Konica do not endorse Leica etc.
I don’t even think Cosina/Voigtlander guarantees use of their lenses on other than their own bodies (but I don’t know for sure).
Exceptions may be companies which make a living from producing items for other products such as Sigma.
I think this is normal behavior from major players -only to guarantee full compatibility with their own products (or business partners such as Leica->Metz).

Common sense may tell us that we should use lens and body from the same manufacturer to ensure maximum compatibility –I agree, but common sense also leads us to question why a manufacturer chooses to make a camera and a lens series which shares bayonet mount and flange to film specs (which are so close that not even experts can agree if they are within tolerances) w. Leica, if the manufacturer didn’t intend lenses/bodies to be compatible.

If Konica actually intended to make their RF body/lenses to other specs than Leica M, you may as well wonder why they don’t make such a statement (I don’t know if they made such a statement, but I do not think so -or we wouldn’t have this discussion).

Cheers
Niels

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), June 11, 2002.