Minolta CLE + CV 40mm 1.4 VS VS Konica Hexar AF

[strumer]

Hi All
A notice from you will help me a lot !
So here I am looking for a good combo for Traveling. I practice film photography for a long time and I already had a Voigtlander Bessa R2 + 40mm f1.4. I sold it because at the time I thought it was a little hard handle, making the focus to take a shot, I could not take a beautiful moments.
I kept my 40mm and now I'd like a little more automatic body to have an aperture priority mode at least.
Then I came across the Konica Hexar AF and Minolta CLE (older, no more parts available but a very good camera if you come across a good model), two very different devices, one with 35mm fixed lens and other semi auto with interchangeable lenses.
So these devices are in the same price range but I can not decide ...
Can you share your experiences / tips with these devices so I can make myself a better idea !!!

If I go for a Minolta I'll never change lenses, i'll keep the 40mm everytime

Thank you all in advance

 

[k__43]

if your main problem is focusing I don't think that automatic exposure helps you much .. get the Hexar: fast and silent

 

[benji77]

I have owned the Hexar AF for about 1.5years, and it competes to be in the bag most of the time amongst my 35mm cameras. It beats the Nikon F100 with my Nikon AF 35/2, the M2 with Summaron 2.8.

Its strengths are-
- Focus speed
- Excellent metering
- Great fast little lens

I took this camera with the Fuji GF670 to a hiking trip in the mountains of Central Asia, and it was a charm. This is by far one the greatest street cameras. Due to the AF capabilities, you can hand this off to people on the street/friends to help you photograph during family outings too. Not something you can do with an M.

 

[strumer]

Well, focusing was my main issue, it took too much time. Now I wonder if I setup my lens on a specific focusing distance If i can get a reasonnable focus distance span with a CV 40mm 1.4 .

 

[k__43]

you could always stop down and/or train and better with pre-guessing the distance (so set the distance before you take the camera to your eye) but I am quite certain you'll never get as fast or accurate at f/2 as with the Hexar.

Also I guess a CLE has not the most visible RF patch in the world and not the widest RF base, which would really help.
I think the best match for a 40/1.4 is the M3 or the Zeiss Ikon (although both don't have 40mm frame lines)
That said .. I managed to get some nice shots with my CL+40/2 combo anyway

 

[Huss]

Also I guess a CLE has not the most visible RF patch in the world and not the widest RF base, which would really help.
I think the best match for a 40/1.4 is the M3 or the Zeiss Ikon (although both don't have 40mm frame lines)

The CLE ( I have two of them) has an extremely bright RF patch that matches any of my new Leicas.
But if the original poster had issues focusing, the 40mm 1.4 lens would not be a good choice if he is shooting wide open. It works great on my CLEs, but I don't have focus issues.

A fantastic match to the CLE would be a 28mm lens. The CLE has maybe the best VF out there for use with a 28, and with its deep depth of field it would be really hard to miss shots.

 

[B-9]

Spend more time learning how to use the camera?

Even those of us who have been shooting RF for years, miss shots, its not the end of the world. But I don't see how you'll get on by avoiding the problem.

Hexar AF it is then.

 

[ulrich.von.lich]

the only weakness of the hexar is its leaf shutter whose top speed is limited to 1/250s. if you use 400iso films, it can be troublesome during the day. the nd filter is a solution but you must offset the exposure as the metering is not ttl (works fine though). the same leaf shutter is on the other hand a benediction for those who like to use flash like me : shutter speed synchronised all the way to 1/250s. plus, the flash system of the hexar is one of the smartest on the market and it allows you to get perfect exposures with any flash unit, provided you know the guide number. the cle uses the ttl flash system like the m7, only a limited range of flash units can be used in ttl mode. one last thing, the cle focuses down to 0.8m while the nokton to 0.7m, meaning the rf focusing is disconnected at some point, which i personally find very annoying. as to pictures, i have spent enough time with both outstanding lenses and preferred the nokton, which is according to me an extraordinary lens in every way, despite what others say.
​

 

[GaryLH]

Have u considered a Contax G or G2 w/ 45f2? The 45 is a very good lens and the G2 is what I used it on. One of my all time favorite combos. I preferred it over my Leica/Minotla CL w/ 40f2.

