Konica Hexar vs. Nikon 35Ti?
Monsieur X
Does anyone have any epxerience with either units? Which one is
a better buy for a beginner?
Thanks!
P.S. When will the new Hexar be put into prodution again?
David Kohn
the Hexar is a far more versatile camera, but may be somewhat confusing
for a beginner. it *can* be used like a simple point and shoot if you
keep it in "p" mode, but why bother if that's all you plan to do.
--
El Rio Santa Cruz Health Center (Tucson, AZ)
Human Resources Office <hir...@elrio.org>
Please direct personal email to:
David Kohn, Chairman of the Bored
<ojov...@null.net>
view with monospaced font
,,,
(o o)
oOO (_) OOo
...if time is a mental process, how can thousands
of men--or even two different men--share it?
<Jorge Luis Borges `A New Refutation of Time`>
...Since you are what you eat, eventually every
vegetarian turns cannibal.
<`The Last International`>
...the horses look the same and the people a little worse...
<Charles Bukowski `Non-Horseshit Horse Advice`
Kathleen Lytle
David Kohn (ojov...@null.net) wrote:
: the Hexar is a far more versatile camera, but may be somewhat confusing
: for a beginner. it *can* be used like a simple point and shoot if you
: keep it in "p" mode, but why bother if that's all you plan to do.
Because maybe you want a little room for growth. And then there's that
wonderful lens.
Alan Jay Dion
The Hexar is a bit difficult to use in certain situations but
the lens is extraordinary. The Nikon is smaller. I haven't
used the Nikon so I don't want to be too opinionated but I
would go with the Hexar. I get amazing results with the
Hexar when I use it within it's limitations, the major one
being a 250th top shutter speed.
Alan
Monsieur X <cal...@umich.edu> wrote in article
<5dqdjv$i...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>...
Anil Trivedi
Sorry to raise a very dumb question, just exactly what kind
of camera hexar is? SLR, rangefinder, PS? What features and
price range? I dont seem to be able to locate it in my
buide which probably should be thrown away...
Anil
TustinE
Amen!
Nigel Cliffe
A high quality fixed focal length 35mm compact. Not SLR. Manual override
of sensible automatic features. Leaf shutter. Very good F2 lens. Weight
around 450gms. Designed for those with an interest in photography. Price
on the street in the US is around $450-$550, though some of the special
edition variants have silly prices.
Very thorough review at:
http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/photo/hexar.html
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe, BTL Martlesham Heath Ipswich UK ncl...@hfnet.bt.co.uk
Opinions my own, not my employers.
Pedro Vasconcelos
Anil Trivedi wrote:
> Sorry to raise a very dumb question, just exactly what kind
> of camera hexar is? SLR, rangefinder, PS? What features and
> price range? I dont seem to be able to locate it in my
The Hexar is a compact camera with a fixed 35mm f2.0 lens.
You can call it a "point-and-shoot" (and use it like one, if you like);
however the Hexar is much more sofisticated than most other p&s:
-- it features an excelent 35mm f2.0 lens (based on the Leica Summicron
design!)
-- it allows full exposure control: aperture priority (from f2.0 to f22
in 1/2 stops), mettered manual (shutter from 30s to 1/250 in 1/3
stops)
or program mode
-- in manual mode the camera uses spot mettering; otherwise, it uses
center-weighted mettering
-- it allows focusing lock, exposure lock and manual focusing
-- it has a hot-shoe for external flash (only)
-- it has a threaded-filter mount
-- it has a silent-mode that makes the camera virtually inaudible,
both shooting and rewinding (ie., you could use in a classic music
recital)
it *is* even quieter than the Leica M6!
All in all the Hexar is pretty much an autofocus, automatic Leica M6
with
the 35mm "glued" together --- mind you, not a bad combination: many
photojournalists use just such a combo.
I don't know the price in the US (I bought mine here in Europe, were it
is more expensive :-{) but should be around $500-$1000 depending on
model
(there are some date-back and "special finish" versions that differ
very little in features).
You may wish to check the excelent user review by R. Caruana on
photo.net.
Best wishes,
Pedro Vasconcelos.
Huy-Lan Phan
TustinE wrote:
>
> Amen!
??????
--
********************************************************
Huy-Lan Phan, Eng. Hlan...@post.sygma.net
Consultant CS&M
Bell Sygma Telecom Solutions
700 de la Gauchetiere W. Montreal Quebec Canada H3B-4L1
********************************************************
Monsieur X
> it *is* even quieter than the Leica M6!
>All in all the Hexar is pretty much an autofocus, automatic Leica M6
>with
>the 35mm "glued" together --- mind you, not a bad combination: many
>photojournalists use just such a combo.
Has anyone done any comparison between the pictures taken by a
Hexar and a M6?
goldoil
If a lot of the visitors to this newsgroup would just toss out their SLRs
and buy a Hexar other fine rangefinder, they'd get much better image
quality with much less fuss and muss.
nepcflow
Monsieur X wrote:
> Has anyone done any comparison between the pictures taken by a
> Hexar and a M6?
Yes I do, Hexar take excellent picture, M6 take no picture without a
lens.
don ferrario
=nepcflow <nepc...@world.std.com> wrote in article
<330609...@world.std.com>...
actually.... M6 without lens does take picture, but
very boring grey image - darkness depends on shutter
speed....
Kathleen Lytle
goldoil (gol...@axionet.com) wrote:
: If a lot of the visitors to this newsgroup would just toss out their SLRs
: and buy a Hexar other fine rangefinder, they'd get much better image
: quality with much less fuss and muss.
But if we did that, we'd be out taking pictures instead of hanging out
here getting into silly arguments over equipment and minutia. You're
talking about the end of life as we know it! ;-)
Pedro Baltazar Valconcelos
Monsieur X (cal...@umich.edu) wrote:
: > it *is* even quieter than the Leica M6!
: >All in all the Hexar is pretty much an autofocus, automatic Leica M6
: >with
: >the 35mm "glued" together --- mind you, not a bad combination: many
: >photojournalists use just such a combo.
: Has anyone done any comparison between the pictures taken by a
: Hexar and a M6?
Interesting thought such a comparation might be, I don't
think it would matter much: you could compare the Hexar
with an M6+35mm Summicron, but... no matter what the
conclusion were you wouldn't change anyone from buying/using
any of the two cameras.
Even if the Hexar proves to be as good as the M6, people
would not trade it for an Hexar 'cause of the need for
interchangeble lens; and Hexar owners (like myself) would
not rush and buy an M6 if the heard it was better 'cause
of the price difference...
All you might do with such a comparation if the
Hexar proved a solid performer, as I think it would,
is to get some M6 owners to consider buying an Hexar
as well....
--
---
Pedro Vasconcelos email: p...@ncc.up.pt
Centro de Informatica da Universidade do Porto
R. Campo Alegre 823 Tel.:351-2-6001672
4150 PORTO / PORTUGAL Fax.:351-2-6003654
Christophe Birkeland
In article <5ec5h2$u...@khabala.ncc.up.pt>, pbv@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE
(Pedro Baltazar Valconcelos) writes:
|> Monsieur X (cal...@umich.edu) wrote:
|> : Has anyone done any comparison between the pictures taken by a
|> : Hexar and a M6?
