Re: [Leica] HEXAR RF vs. M5 vs. M6

[Dante A Stella <dante@umich.edu>]

Mark:

Ok... tehehe.

Well, I got the Autoreflex after my dad had taken it to Vietnam (where it was bought
new) and 43 other countries, between 1970 and 1986.  I think that means it went for 16
years before I got it.  It was another 6 before I got it serviced (light seal
disintegration in the finder).  Not bad, considering that everything was still going
mechanically with about 45,000 Kodachromes behind it.  The FT-1 I picked up in 1994,
when it was 11 years old.  No problems until I dropped it and snapped the lens lock In
1997 (thank God not the lens or body focus).

You know, everyone pitches a bitch at how much Hexars and Leicas cost.  How about
this?  In 1970, the Autoreflex T with 57/1.2 ran $365, which is about $1800 now.  I
guess things have gotten a lot cheaper!   Today that lens is pretty $$$ used.  And
worth it.

Cheers
Dante


Mark Rabiner wrote:

> Dante A Stella wrote:
> >
> > Mark Rabiner wrote:
> >
> > > I love this worrying about this "cheapened design and construction" inspiring
> > > the buying and use of a Hexar, a completely unproven camera you wont be able to
> > > get parts for in 4 years and you'll need 'em too.
> > > I imagine we'll see a wave of shooters sick of Leica's famous shoddy
> > > craftsmanship running over to the Konica counter like lemmings!
> > > mark w rabiner
> >
> > Mark -
> >
> >     This comment fits the usual "Leica is so reliable" paean.  Let's put it this
> > way:
> >
> >   1. Electronic shutters don't need regular maintenance like M cameras.  And their
> >      accuracy is phenomencal, and doesn't change as much over time.  I have never
> >      seen a group of people need so much service for so many cameras as this group
> >      gripes about.  And it's a G2 shutter, so it's not some proprietary part.
> >   2. The rangefinder on a Hexar is identically constructed to an M, so why would
> >      you need parts?  Resilvering and recementing prisms is not cost-effective
> >      even with most Leicas.
> >   3. Titanium is a hell of a lot nicer than zinc (and it doesn't bubble).  And
> >      Imron is nicer-feeling than "black chrome"
> >   4. A lot of "cheapened" mechanical items (like frame counters) have been
> >      replaced by electronics in the Hexar - for example, the Hexar RF does its
> >      frame spacing optically - so there are far fewer parts to replace.
> >   5. If their SLR lines are any indication, Konica USA will have parts available
> >      for 15-20 years.  You can still get FT-1 shutters and motors, and it's a 1983
> >      camera.  They still service Autoreflex Ts, which are 32 years old.  And
> >      unlike Leica NJ, service is not expensive or slow.  They still stock parts
> >      for black Hexars (now 14 years old), so why would there be any reason to
> >      believe otherwise about the RF?  Fourteen years from now, we may all be done
> >      with 35mm.  And ask Henning Wulff what he thinks about the reliability of
> >      Konica products.
> >
> > And if this is going to degenerate into one-company-versus-the-next, let's
> > remember who was around first (by 50 years) and who is still in business.  Hint:
> > it's not Ernst Leitz Wetzlar GMBH.
> >
> > Dante
> >
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Dante Stella
>
> Yes Dante! but did you get an FT-1 or Autoreflex ("the lens along is worth the
> price") the month they came out?
> a Nikon 8008 is that an electronic shutter? An FE2 is that one?
> Those are the only shutters of all my cameras I've had to replace in 35 years of
> shooting 4 different camera systems. Maybe an FM shutter.
> markwr
> love that Titanium though!

- --
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dante Stella
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dante