I always liked the CL over the CLE.. On the CLE, u are basically dead w/o a battery or if the electronic automation gets wonky. U could say the same for the Konica hear af or the Contax g/g2.. However both use more modern electronics..so probability is there just less likely. On the CL, u still have a mechanical camera.

When shooting film my combo for both the CL and G2 was 21 in my pocket, 40ish on the camera..

Gary

Ps.. Forgot to mention..not sure if CL has enough of rf window separation to handle precise focus of the 40f1.4 when wide open.

 

[Huss]

I always liked the CL over the CLE.. On the CLE, u are basically dead w/o a battery or if the electronic automation gets wonky. U could say the same for the Konica hear af or the Contax g/g2.. However both use more modern electronics..so probability is there just less likely. On the CL, u still have a mechanical camera.

Ps.. Forgot to mention..not sure if CL has enough of rf window separation to handle precise focus of the 40f1.4 when wide open.

I have a CL too, as well as the CLEs. The only advantage the CL has is lack of battery dependency. Everything else on the CLE is much nicer, including things like film loading (the back does not have to come off), ttl flash, and much more precise RF focusing due to a wider RF base.
If the batteries do go dead on you, they are the button type available anywhere.

I had no idea the Hexar AF was limited to 1/250 sec. That would be a deal killer for my work. But for the OP the fact that it has AF would be a huge bonus.

 

[GaryLH]

I have had two CLE go wonky on me. One is due to on/off switch the other was erratic meter. Yeah the CLE has more modern back...but I have always felt the Rollie 35 and CL back style backs kept the film flatter..plus for whatever reason, I was just more comfortable w/ the CL.

Anyway..if u find a CLE in good condition, it really is a good camera. I have been told some of the CLE electronics came from the same era Minolta slr cameras, so if u are lucky u could cannibalize from the slr side to fix issues later.

Gary

 

[strumer]

Many thanks for all your comments guyz, I will take a look on a contax G2 as well. Regarding this Contax g2, can somebody tell me more about the lenses quality ?

 

[strumer]

And what about the voigtlander Bessa R3a? Does it have a good in camera meter ? can he compete with the CLE?

Many thanks

 

[Pherdinand]

Well, focusing was my main issue, it took too much time. Now I wonder if I setup my lens on a specific focusing distance If i can get a reasonnable focus distance span with a CV 40mm 1.4 .

only if you stop the lens down to f/8 or so. But then what's the point of an f/1.4 lens (size, cost etc)?
The CLE is probably also not the best in general, to focus a lens at f/1.4- might be not sufficiently accurate.

The hexar is really, really good.
I rarely use anything else film than the hexar AF and the Bessa r3a for 50+90mm lenses (the Bessa has a 1:1 mag vf)
If you need 35mm, the Hexar is great and nobody- NOBODY- will focus faster any manual focus camera than the hexar motor. Yes with plenty of light and small apertures you can preset other lenses, but when the Sun goes down the Hexar keeps focusing, when the lights go off the Hexar keeps focusing, when the candles are blown the Hexar...ok you get the point

 

[Pherdinand]

I see now you ask about the bessa r3a.. i love the r3a as you can see from my previous comment, but it's not very handy for wide lenses. 40 still fits in the VF, though. It has a great finder, and quite easy to use (also to focus), but again, quite slower in use compared to the hexar af.

 

[GaryLH]

Many thanks for all your comments guyz, I will take a look on a contax G2 as well. Regarding this Contax g2, can somebody tell me more about the lenses quality ?