<CUT a lot>
|> All you might do with such a comparation if the
|> Hexar proved a solid performer, as I think it would,
|> is to get some M6 owners to consider buying an Hexar
|> as well....
Mmm.. OTOH, why would you buy a Hexar if you already have the
M6 and 35mm Summicron combination ?
(I don't think the Hexar will surpass the Summicron,
and if you have Leica optics, you will stick with Leica to keep
the same color rendition etc... on all of your photos.... I think :-)
-christophe in real life: Christophe Rene Birkeland
Department of Physics, 7034 NTNU Trondheim, Norway
Email: bir...@phys.unit.no, Phone: +47 73 59 38 80
FAX: +47 73 59 36 28, Homephone: +47 73 93 95 20
Simon Ogilvie
In article u...@khabala.ncc.up.pt, pbv@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Pedro Baltazar Valconcelos) writes:
>Interesting thought such a comparation might be, I don't
>think it would matter much: you could compare the Hexar
>with an M6+35mm Summicron, but... no matter what the
>conclusion were you wouldn't change anyone from buying/using
>any of the two cameras.
>Even if the Hexar proves to be as good as the M6, people
>would not trade it for an Hexar 'cause of the need for
>interchangeble lens; and Hexar owners (like myself) would
>not rush and buy an M6 if the heard it was better 'cause
>of the price difference...
Although I tend to agree with you, I think the comparison is still valid
as a new Hexar would be comparible in price with, for example, a secondhand
Leica CL, M2, M3 or Minolta CLE, with a 35mm Summicron. People have stated
that the Hexar lens is based on a Leica design and is as good as many Leica
lenses. On the other hand one notable poster has stated that he believes
the lens on the Ricoh GR-1 is better than the Hexar's, which by extrapolation
implies that the lens on the GR-1 would outperform a Leica M6 (or whatever)
fitted with the 35mm Summicron! Is this a fair assumption?
Simon.
---
______________________________________________________
Simon Ogilvie - UNIX Systems Supervisor
Ericsson Data Ltd., Guildford, UK
si...@guildford.ericsson.se
Paul Rubin
In article <5ecosm$l...@newstoo.ericsson.se>,
Simon Ogilvie <si...@guildford.ericsson.se> wrote:
>Although I tend to agree with you, I think the comparison is still valid
>as a new Hexar would be comparible in price with, for example, a secondhand
>Leica CL, M2, M3 or Minolta CLE, with a 35mm Summicron. People have stated
>that the Hexar lens is based on a Leica design and is as good as many Leica
>lenses. On the other hand one notable poster has stated that he believes
>the lens on the Ricoh GR-1 is better than the Hexar's, which by extrapolation
>implies that the lens on the GR-1 would outperform a Leica M6 (or whatever)
>fitted with the 35mm Summicron! Is this a fair assumption?
It's not outlandish. The GR-1 has one of the highest tech lenses ever
made, with matched aspheric elements, and a 7-element design whose
rear element comes so close to the focal plane that a reviewer noted
it's in serious danger of colliding with the film. The M lenses
can't get as close because of the M cameras' focal plane shutter
(SLR's have to stay even further away because of the mirror box).
The GR-1 designers seem to have used every optical trick in the
book and some new ones besides. It sounds like a fantastic camera.
I'd be tempted to buy one, but I'd feel limited with a fixed length
28mm lens, plus it's expensive. I'd really like a P+S with a 24-70 zoom.
David Rosen
: In article <5ec5h2$u...@khabala.ncc.up.pt>, pbv@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE
: (Pedro Baltazar Valconcelos) writes:
: |> Monsieur X (cal...@umich.edu) wrote:
: |> : Has anyone done any comparison between the pictures taken by a
: |> : Hexar and a M6?
: <CUT a lot>
: |> All you might do with such a comparation if the
: |> Hexar proved a solid performer, as I think it would,
: |> is to get some M6 owners to consider buying an Hexar
: |> as well....
Well that is certainly my brother's situation.
He uses M-leicas, incl M-6, and I use Hexars.
While he has begun seriously asking about the
Hexars, the Hexar would not directly displace
his M-6. OTOH, it could indirectly put one
of the Leicas up for sale since he would be
less dependent on the Leicas for certain work
and might use one of them to finance a lens
for his Mamiya or something like that. The
Hexar would cause a shift in priorities with
a possible chain reaction, but it would not
simply bump out an M-leica.
David Rosen go...@various.sites.newt
Nick Silva
Um, your argument suggests that the closer the lens is to the film plane,
the better it must be...this is, of course, nonsense.
If you read the review again, the rear element of the lens almost collides
with the film _when the camera is OFF and the lens retracted_. It is quite
a normal distance when the camera is on. The M lenses have no need to be
this close because the lenses do not retract. Also, the focal plane shutter
of an M6 is not very far from the film plane.
I haven't run any tests of the GR1 lens, but I seriously doubt whether it
would be as good as a Leica Summicron. The same review which you refer to
(I'm assuming pop Photo) states that the lens is excellent by point and
shoot standards, which means that they use a different standard for those
lenses as opposed to full size, and suggests that by full size standards
the lens is merely good.
Nick Silva
In article <5ec8u8$p...@due.unit.no>, bir...@phys.unit.no (Christophe
Birkeland) wrote:
> Mmm.. OTOH, why would you buy a Hexar if you already have the
> M6 and 35mm Summicron combination ?
To carry around a cheaper camera in situations I might not want to carry
the M6. At least that's what I was thinking. Unfortunately, the kind of
work I do with the camera requires easy manual focusing without looking
thru the VF, and the Hexar fails miserably in this area (as do all the
other AF cameras, I'm not just singling out Konica)
Nick Silva
________________________________________________________________________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
n...@inamess.vip.best.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Simon Ogilvie
In article ya02328000190...@nntp.best.com, n...@inamess.vip.best.com (Nick Silva) writes:
>In article <phrE5t...@netcom.com>, p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
>> It's not outlandish. The GR-1 has one of the highest tech lenses ever
>> made, with matched aspheric elements, and a 7-element design whose
>> rear element comes so close to the focal plane that a reviewer noted
>> it's in serious danger of colliding with the film. The M lenses
>> can't get as close because of the M cameras' focal plane shutter
>> (SLR's have to stay even further away because of the mirror box).
>> The GR-1 designers seem to have used every optical trick in the
>> book and some new ones besides. It sounds like a fantastic camera.
>> I'd be tempted to buy one, but I'd feel limited with a fixed length
>> 28mm lens, plus it's expensive. I'd really like a P+S with a 24-70 zoom.
>
>Um, your argument suggests that the closer the lens is to the film plane,
>the better it must be...this is, of course, nonsense.
Not entirely. It is easier to design a "true" wide-angle lens (as opposed
to a reverse telephoto type of wide-angle) if the rear element can be very
close to the film. A good example of this is the 43mm Mamiya lens for the
Mamiya 7 which is a rectilinear super-wide and shows almost no curvature
of field at all. It's rear element is only a few mm away from the film
which would be out of the question with a 6x7 SLR.
