Huck Finn
Well-known
Are you the same Kevin M who wrote the posts about the Hexar RF in the photo.net thread linked below under the name of Kevin Mendenhall?
If so, I congratulate you; if not this link is worth a read. I thought that Kevin Mendenhall's explanation of the issues of the back focus issues claimed for the Hexar RF was the best I had read. He is in a position to know of what he writes. Like the ZI, this Konica product also seemed to have some issues with a delicate rangefinder prone to misalignment - although I'm not sure that this is the worst thing in the world.
The comment regarding the poor match of the low magnification Hexar RF viewfinder for use with 90 & 75 mm lenses was particularly insightful. Poor results with these lenses was probably mostly due to this & to Konica's marketing which failed to explain that this was not the best instrument for longer lenses - especially at wider apertures & closer distances. It's a camera which should have been targeted to wide angle use or should have been offered with the option of a higher magnification viewfinder.
www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ar7f
As with the Zeiss Ikon, I think that many of the problems with the Hexar RF were greatly exaggerated.
If so, I congratulate you; if not this link is worth a read. I thought that Kevin Mendenhall's explanation of the issues of the back focus issues claimed for the Hexar RF was the best I had read. He is in a position to know of what he writes. Like the ZI, this Konica product also seemed to have some issues with a delicate rangefinder prone to misalignment - although I'm not sure that this is the worst thing in the world.
The comment regarding the poor match of the low magnification Hexar RF viewfinder for use with 90 & 75 mm lenses was particularly insightful. Poor results with these lenses was probably mostly due to this & to Konica's marketing which failed to explain that this was not the best instrument for longer lenses - especially at wider apertures & closer distances. It's a camera which should have been targeted to wide angle use or should have been offered with the option of a higher magnification viewfinder.
www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ar7f
As with the Zeiss Ikon, I think that many of the problems with the Hexar RF were greatly exaggerated.
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
Yes, that's me. I'd forgotten about how often that subject would come up on the Leica forum there. Whew!
What I miss about working in the motion picture industry is that there's very little of the brand snobbery we see so often on still photography forums. It could be because every lens from every manufacturer is available in a common mount (PL) with a common flange focal depth of 52mm, so direct comparisons are very easy.
What made Put's comments about not mixing camera/lens brands so funny to me is because that's the very basis of the motion picture gear industry. You can, for example, have the original bayonet lens mount from your 30-year old Eclair NPR or Arriflex BL replaced with a PL mount, then rent any modern lens from any rental house in the country and be assured that it will work, provided the camera and lens are within spec. And for the camera body, all that's required to keep it in spec is to measure the FFD regularly, and shim it if necessary. That's it.
And FWIW, there's an entire cottage industry in SoCal that converts off-the-shelf still camera lenses to PL mount for use on movie cameras. In the shop where I worked, I recall that we had a Nikon 6mm fisheye, two full sets of Canon's Tilt and Shift lenses (24-90) and several Canon telephoto lenses in PL mount. Every lens in the house from every manufacturer worked with every body from every manufacturer.
Huck Finn
Well-known
I was guessing that the odds would be against 2 "Kevin M's" speaking knowledgably on the same niche subject.
Kevin, with all the complaints we've seen about misaligned rangefinders, I wonder if you can shed any light on how serious a problem it is to have a mislaigned rangefinder, given your knowledge & expertise.
I know that one can still focus a lens with a misaligned rangefinder. Of course it depends on the focal length & the subject distance as to how significant the issue will be. It also depends on how far off the alignment is. I'm guessing that a slightly misaligned rangefinder can probably be ignored - not that I wouldn't get it fixed if the camera was under warranty & I could do it for free. My understanding also is that vertical misalignment is of little consequence while horizontal misalignment can be a significant problem depending on the degree of misalignment. I would also think that misalignment problems are much more significant on a short base rangefinder like a Bessa or CL than they would be on a long base finder like the ZI. Here I think that size does matter. As much as magnification helps, my guess is that small adjustment problems can be more easily tolerated if there is a longer base to begin with.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Huck
Kevin, with all the complaints we've seen about misaligned rangefinders, I wonder if you can shed any light on how serious a problem it is to have a mislaigned rangefinder, given your knowledge & expertise.
