amateriat
We're all light!
Sara: Assuming it has the 50 f/1.2 lens included, as it should be (but I doubt it at that price), I'd jump for it in a proverbial New York minute.
- Barrett
HELP!!!! Hexar RF or Bessa R2a
- Thread starter SaraZoloft
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 49
- Views 12K
- Barrett
amateriat
We're all light!
That's all well and good...and the results I've gotten my from my Hexen (bodies and glass) needn't be bothered with comparison to the M-mount originator. when it gets down to the prints on the wall, at home or in a gallery, it'll be hard enough for even discerning eyes to tell. There's room for all of this on the planet.
- Barrett
tyrone.s
Well-known
Sorry to the original poster for being somewhat off topic.
Absolutely. And I couldn't agree more - at the end of the day it is printed images that really count. There should be room for all on this planet and my comment wasn't intended to imply anything different.
My comment was simply a reflection on the experience that many people ask about non-Leica rangefinders / equipment and get some sort of 'from the ether' comment / vibe about how such and such a rangefinder is good ... but not a Leica. Or told that something is great, but through the medium of damning/faint praise. An example of what I'm thinking of here can be found in this (now archived) review of the Voigtlander 15/4.5 lens:
"This is a very good, if not excellent lens, with a high level recording capacity on axis and a good one in the field. The details are a bit muddy and miss the clarity that characterizes the current Leica lenses."
http://web.archive.org/web/20061026024950/www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigtl01.html
Uh, yeah ... and what Leica / Leitz 15mm lens would that be? You know what I mean? This is just an example, and sure it serves my argument, and perhaps the author in question just meant that Leica lenses have a different look in general. But it does illustrate the idea how non-Leica gear can be criticised for quite arbitrary reasons. After all if one only want to use Leica lenses then they'll never be shooting at 15mm.
By the by, I was in town the other week and having a coffee before buying more camera equipment and I chanced across a newspaper article about Robert Delpire and his photos concerning the Russian Invasion of Czechoslovakia. All done with an old Exacta and cheap cinema film stock apparently. I'm starting to wonder if I'm a photographer of a gearographer 🙄
Cheers, Tyrone
Absolutely. And I couldn't agree more - at the end of the day it is printed images that really count. There should be room for all on this planet and my comment wasn't intended to imply anything different.
My comment was simply a reflection on the experience that many people ask about non-Leica rangefinders / equipment and get some sort of 'from the ether' comment / vibe about how such and such a rangefinder is good ... but not a Leica. Or told that something is great, but through the medium of damning/faint praise. An example of what I'm thinking of here can be found in this (now archived) review of the Voigtlander 15/4.5 lens:
"This is a very good, if not excellent lens, with a high level recording capacity on axis and a good one in the field. The details are a bit muddy and miss the clarity that characterizes the current Leica lenses."
http://web.archive.org/web/20061026024950/www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigtl01.html
Uh, yeah ... and what Leica / Leitz 15mm lens would that be? You know what I mean? This is just an example, and sure it serves my argument, and perhaps the author in question just meant that Leica lenses have a different look in general. But it does illustrate the idea how non-Leica gear can be criticised for quite arbitrary reasons. After all if one only want to use Leica lenses then they'll never be shooting at 15mm.
By the by, I was in town the other week and having a coffee before buying more camera equipment and I chanced across a newspaper article about Robert Delpire and his photos concerning the Russian Invasion of Czechoslovakia. All done with an old Exacta and cheap cinema film stock apparently. I'm starting to wonder if I'm a photographer of a gearographer 🙄
Cheers, Tyrone
SaraZoloft
Newbie
NO lens - just the body. From KEH to B&H to Craigslist - it's looking like 800-1100 for Hexar and 1100-1400 for Ikon. I did find a 9 condition r2a for 399 on B&H - now THAT looks tempting...
deepwhite
Well-known
I got M7, Hexar RF Limited 2001 & R2A. I don't know about the others, but from my own experience, the photos from the same lens are the same with all three.
It's just how you feel about each one in your hands. THAT, is different. Personally I prefer the Hexar RF Limited 2001, cause I look cool with it.... ;-)
p.s.: no problem with any lenses I have on all three.
It's just how you feel about each one in your hands. THAT, is different. Personally I prefer the Hexar RF Limited 2001, cause I look cool with it.... ;-)
p.s.: no problem with any lenses I have on all three.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I'd completely forgotten about that half-frame Hexar RF, and come to think of it that might be the first picture of it I've ever seen.
This is a small thing, but it's a totally cool thing that Konica did: If you look at a strip of negatives taken with the RF, you'll see a little notch on the side of the frame, that's intended to denote the exact camera that took the picture. You'll see the actual notch on the film gate. This is something that camera makers used to do routinely, or photographers added on themselves so as to make for a unique "signature" for the camera. Konica did this right up to the end, I think.
This is a small thing, but it's a totally cool thing that Konica did: If you look at a strip of negatives taken with the RF, you'll see a little notch on the side of the frame, that's intended to denote the exact camera that took the picture. You'll see the actual notch on the film gate. This is something that camera makers used to do routinely, or photographers added on themselves so as to make for a unique "signature" for the camera. Konica did this right up to the end, I think.
amateriat
We're all light!
KoNikon: I like the notching as well: given that I do have a few other film-burners in the roster here, it's good to have an quick ID of what I shot with what (my Konica Auto S3 has a similar notch, but triangular instead of the Hexar's half-circle).
- Barrett
- Barrett
gilpen123
Gil
I am beginning to GAS on the Hexar, my only concern as always is the contrast of the RF patch. I have the R3a and it's difficult at times to see the patch specially on bright conditions. How is this compared to the Hex?
aizan
Veteran
the rf patch is contrasty and flare-free in bright sunlight, as well as dim houselight.
amateriat
We're all light!
Gil: I've next to never had a problem seeing, and working with, the RF patch on either of my Hexars. The Leicas I've shot with were perhaps a smidgeon more contrasty, but hardly blowing the Hex out of the water. Haven't worked with Bessas quite enough to judge, but I like the ZI's focusing acuity a lot.
- Barrett
- Barrett
Similar threads
- Article