>If you read the review again, the rear element of the lens almost collides
>with the film _when the camera is OFF and the lens retracted_. It is quite
>a normal distance when the camera is on. The M lenses have no need to be
>this close because the lenses do not retract. Also, the focal plane shutter
>of an M6 is not very far from the film plane.
True...
>I haven't run any tests of the GR1 lens, but I seriously doubt whether it
>would be as good as a Leica Summicron. The same review which you refer to
>(I'm assuming pop Photo) states that the lens is excellent by point and
>shoot standards, which means that they use a different standard for those
>lenses as opposed to full size, and suggests that by full size standards
>the lens is merely good.
I was of the understanding (not having read that particular issue of PP as
it is not easy to get hold of here in the UK) that they said it compared
very favourably with good SLR prime lenses. This would mean that it should
compete against the equivalent Leica lenses would it not?
The question of which camera has the better lens still stands then - the
GR-1, Hexar or one of the Leica offerings.
Simon.
David Bindle
In article <nms-ya023280001...@nntp.best.com>
>To carry around a cheaper camera
in situations I might not want to carry>the M6. At least that's what I was
thinking. Unfortunately, the kind of>work I do with the camera requires easy
manual focusing without looking>thru the VF, and the Hexar fails miserably in
this area (as do all the>other AF cameras, I'm not just singling out Konica)
>Nick Silva
So... if you're not looking thru the view finder, can we assume you're
guessing the distance and setting your focus by looking at the distance
scale on the lens? If so... why would the Hexar fail miserable in this area?
Just switch to manual focus and push the up/down buttons till the LCD or the
scale on the lens (choice!) indicates the focusing distance you want! It
should work as well or better!
Also... if you are shooting subjects at short distances, quickly, without
looking through the viewfinder, I would think that the Hexars autofocus would
be quite a blessing. You could push the shutter release halfway, glance down
at the camera to check what the distance scale indicates on the camera lens is
in the ballpark with your estimation... and fire! The Hexar's autofocus
singles out a central small area, not like other P/S's which have several
covering a large area. Wherever you point the Hexar is where its going to
focus.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the Hexar would make even
more sense to me for you to use than the M6 for the purposes you describe
above. Especially when coupled with the silent mode. (and of course if you
where talking about using the 35mm lens, which I'm assuming you are!)
D.B.
Nick Silva
In article <bindle.46...@sklib.usask.ca>, bin...@sklib.usask.ca
(David Bindle) wrote:
You are missing something...<g>
I'm sorry, but I didn't really have time to explain exactly the
circumstances under which I usually shoot, but let's say for simplicity
that it's fast and clandestine. The manual focus scale on the Hexar doesn't
have enough steps (except for close focus), and reads out in meters. When
I'm trying to guess and set quickly it's a major pain to have to translate,
and the buttons/LCD are not good in the lowlight situations I often find
myself in. Also, the MF is a one-shot deal; apparently the camera doesn't
stay in MF. So for the next shot it's the same thing over again. To me,
this is next to useless if the camera operates as I describe. If it isn't
meters, and the camera can be set to stay in MF, then I will look at one
again, although I still think the process will be too slow. The lens scale
is too small to be set quickly - just look at any M lens in comparison.
The second method you describe would be fine under other circumstances, but
in my case I do not want the subjects to be aware they are being
photographed, or even framed. I could use the "AF on something else an
equivalent distance away and turn and shoot", but this requires holding
down the shutter halfway while doing this, something that isn't really
feasible for my work. Too often I guess the focus, but then wait a few
seconds or minutes to take the shot, and holding down the shutter for that
long would be difficult and pointless - iow, why reinvent the wheel when MF
already works better in this situation?
So I guess I should rephrase my previous assertion - The Hexar fails
miserably in MF mode for the kind of work I would be using such a camera
for.
Nick Silva
In article <phrE5v...@netcom.com>, p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> In article <nms-ya023280001...@nntp.best.com>,
> Nick Silva <n...@inamess.vip.best.com> wrote:
> >Um, your argument suggests that the closer the lens is to the film plane,
> >the better it must be...this is, of course, nonsense.
>
> I don't suggest any such thing. Coming closer to the film plane
> doesn't automatically make a lens better any more than using more
> elements automatically makes the lens better. I'm just saying that
That's why I called it nonsense...;)
Reread your post - it certainly seems like that's what you were trying to
suggest!
> >If you read the review again, the rear element of the lens almost collides
> >with the film _when the camera is OFF and the lens retracted_.
> >It is quite a normal distance when the camera is on.
>
> Thanks, I missed that part.
And I took a close look at a GR1 recently lens in/out, and In it didn't
seem that close to the film plane to me. Close yes, but not the
hair-raising close shave alluded to in PP.
> >I haven't run any tests of the GR1 lens, but I seriously doubt whether it
> >would be as good as a Leica Summicron. The same review which you refer to
> >(I'm assuming pop Photo) states that the lens is excellent by point and
> >shoot standards, which means that they use a different standard for those
> >lenses as opposed to full size, and suggests that by full size standards
> >the lens is merely good.
>
> From what I've been hearing, high class P+S optics with their
> rangefinder-like designs, aspheric elements and so forth are beating
> out SLR optics at the wideangle end even by SLR standards. It's
I dunno, as I said in another post, my T4 is supposed to have quite a good
lens, yet distortion and and sharpness are dreadful in the corners. The GR1
is probably better, but I'm still leery of how good something is "supposed"
to be until I try it for myself.
Paul Rubin
In article <nms-ya023280001...@nntp.best.com>,
Nick Silva <n...@inamess.vip.best.com> wrote:
>Um, your argument suggests that the closer the lens is to the film plane,
>the better it must be...this is, of course, nonsense.
I don't suggest any such thing. Coming closer to the film plane
doesn't automatically make a lens better any more than using more
elements automatically makes the lens better. I'm just saying that
the GR-1 designers had the _freedom_ to come closer to the film plane
than the Leica designers did, which opens up more options to them just
as the _freedom_ to use any suitable number of elements results in
potentially better designs than being restricted to using 3 or 5 or 15
elements. The mirror box is the reason SLR wideangles have to use
inverted tele designs while rangefinders can use "true" wideangles
so apparently it is an issue.
>If you read the review again, the rear element of the lens almost collides
>with the film _when the camera is OFF and the lens retracted_.
>It is quite a normal distance when the camera is on.
Thanks, I missed that part.
>I haven't run any tests of the GR1 lens, but I seriously doubt whether it
>would be as good as a Leica Summicron. The same review which you refer to
>(I'm assuming pop Photo) states that the lens is excellent by point and
>shoot standards, which means that they use a different standard for those
>lenses as opposed to full size, and suggests that by full size standards
>the lens is merely good.
From what I've been hearing, high class P+S optics with their
rangefinder-like designs, aspheric elements and so forth are beating
out SLR optics at the wideangle end even by SLR standards. It's
interesting, Pop Photo prints actual test results for very good P+S,
but just gives subjective descriptions ("prints were sharp") for most
ordinary P+S because the test results would embarass them.