I know that one can still focus a lens with a misaligned rangefinder. Of course it depends on the focal length & the subject distance as to how significant the issue will be. It also depends on how far off the alignment is. I'm guessing that a slightly misaligned rangefinder can probably be ignored - not that I wouldn't get it fixed if the camera was under warranty & I could do it for free. My understanding also is that vertical misalignment is of little consequence while horizontal misalignment can be a significant problem depending on the degree of misalignment. I would also think that misalignment problems are much more significant on a short base rangefinder like a Bessa or CL than they would be on a long base finder like the ZI. Here I think that size does matter. As much as magnification helps, my guess is that small adjustment problems can be more easily tolerated if there is a longer base to begin with.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Huck
kevin m
Veteran
Huck, I don't have any training with respect to rangefinders so I don't have any expertise to share, just my obervations as a rangefinder user.
I think nearly every rangefinder camera I've owned has displayed a slight vertical misalignment at some point or another, and it doesn't seem to matter as the vertical axis doesn't seem to have much effect of the rangefinder's ability to measure distance. There were a couple of lens/body combinations I've owned that didn't quite line up horizontally at infinity, either, but even that had no ill effect on close-focus accuracy - which is more critical - so I ignored it. By "more critical" I mean that at infinity, you can simply turn the lens to its infinity stop and ignore the 'advice' the rangefinder is giving you, but unless you have the camera locked down on a tripod and have a tape measure handy, you can't really do that at closer distances.
Rangefinders are weird beasts to get used to after shooting SLR's anyway. It took me a l-o-n-g time to figure out that the 'misalignment' of the image I thought I was seeing in the rangefinder patch when focusing on near objects is simply because you're looking at the object from two slightly different 'positions' when using a rangefinder. D'oh!
I think nearly every rangefinder camera I've owned has displayed a slight vertical misalignment at some point or another, and it doesn't seem to matter as the vertical axis doesn't seem to have much effect of the rangefinder's ability to measure distance. There were a couple of lens/body combinations I've owned that didn't quite line up horizontally at infinity, either, but even that had no ill effect on close-focus accuracy - which is more critical - so I ignored it. By "more critical" I mean that at infinity, you can simply turn the lens to its infinity stop and ignore the 'advice' the rangefinder is giving you, but unless you have the camera locked down on a tripod and have a tape measure handy, you can't really do that at closer distances.
Rangefinders are weird beasts to get used to after shooting SLR's anyway. It took me a l-o-n-g time to figure out that the 'misalignment' of the image I thought I was seeing in the rangefinder patch when focusing on near objects is simply because you're looking at the object from two slightly different 'positions' when using a rangefinder. D'oh!
Huck Finn
Well-known
Thanks for your thoughts, Kevin. Much appreciated.
Olsen
Well-known
- It is the Leica which has a 'Praktika shutter'! Not the ZI. The ZI shutter is a modern construction of today with magnets activating the shutter curtains - like on the M8. While all film Leicas has this old fashioned spring activated cloth shutter that will give you 100.000 exposers before it has to be changed - at best. The magnet operated ZI shutter should equal the service life of most modern SLRs today, which is more like 250.000 exposures.Solinar said:
Leica isn't reliable. Just expensive.
Last edited:
Olsen
Well-known
Again, I make this conclusion:
1)
Don't leave your ZI in your car! The rubber lining will not take temperatures above 120 degrees. Then it melts, as we ca see. (- how else could it melt?)
2)
Don't pull too hard in the ISO knob, it might come off.
Again I compare these two: My Leica MP, made in 2004 (possibly 2003) which already have had both it's cloth shutter and vulcanite (or whatever it is) cover replaced, - except for having it's viewfinder and shutter adjusted. The black paint seems very similar to the ZI and is somewhat more worn. No wonder; it is older.
I compare it with my 10 months old ZI which has a much more durable and advanced shutter, - just the same quality paint job, and this rubber lining - which on mine is in perfect order. So far. That is, for what I see I would be careful not to store it in a hot place, - in a car or a sun lit window sill, because the rubber lining wo'nt take it.
1)
Don't leave your ZI in your car! The rubber lining will not take temperatures above 120 degrees. Then it melts, as we ca see. (- how else could it melt?)
2)
Don't pull too hard in the ISO knob, it might come off.
Again I compare these two: My Leica MP, made in 2004 (possibly 2003) which already have had both it's cloth shutter and vulcanite (or whatever it is) cover replaced, - except for having it's viewfinder and shutter adjusted. The black paint seems very similar to the ZI and is somewhat more worn. No wonder; it is older.
I compare it with my 10 months old ZI which has a much more durable and advanced shutter, - just the same quality paint job, and this rubber lining - which on mine is in perfect order. So far. That is, for what I see I would be careful not to store it in a hot place, - in a car or a sun lit window sill, because the rubber lining wo'nt take it.