The Contax g series lenses are zeiss designed made in Japan. I found them to be very good. The 45 maybe the best of the bunch. I would say it may have been better than Leica 50 sumicron pre asph. Never had the asph version, so can't say about that. The lenses are a modern af design, sharp w/ good micro contrast. Since was designed to be used as an af lens, there is no distance or dof info on the lens, just the aperture ring.

Gary

 

[GaryLH]

Found YouTube video about g2 vs m6 vs hexar af

Found YouTube video about g2 vs m6 vs hexar af

http://youtu.be/-GfrC20nd9A

Gary

 

[Palaeoboy]

Voigtlander Bessa R2 + 40mm f1.4. I sold it because at the time I thought it was a little hard handle, making the focus to take a shot, I could not take a beautiful moments. I kept my 40mm and now I'd like a little more automatic body to have an aperture priority mode at least.

I think the time needed to take a photo and the accuracy of framing can impact on what is achieved in the end results. The R2 without 40mm framelines meant you were compromised there from the off. Also with your mention of aperture priority suggests the all manual exposure setup suggests that that process combined with focus was just a bit too involved and lengthy for you personally. Some relish it and enjoy the intricacies of that in their picture taking but for some it can become tedious and compromise other aspects of their photography when they would rather concentrate on composure and/or focus. The aperture priority of the CLE and R3a does speed things up dramatically and allows you to always keep your eye to the viewfinder.

Also I guess a CLE has not the most visible RF patch in the world and not the widest RF base, which would really help. I think the best match for a 40/1.4 is the M3 or the Zeiss Ikon (although both don't have 40mm frame lines) That said .. I managed to get some nice shots with my CL+40/2 combo anyway

As has been pointed out the CLE patch is every bit as good and bright as the patch in the Leica Ms. its well above that you see in Canons and also better than that of the CL. (Handy Tip - For some reason the rangefinder patch window on CLs and CLEs is never as well cleaned or maintained as those by M users. Because of their small size, fingers and their accompanying grease and dirt seem to religiously find its way into the tiny rangefinder patch windows. So if your looking through either of these compact M mount cameras for the first time get a tissue and clean out the gunk that collects there. The CL in particular with its tiny recessed one can often have its patch brightness improved dramatically from this 1 minute clean.)

I must disagree with that an Ikon or M3 is better with a 40mm lens. 35mm framelines are a workaround but you always feel a vague sense of what you are framing and trying to compensate in your mind. No camera is better at using a 40mm lens than the CLE. With its complimentary 28mm framelines you get a brilliant wide view around the 40mm lines which assists in composure and advantages of seeing the periphery just outside the frame.

And what about the voigtlander Bessa R3a? Does it have a good in camera meter ? can he compete with the CLE?

The Bessa R3a while good and would be my second choice for a 40mm lens. its crammed 40mm lines are no match for that with the overall great viewfinder of the CLE.

Anyway..if u find a CLE in good condition, it really is a good camera. I have been told some of the CLE electronics came from the same era Minolta slr cameras, so if u are lucky u could cannibalize from the slr side to fix issues later.

Unfortunately this is a myth. Not only being a rangefnder and as such having no mirror mechanisms the CLE was the only Minolta that had off the film plane light metering. While other Minoltas had off the film plane flash metering the regular metering with its white speckled curtains was totally unique to the CLE and as such the electronics needed to operate the system are different to that of any other Minolta. Interestingly Minolta sold the technology to Olympus which can be seen in some of their OM SLRs of around the same period.

Ps.. Forgot to mention..not sure if CL has enough of rf window separation to handle precise focus of the 40f1.4 when wide open.