Unfortunately I mostly care about zoom P+S's, which are not yet up to
SLR standards. I use P+S's as travel cameras (i.e. no extra lenses to
switch to, etc.) so I'd rather sacrifice some quality in all the shots
than have to use a wideangle in situations that call for a short tele.
Nick Silva
> >Um, your argument suggests that the closer the lens is to the film plane,
> >the better it must be...this is, of course, nonsense.
>
> Not entirely. It is easier to design a "true" wide-angle lens (as opposed
> to a reverse telephoto type of wide-angle) if the rear element can be very
> close to the film. A good example of this is the 43mm Mamiya lens for the
> Mamiya 7 which is a rectilinear super-wide and shows almost no curvature
> of field at all. It's rear element is only a few mm away from the film
> which would be out of the question with a 6x7 SLR.
Yes, I know this. I was only poking fun at the syntax of Mr Rubin's post,
which suggests my interpretation..;)
> >I haven't run any tests of the GR1 lens, but I seriously doubt whether it
> >would be as good as a Leica Summicron. The same review which you refer to
> >(I'm assuming pop Photo) states that the lens is excellent by point and
> >shoot standards, which means that they use a different standard for those
> >lenses as opposed to full size, and suggests that by full size standards
> >the lens is merely good.
>
> I was of the understanding (not having read that particular issue of PP as
> it is not easy to get hold of here in the UK) that they said it compared
> very favourably with good SLR prime lenses. This would mean that it should
> compete against the equivalent Leica lenses would it not?
I dunno... The lens in my T4 is supposedly excellent also, but the 35mm
lens on my M6 runs rings around it all day and night. I'd have to shoot the
GR1 myself to really see for sure, but like I said, I really doubt it.
> The question of which camera has the better lens still stands then - the
> GR-1, Hexar or one of the Leica offerings.
Indeed it does! Anyone? Anyone?
Duc Tran
Simon Ogilvie (si...@guildford.ericsson.se) wrote:
: Leica CL, M2, M3 or Minolta CLE, with a 35mm Summicron. People have stated
: that the Hexar lens is based on a Leica design and is as good as many Leica
: lenses.
To say that hexar's lens is based on Leica, is just like to say
BMW is based on Toyota. There is a certain law of physics that
all designs must obey.
The trick is to fine tune to produce good result and to produce
affordable cost to end users.
On the other hand one notable poster has stated that he believes
: the lens on the Ricoh GR-1 is better than the Hexar's, which by extrapolation
: implies that the lens on the GR-1 would outperform a Leica M6 (or whatever)
: fitted with the 35mm Summicron! Is this a fair assumption?
There is no comparision of the GR-1 / Hexar by anyone who own both cameras.
GR-1 review is favorable by Pop-Photo.
: Simon.
: ---
: si...@guildford.ericsson.se
David Bindle
>I'm sorry, but I didn't really have time to explain exactly the
>circumstances under which I usually shoot, but let's say for simplicity
>that it's fast and clandestine. The manual focus scale on the Hexar doesn't
>have enough steps (except for close focus), and reads out in meters. When
>I'm trying to guess and set quickly it's a major pain to have to translate,
>and the buttons/LCD are not good in the lowlight situations I often find
>myself in. Also, the MF is a one-shot deal; apparently the camera doesn't
>stay in MF. So for the next shot it's the same thing over again. To me,
>this is next to useless if the camera operates as I describe. If it isn't
>meters, and the camera can be set to stay in MF, then I will look at one
>again, although I still think the process will be too slow. The lens scale
>is too small to be set quickly - just look at any M lens in comparison.
Nick...
I see your point. Yes the scale is in meters, but the MF will stay in MF for
however many pictures you want without having to do anything again.
>The second method you describe would be fine under other circumstances, but
>in my case I do not want the subjects to be aware they are being
>photographed, or even framed. I could use the "AF on something else an
>equivalent distance away and turn and shoot", but this requires holding
>down the shutter halfway while doing this, something that isn't really
>feasible for my work. Too often I guess the focus, but then wait a few
>seconds or minutes to take the shot, and holding down the shutter for that
>long would be difficult and pointless - iow, why reinvent the wheel when MF
>already works better in this situation?
Actually, again, Hexar would be great for this. Use the autofocus to focus on
something else an equivalent distance away .... then tap the MF button! It
will go into MF and hold the position that it just autofocused at. Also...
remember that the Hexar can autofocus in very low light. (pitch dark
actually... but then... what's the point?) And... in manual mode... has a
slowest shutter speed of 30 sec. plus T, and... is an extremely low key
camera. Most people ignore it as a ultra cheap no-name brand peice of junk
that no serious photographer would be using.
I understand your reluctance to change what already works for you (and I'm
not suggesting that you do) I still think of a 1 meter as "1 yard" or three
feet (even though its actually a few inches longer than that) And yes... it
would be nice if that LCD display could be illuminated
>So I guess I should rephrase my previous assertion - The Hexar fails
>miserably in MF mode for the kind of work I would be using such a camera
>for.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to say "my cameras better than your
camera!" I just don't want you to dismiss the possibility of using a tool
which you may have been given some misinformation about.
I still say... it might do a lot better jobfor you with its combo AF/MF than
you think it can...
Cheers...
David
James Rosenzweig
I called Ricoh about the rear lens element. The production run cameras
were modified so that the rear element is NOT as close as it was in the
'test' camera.
: >If you read the review again, the rear element of the lens almost collides
: >with the film _when the camera is OFF and the lens retracted_.
: >It is quite a normal distance when the camera is on.
: >I haven't run any tests of the GR1 lens, but I seriously doubt whether it
: >would be as good as a Leica Summicron. The same review which you refer to
: >(I'm assuming pop Photo) states that the lens is excellent by point and
: >shoot standards, which means that they use a different standard for those
: >lenses as opposed to full size, and suggests that by full size standards
: >the lens is merely good.
You missed the other comment in that same test by Popular Photography.
It says (page 198 January 1997 issue) concerning the GR1 lens,
"But in SLR terms, it would still rank AMONG THE BEST SINGLE-FOCAL LENGTH
28 mm lenses."
It also didn't just call the lens excellent but "EXCELLENT to OUTSTANDING".
James Rosenzweig
: On the other hand one notable poster has stated that he believes
: : the lens on the Ricoh GR-1 is better than the Hexar's, which by
extrapolation
: : implies that the lens on the GR-1 would outperform a Leica M6 (or whatever
I haven't seen anyone make that comment. Who are you referring to?
If you are implying me, I NEVER made that comment.
Jim
: There is no comparision of the GR-1 / Hexar by anyone who own both cameras.
: GR-1 review is favorable by Pop-Photo.
I used to own a Hexar. I sold it after last summer. I own a GR1 now. I
obviously cannot make a side by side lens comparison with pictures taken at
the same time...however...having used both cameras, I think it fair to
say that both cameras have excellent lenses.
I don't believe that that is the reason to choose one over the other.
Jim
: : Simon. : : --- : : si...@guildford.ericsson.se
Nathan Wong
Nick Silva (n...@inamess.vip.best.com) wrote:
: equivalent distance away and turn and shoot", but this requires holding
: down the shutter halfway while doing this, something that isn't really
: feasible for my work. Too often I guess the focus, but then wait a few
: seconds or minutes to take the shot, and holding down the shutter for that
: long would be difficult and pointless - iow, why reinvent the wheel when MF
: already works better in this situation?
Ummm, what are you talking about? Why in the world would you want to hold
the button down halfway while waiting for a picture? I usually just wait
until the picture develops, point the camera, and press the button.
Perfect focus, perfect exposure, silent operation! Much, much more silent
than a Leica, my Nikon L35AF, Nikon FE, or N8008. It sounds to me that
perhaps a fixed focus camera might be the one for you. No holding buttons
down, no guessing focus, nothing. Perfect! ;-)
Nathan
Simon Ogilvie
In article i...@hpax.cup.hp.com, dt...@xsvr2.cup.hp.com (Duc Tran) writes:
>Simon Ogilvie (si...@guildford.ericsson.se) wrote:
>: Leica CL, M2, M3 or Minolta CLE, with a 35mm Summicron. People have stated
>: that the Hexar lens is based on a Leica design and is as good as many Leica
>: lenses.
>
>To say that hexar's lens is based on Leica, is just like to say
>BMW is based on Toyota. There is a certain law of physics that
>all designs must obey.
>
>The trick is to fine tune to produce good result and to produce
>affordable cost to end users.
Well, I was under the impression (mistakenly perhaps) that the Hexar was
designed under a collaborative project between Leica and Konica and that
it was originally to be badged as a "cheap" Leica. The project fell
through but Konica was allowed to market a slightly modified version but
with the original lens design badged as a Konica. This maybe complete
rubbish but it was what someone else posted a while ago in these newsgroups.
The upshot of this is that the Hexar lens was meant to be either designed
by Leica or for Leica by Konica and so is made to their standards. I'd be
interested to hear from anyone who can confirm or deny this story.
Simon.
---
Nick Silva
In article <5ej7eg$7...@amanda.dorsai.org>, ji...@dorsai.org (James
Rosenzweig) wrote:
Oh, you're not going to buy that Pop Photo hyperbole, are you? ;) I didn't,
and so my rendition of their review is toned down to what I'm _guessing_ to
be closer to reality....
Nick Silva
Ummm, what are YOU talking about? ;)
Read the rest of the thread before posting stuff like this and then you
might have a clue!
Nick Silva
> I see your point. Yes the scale is in meters, but the MF will stay in MF for
> however many pictures you want without having to do anything again.
It will? Hmm, I tried and tried at the store to get it to do so, but every
time I clicked the shutter it went back to AF. IS this optional, or are
there different models? This was the black model w/o databack.
> >The second method you describe would be fine under other circumstances, but
> >in my case I do not want the subjects to be aware they are being
> >photographed, or even framed. I could use the "AF on something else an
> >equivalent distance away and turn and shoot", but this requires holding
> >down the shutter halfway while doing this, something that isn't really
> >feasible for my work. Too often I guess the focus, but then wait a few
> >seconds or minutes to take the shot, and holding down the shutter for that
> >long would be difficult and pointless - iow, why reinvent the wheel when MF
> >already works better in this situation?
>
> Actually, again, Hexar would be great for this. Use the autofocus to
focus on
> something else an equivalent distance away .... then tap the MF button! It
> will go into MF and hold the position that it just autofocused at. Also...
Ahh, now that's something I didn't know....very helpful, but the problem is
still this: what if there isn't something close and equidistant? or what if
there is but it's small, thus needing the VF, and I don't want to put the
camera up to my eye to alert people I'm taking pix? See what I mean? - an
easy means of purely manual focusing still is best. I'm not trying to be
difficult; these are the conditions I'm working under! In fact, just the
other day a woman got VERY upset that I took her picture - I had my camera
on a counter, waiting for some take-out. She was eating at the counter, 6
feet away. Crowded, noisy restaurant, normally lit. I put my camera down on
the counter facing her, and looked around as if I were just loitering.
Guessed focus, exposure, etc.., and braced the camera against the counter
for the 1/4 second exp. Problem is, the wooden counter must have somehow
amplified the shutter (I was using a Fuji 645 - leaf shutter, so it's
fairly quiet), or maybe she saw my fingers. Anyway, I played it off legit,
and nothing untoward happened, but she was angry.
> I understand your reluctance to change what already works for you (and I'm
> not suggesting that you do) I still think of a 1 meter as "1 yard" or three
> feet (even though its actually a few inches longer than that) And yes... it
> would be nice if that LCD display could be illuminated
Yeah, the 3 ft thng works fine; it's mainly the buttons that are harder to
work than a dial.
> Don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to say "my cameras better than your
> camera!" I just don't want you to dismiss the possibility of using a tool
> which you may have been given some misinformation about.
> I still say... it might do a lot better jobfor you with its combo AF/MF than
> you think it can...
Actually, in some ways your camera is better than my camera! Just not in
the ways I need!
Nathan Wong
Nick Silva (n...@inamess.vip.best.com) wrote:
: Ummm, what are YOU talking about? ;)
: Read the rest of the thread before posting stuff like this and then you
: might have a clue!
Ummm, I think I have a clue cause I actually own the camera. ;-)
Nathan
Luc Janssens
Nathan Wong <nath...@crl.com> wrote in article
<5ej7ov$g...@crl8.crl.com>...
>
> Nick Silva (n...@inamess.vip.best.com) wrote:
> : equivalent distance away and turn and shoot", but this requires holding
> : down the shutter halfway while doing this, something that isn't really
> : feasible for my work. Too often I guess the focus, but then wait a few
> : seconds or minutes to take the shot, and holding down the shutter for
that
> : long would be difficult and pointless - iow, why reinvent the wheel
when MF
> : already works better in this situation?
>
> Ummm, what are you talking about? Why in the world would you want to hold
> the button down halfway while waiting for a picture? I usually just wait
> until the picture develops, point the camera, and press the button.
> Perfect focus, perfect exposure, silent operation! Much, much more silent
> than a Leica, my Nikon L35AF, Nikon FE, or N8008. It sounds to me that
> perhaps a fixed focus camera might be the one for you. No holding buttons
> down, no guessing focus, nothing. Perfect! ;-)
>
> Nathan
>
With my Hexar Titanium I can set the distance.
1 Hold down the buttom halfway down
2 push the MF button.
The focus will be locked.
I don't know if this feature is available on all Hexar's
Luc
Nick Silva
Doesn't matter if you own it or not, you still don't have a clue.
Re-read the thread and maybe you'll see where you goofed.
Nick Silva
Hint: it's about pre-focusing...;)
Nathan Wong
Nick Silva (n...@inamess.vip.best.com) wrote:
: > Nick Silva (n...@inamess.vip.best.com) wrote:
: > : Ummm, what are YOU talking about? ;)
: >
: > : Read the rest of the thread before posting stuff like this and then you
: > : might have a clue!
: >
: > Ummm, I think I have a clue cause I actually own the camera. ;-)
: Doesn't matter if you own it or not, you still don't have a clue.