This is a good question as the immediate thought is with a narrow Effective Base Length (EBL) can a CL or CLE focus such a fast lens accurately? I will put it in perspective this way. The CL was designed to be able to focus a 50mm F2 and had framelines included for this lens. Thats pretty much at its limit. When you consider a 40mm f1.4 is one stop faster it however is also one step wider. So the accuracy needed to focus both lenses is similar. Naturally with both more care and concentration is needed at distances under a metre. A CL with a 40mm f1.4 is a really fun and stout looking combo. With that in mind when we consider a CLE, it has 50% greater EBL than a CL so a 40m f1.4 is well within its capabilities and with its larger and brighter patch its even easier to do so. The CLE has a bit of a cult following in Japan and when the decision was made to build the 40mm f1.4 it had CLE users in their sights as well as for their own R3a also introduced in 2004

I always liked the CL over the CLE.. On the CLE, u are basically dead w/o a battery or if the electronic automation gets wonky.

Its often the first thing people often jump too that say if the battery goes flat the camera wont work and while technically true its a very misleading statement often made. The CLE is so frugal with with power usage that it takes years to drain a set. I change the batteries every couple of years but they are still fully functioning when I do, i just do it as routine. A CLE has a battery life some ten times greater than that of an M7 and it only uses half as many batteries. Its actually quite bizarre how long they last. I think it has alot to do with the touch activation button Minolta used at the time. The meter switches off as soon as you lift your finger off while others have a time out period where they stay on for a certain period ever wasting power. With the CLE it takes a few seconds to meter and set aperture and then its off again. So never fear batteries with a CLE! (But use silver oxide ones rather than Alkaline if you can)

The wonky meter is a valid criticism of the CLE. I would consider it the top of the issues that this camera has. So its often said that CLs when the meter fails you sill have a camera. What people dont realise in fact is when the wonky meter problem occurs it rarely has a flow on effect to the shutter and as such it works fine at all its manual speeds just like a CL would! It just requires the batteries to remain in it. So all is not lost as may first seem.

the only weakness of the hexar is its leaf shutter whose top speed is limited to 1/250s.

Ulrichs point is very well made with the Hexar AF. And like with Huss that would be a deal breaker for me. Often when I find film on the fly 400 is all I can get and the top of 1/1000th in a CLE has proven very average.

Have u considered a Contax G or G2 w/ 45f2? The 45 is a very good lens and the G2 is what I used it on. One of my all time favorite combos.

Even though I believe you will improve upon your results and speed up the procedure with a semi auto CLE over R2 and make framing alot easier the fact is that both are still manual rangefinder focusing and in that respect im not entirely certain that that side of things will improve much for you moving onto a CLE. I agree with Gary that based on what you have told us that a G2 with is marvellous 45mm lens may be the camera for you. HOWEVER and the one thing that would pull me back towards choosing a CLE over the Contax in this unique situation is that you already have the 40mm f1.4! On a CLE that lens is a formidable compact picture taking tool. If you own a CLE I always suggest users have a try of that camera/lens combination. Some even sell off their native f2s as they find they stop using them altogether. So while a G2 is one suggestion Im also in favour of you trying a CLE since you already have the lens. Prices of bodies of CLEs have remained stable and have even gone down in the past few years so they can be had for 300 to 400 USD for a really good one. Maybe better framelines and the aperture priority auto is the step up you need to concentrate more on your focusing and you will start achieving the better photos you are longing for. If not such a combo would be snapped up by many in the classifieds here, then you can have assured yourself that an manual focus rangefinder system is definitely not for you and use the money from that to get yourself a nice Contax G2

Sorry for the length of my post, I hope that is helpful.

 

[B-9]

G1 is as cheap as a good meal.

45 Planar, now that's gonna cost you.

There is a kit like this for sale in the classifieds here actually.

Love the Contax G series, the bodies are a little finicky, but the glass...oh the glass.

Manual focus is a bit of a pain, but it does lend itself more to scale focus at large aperture.

I think this would be an excellent compromise for you, sell the Nokton, get the Planar.

 

[strumer]

Many Thanks for all those precious comments.
I think I've made up my mind and I will go for a CLE.
I will try with the combo CLE + 40mm f1.4.
The issue now is to find a CLE in good working order...