: Re-read the thread and maybe you'll see where you goofed.
Nick,
I don't think I "goofed." I knew what you meant by prefocusing and I
understood everything you wrote, but as I said why PREFOCUS when you can
just use AUTOFOCUS and have the picture tack sharp. You're thinking in
the 1940's - 1970's terms. Come into the 90's. Autofocus is great. It's
fast, it's accurate (most of the time), and you don't need to worry about
apertures/focus distance/depth of field. I was only half kidding when I
said it sounded like you could use a disposable camera with its
non-focusing lens. Why bother prefocusing when you can buy a camera
that's sharp from 3 feet to infinity? ;-)
Anyway, I've shot photos with my Hexar I KNEW there was no way a Leica
could have captures, such as those shot from the hip at a subject that
was who-knows-how-far and it was perfectly focused/exposed. Total time to
bring the camera up and press the shutter? 1/10th of a second. I never
even had to bother looking at the exposure meter. In fact, I've shot over
my shoulder...boom, boom, boom. NO problem and no sound to indicate I'm
taking the picture.
Now, if you want to prefocus, that's fine with me. Everyone has their
own style of shooting. But I think that using a camera with autofocus
might be a little faster and accurate in more times than not. Remember,
you can't rely on depth of field all the time because the point of focus
is always the sharpest and the rest is just sorta-focused.
Nathan
Kari Eloranta
In article <5f4e59$r...@crl3.crl.com>, Nathan Wong <nath...@crl.com> wrote:
snip
>
>the 1940's - 1970's terms. Come into the 90's. Autofocus is great. It's
>fast, it's accurate (most of the time), and you don't need to worry about
>apertures/focus distance/depth of field. I was only half kidding when I
To me this discussion appears to be is mainly about deliberate, skillful
shooting versus more or less mindless pointing and shooting. I really
wonder what sort of photography it is where you prefer to forget about
depth of field. How can you possibly get a striking view of a subject
surrounded by whatever if you want to avoid using the perhaps most
important tool to do it?
>
>Anyway, I've shot photos with my Hexar I KNEW there was no way a Leica
>could have captures, such as those shot from the hip at a subject that
>was who-knows-how-far and it was perfectly focused/exposed. Total time to
>bring the camera up and press the shutter? 1/10th of a second. I never
>even had to bother looking at the exposure meter. In fact, I've shot over
>my shoulder...boom, boom, boom. NO problem and no sound to indicate I'm
>taking the picture.
>
People have been shooting from the hip, from inside the jacket, from the
bag etc. since time immemorial. Look at any book by a succesfull street
phographer and use your imagination. If you still don't get it ask them.
You really think this shooting style has something to do with Hexar? In
fact in a critical situation an AF camera without good distance scale
has to be taken up to your face level to get the AF spot to the right
point. You expose your intentions doing that & the expression, gesture,
whatever is gone.
BTW. Isn't Hexar discontinued? How come? Don't get me wrong, I think it
is/was a nice camera. Not just something you could count on. Would one
want to learn to use such thing? Really well, I mean. I think the
motivation for most of us would be rather low. Better just treat it as
an automatic camera & hope for the best. Good shooting technique only
works with a camera you know & trust.
Regards,
Kari Eloranta
David Kohn
The Hexar is not discontinued, only between production runs.
This is an elegant, many-nuanced camera that offers a great deal of
creative control for someone taking the time to master it. It also is
somewhat unique. Comparing it to either a Leica rangefinder or to a more
conventional point & shoot may be of somewhat limited utility.
dk
--
El Rio Santa Cruz Health Center (Tucson, AZ)
Human Resources Office <hir...@elrio.org>
Please direct personal email to:
David Kohn, Chairman of the Bored
<ojov...@null.net>
view with monospaced font
,,,
(o o)
oOO (_) OOo
...if time is a mental process, how can thousands
of men--or even two different men--share it?
<Jorge Luis Borges `A New Refutation of Time`>
...Since you are what you eat, eventually every
vegetarian turns cannibal.
<`The Last International`>
...the horses look the same and the people a little worse...
<Charles Bukowski `Non-Horseshit Horse Advice`
Jack Kurtz
>
> BTW. Isn't Hexar discontinued? How come? Don't get me wrong, I think it
> is/was a nice camera. Not just something you could count on. Would one
> want to learn to use such thing? Really well, I mean. I think the
> motivation for most of us would be rather low. Better just treat it as
> an automatic camera & hope for the best. Good shooting technique only
> works with a camera you know & trust.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kari Eloranta
I don't think the Hexar is discontinued. I believe Konica is updating it
for reintroduction. BUT, even if it is discontinued so what? The Leica M4's
have been discontinued for years and there are plenty of them in use.
I use a Hexar (professionally) as a backup camera to my EOS cameras. Early
this week I shot a picture story on Army cowboys in New Mexico. I worked
from horseback and didn't want the weight and associated headaches of a big
SLR, so I used my Hexar. Images were great. Perfectly exposed, very sharp.
My editor didn't believe the photos came from a camera he had previously
dismissed as a toy. I think the Hexar can do most anything a SLR or
(blasphemy) a M6 with a 35mm f2 lens can do (within the limits of the top
1/250 shutter speed.)
My .02 worth of opinion.
Jack
--------------------------------------------
jku...@primenet.com
Jack's Joint - A Home for On-line Photojournalism
http://www.primenet.com/~jkurtz/
----------------------------------------------
Nathan Wong
Kari Eloranta (k...@cc.hut.fi) wrote:
: To me this discussion appears to be is mainly about deliberate, skillful
: shooting versus more or less mindless pointing and shooting. I really
Hmmm, interesting. Then a medium or large format camera is in order.
However, there are times when 35mm would be more appropriate.
: wonder what sort of photography it is where you prefer to forget about
: depth of field. How can you possibly get a striking view of a subject
: surrounded by whatever if you want to avoid using the perhaps most
: important tool to do it?
It's called shooting wide open at infinity! ;-)
There's nothing wrong with using depth of field and apertures. I rely
(and worry) about it all the time when taking photos. However, as I said,
the best focus (hence sharpest) item will be where your lens is focused.
If your subject is at 10 feet and your lens (35mm) is set at f/11 and
focused at around 8 feet (that'll give you depth of field from 4.8 feet
to about 14.8 feet), your subject won't be as sharp as if you just
focused at 10 feet.
: People have been shooting from the hip, from inside the jacket, from the
: bag etc. since time immemorial. Look at any book by a succesfull street
: phographer and use your imagination. If you still don't get it ask them.
That's true, but I'm sure where you see the sharp photos there were
hundreds of out of focused, under/overexposed shots.
: You really think this shooting style has something to do with Hexar?
When you can't hear the shutter fire there is a special shooting style to
the Hexar. It's a fantastic camera. You can be standing right next to
someone shooting away and they wouldn't even know you're shooting. With a
Leica (the next quietest camera) you can hear the click, quiet as it may
be. Some people get very disturbed when they hear a shutter go off and
you only get one photo. With the Hexar you can finish your roll, rewind
the film, load, shoot another roll before they start wondering why you're
just standing there looking at them.
: In
: fact in a critical situation an AF camera without good distance scale
: has to be taken up to your face level to get the AF spot to the right
: point. You expose your intentions doing that & the expression, gesture,
: whatever is gone.
I see your point. However, as I said previously, if you're careful you
don't even need to look through the viewfinder, though it does help
immensely in composition and being sure the AF is focused at the correct
point.
: BTW. Isn't Hexar discontinued? How come? Don't get me wrong, I think it
: is/was a nice camera.
Discontinued? For the moment. Konica is firing up the factory in March
and will be rereleasing the Hexar with a databack in March.
: Not just something you could count on. Would one
: want to learn to use such thing? Really well, I mean. I think the
: motivation for most of us would be rather low. Better just treat it as
: an automatic camera & hope for the best. Good shooting technique only
: works with a camera you know & trust.
I don't quite understand this paragraph. Why wouldn't someone rely on the
Hexar? Why wouldn't one have the same "good shooting technique" with the
Hexar? Why wouldn't there be motivation? Do you actually know what a
Hexar is or what features it has? Yes, it has a program mode, but that's
pretty special/qwirky in itself; there's also aperture priority from f/2
to f/22; then there's manual exposures from with shutter speeds from 30
seconds to 1/250. Also, the camera is as quiet as a whisper (about 45
decibles) and a lot quieter than a Leica (about 65 decibles).
Last I heard the Nikon F5 and EOS1N has all these features and more other
than being quiet. What's a photographer's motivation to learn photography
with those cameras? What motivation would they have to learn "good
shooting technique" with those type of autoeverything cameras?
Just something to think about?
Nathan
Kathleen Lytle
Jack Kurtz (jku...@primenet.com) wrote:
: I don't think the Hexar is discontinued. I believe Konica is updating it
: for reintroduction.
According to the response that I got from Konica, it will be out again in
March.(tomorrow?) When I called back for the nearest dealer, I got no
response(so far).
Nick Silva
> In article <5f4e59$r...@crl3.crl.com>, Nathan Wong <nath...@crl.com> wrote:
>
> snip
> >
> >the 1940's - 1970's terms. Come into the 90's. Autofocus is great. It's
> >fast, it's accurate (most of the time), and you don't need to worry about
> >apertures/focus distance/depth of field. I was only half kidding when I
>
> To me this discussion appears to be is mainly about deliberate, skillful
> shooting versus more or less mindless pointing and shooting. I really
> wonder what sort of photography it is where you prefer to forget about
> depth of field. How can you possibly get a striking view of a subject
> surrounded by whatever if you want to avoid using the perhaps most
> important tool to do it?
>
> >
> >Anyway, I've shot photos with my Hexar I KNEW there was no way a Leica
> >could have captures, such as those shot from the hip at a subject that
> >was who-knows-how-far and it was perfectly focused/exposed. Total time to
> >bring the camera up and press the shutter? 1/10th of a second. I never
> >even had to bother looking at the exposure meter. In fact, I've shot over
> >my shoulder...boom, boom, boom. NO problem and no sound to indicate I'm
> >taking the picture.
> >
> People have been shooting from the hip, from inside the jacket, from the
> bag etc. since time immemorial. Look at any book by a succesfull street
> phographer and use your imagination. If you still don't get it ask them.
> You really think this shooting style has something to do with Hexar? In
> fact in a critical situation an AF camera without good distance scale
> has to be taken up to your face level to get the AF spot to the right
> point. You expose your intentions doing that & the expression, gesture,
> whatever is gone.
>
> BTW. Isn't Hexar discontinued? How come? Don't get me wrong, I think it
> is/was a nice camera. Not just something you could count on. Would one
> want to learn to use such thing? Really well, I mean. I think the
> motivation for most of us would be rather low. Better just treat it as
> an automatic camera & hope for the best. Good shooting technique only
> works with a camera you know & trust.
This is as good a response as I could have written (actually, probably
better..;)) Kari, thank you - you get it...;)
But for Nathan, WHO STILL DOESN'T GET IT!@!, I'll explain:
I look for a shot that I want to take, and then wait for it to happen. This
may take several minutes. I start to look conspicuous after holding a
camera for several minutes just standing around, and often people start to
take notice. So not only do I need to look nonchalant, but I need to put
the camera somewhere unthreatening (read: NEVER up to my face..) I need to
be prefocused because I only want to push the shutter and take the picture
when it happens, I don't want to have to focus on anything, manually or
automatically, because that will get in the way at the time of the picture.
The subject is not always centered, so the distance must be set beforehand,
esp considering DOF issues (ex: I may zone focus or selective focus). I can
estimate the distance I want and enter that onto a ring fairly easily and
unobtrusively; the Hexar's buttons are a clumsy design (look at the G2 if
you think otherwise), and would call attention to the fact I am fiddling
with my camera. I could always use the "AF on something an equivalent
distance away and tap the MF button to lock", but what if there isn't
something an equivalent distance away? And what if there is but I need to
bring the camera to my eye to make sure it's AFing on the right thing? The
point is: all this is very clumsy in comparison with a manual system.
So this is not about Hexar v M6, or AF v manual - every tool is useful for
some purpose. I'm sure the Hexar is an excellent camera and would be the
right tool for many assignments. This is simply about one style of shooting
and the kind of camera that seems to serve it best - a manual rangefinder.
Nick Silva
...so now do ya get it?.....;)
Nathan Wong
Nick Silva (n...@inamess.vip.best.com) wrote:
: But for Nathan, WHO STILL DOESN'T GET IT!@!, I'll explain:
I got it the first time around.
: the camera somewhere unthreatening (read: NEVER up to my face..) I need to
: be prefocused because I only want to push the shutter and take the picture
: when it happens, I don't want to have to focus on anything, manually or
: automatically, because that will get in the way at the time of the picture.
So you just want to leave your camera set at, say infinity, and wait, right?
: The subject is not always centered, so the distance must be set beforehand,
: esp considering DOF issues (ex: I may zone focus or selective focus). I can
: estimate the distance I want and enter that onto a ring fairly easily and
: unobtrusively; the Hexar's buttons are a clumsy design (look at the G2 if
Okay, so that's fine.
: with my camera. I could always use the "AF on something an equivalent
: distance away and tap the MF button to lock", but what if there isn't
: something an equivalent distance away? And what if there is but I need to
There's something called the floor or the ground to focus on. I think
you're trying to come up with excuses NOT to use AF. There's nothing
wrong with using the "AF on something an equivalent distance away and
tap the MF button to lock."
: bring the camera to my eye to make sure it's AFing on the right thing? The
: point is: all this is very clumsy in comparison with a manual system.
No problem. Do you know how I use my autofocusing Nikon N8008? I set it
on manual and focus it with my hand. I can't stand using that AF while it
hunts for a place to focus.
: This is simply about one style of shooting
: and the kind of camera that seems to serve it best - a manual rangefinder.
And this is why I'm really not "bashing" you (if I sound like I am, I'm
sorry). Everyone has a way of shooting and there is no right or wrong
way.
Nathan
Nick Silva
> Nick Silva (n...@inamess.vip.best.com) wrote:
>
> : But for Nathan, WHO STILL DOESN'T GET IT!@!, I'll explain:
>
> I got it the first time around.
Then why were you playing this stupid cat-and-mouse game?
> : the camera somewhere unthreatening (read: NEVER up to my face..) I need to
> : be prefocused because I only want to push the shutter and take the picture
> : when it happens, I don't want to have to focus on anything, manually or
> : automatically, because that will get in the way at the time of the picture.
>
> So you just want to leave your camera set at, say infinity, and wait, right?
Looks like you don't get it again...;) (or maybe you're just being facetious..)
> There's something called the floor or the ground to focus on. I think
> you're trying to come up with excuses NOT to use AF. There's nothing
> wrong with using the "AF on something an equivalent distance away and
> tap the MF button to lock."
What if the ground isn't handy because you're standing in shrubbery? (Don't
laugh, I've done it...) Point is, the "AF on something an equivalent
distance away and tap the MF button to lock" WILL NOT WORK in every
situation, but the MF will.
And I'm not coming up with excuses NOT to use autofocus - I CAN'T use
autofocus because the M6 doesn't HAVE autofocus...when I use my N90s I AF
all the time.
> : This is simply about one style of shooting
> : and the kind of camera that seems to serve it best - a manual rangefinder.
>
> And this is why I'm really not "bashing" you (if I sound like I am, I'm
> sorry). Everyone has a way of shooting and there is no right or wrong
> way.
That's what I've been saying from the beginning....why have you been
arguing otherwise?
Nick
PS: you don't have to answer these questions; they are mainly rhetorical...;)
AIRTRAX2
Ummm, which Leica????????
What a stupid remark!
Kari Eloranta
In article <5f85pf$s...@crl13.crl.com>, Nathan Wong <nath...@crl.com> wrote:
>Kari Eloranta (k...@cc.hut.fi) wrote:
>: To me this discussion appears to be is mainly about deliberate, skillful
>: shooting versus more or less mindless pointing and shooting. I really
>
>However, there are times when 35mm would be more appropriate.
>
>: wonder what sort of photography it is where you prefer to forget about
>: depth of field. How can you possibly get a striking view of a subject
>: surrounded by whatever if you want to avoid using the perhaps most
>: important tool to do it?
>
>It's called shooting wide open at infinity! ;-)
>
Oh, spare me from those shots...
snip
>When you can't hear the shutter fire there is a special shooting style to
>the Hexar. It's a fantastic camera. You can be standing right next to
>someone shooting away and they wouldn't even know you're shooting. With a
>Leica (the next quietest camera) you can hear the click, quiet as it may
>be. Some people get very disturbed when they hear a shutter go off and
>you only get one photo. With the Hexar you can finish your roll, rewind
>the film, load, shoot another roll before they start wondering why you're
>just standing there looking at them.
Give us a break with this. I grant you it's quietness, sure. In that
respect most rangefinders are far apart from SLR's. But the rest of
above just shows that your subject are exceptionally dead. Lot of
hyperbola like your earlier posts.
>: fact in a critical situation an AF camera without good distance scale
>: has to be taken up to your face level to get the AF spot to the right
>: point. You expose your intentions doing that & the expression, gesture,
>: whatever is gone.
>
>I see your point. However, as I said previously, if you're careful you
>don't even need to look through the viewfinder, though it does help
>immensely in composition and being sure the AF is focused at the correct
>point.
>
>: BTW. Isn't Hexar discontinued? How come? Don't get me wrong, I think it
>: is/was a nice camera.
>
>Discontinued? For the moment. Konica is firing up the factory in March
>and will be rereleasing the Hexar with a databack in March.
There's been speculation about its successor. Ok, if it is continued, fine.
>: Not just something you could count on. Would one
>: want to learn to use such thing? Really well, I mean. I think the
>: motivation for most of us would be rather low. Better just treat it as
>: an automatic camera & hope for the best. Good shooting technique only
>: works with a camera you know & trust.
>
>I don't quite understand this paragraph. Why wouldn't someone rely on the
>Hexar? Why wouldn't one have the same "good shooting technique" with the
>Hexar? Why wouldn't there be motivation? Do you actually know what a
>Hexar is or what features it has? Yes, it has a program mode, but that's
>pretty special/qwirky in itself; there's also aperture priority from f/2
>to f/22; then there's manual exposures from with shutter speeds from 30
>seconds to 1/250. Also, the camera is as quiet as a whisper (about 45
>decibles) and a lot quieter than a Leica (about 65 decibles).
>
>Last I heard the Nikon F5 and EOS1N has all these features and more other
>than being quiet. What's a photographer's motivation to learn photography
>with those cameras? What motivation would they have to learn "good
>shooting technique" with those type of autoeverything cameras?
By shooting technique I mean that you really get to know your thing. How
to control with it the basic things that make a photograph. Focus, dof,
shutter speed, exposure, framing. That the camera becomes an extension of
your hand and eye and using it is like a reflex. It takes a lot of time
and effort. Years and hundereds of rolls. With an automatic thing you
always have easy exit doors, this and that "feature", which makes you
think it does the same as really mastering the basics. Or even if you
use it manually you are removed from direct control by layers of software
and arbitrary buttons or leds etc. I find such things higly nonintuitive.
Moreover as the features and autoeverything cameras change just about
daily what else is there than to worry that you have the latest features
and living by them, not by the first priciples.
From what you write I cannot help but realize that you think this effort
can be overcome by buying a feature-ladden camera. Your sentence "What's
a photographer's motivation to learn photography with those cameras?"
(EOS & F5) is telling. Your technique starts from the camera, its features,
not from the basics.
My principle for choosing the tools is more of Occam's razor: have the
simplest camera with which you can do everything you want to do. And
learn to use it.
>Just something to think about?
>
>Nathan
Indeed.
Kari Eloranta
PS. My mailer is in a bad mood - complains my messages have too much
quoted text. So I edited it down somewhat but the earlier versions
may have gotten out nevertheless.
.
Nathan Wong
Nick Silva (n...@inamess.vip.best.com) wrote:
: Then why were you playing this stupid cat-and-mouse game?
I'm not. You started it by saying I didn't get it the first time round. I
just tried to reinforce your statement, but you kept insisting that I
didn't get it.
: > So you just want to leave your camera set at, say infinity, and wait, right?
: Looks like you don't get it again...;) (or maybe you're just being facetious..)
If you insist. I think it's more the second one.
: What if the ground isn't handy because you're standing in shrubbery? (Don't
: laugh, I've done it...) Point is, the "AF on something an equivalent
: distance away and tap the MF button to lock" WILL NOT WORK in every
: situation, but the MF will.
Hmmm, you must be taking some interesting pictures if you needed to stand
in shrubbery.
: And I'm not coming up with excuses NOT to use autofocus - I CAN'T use
: autofocus because the M6 doesn't HAVE autofocus...when I use my N90s I AF
: all the time.
Ah, so you're trying to justify your buying an M6 and not having the
ability to have the high tech stuff built in. Ah, now I get it. Hee-hee.
Just pulling your chain. I wanted a M6 really badly, but at this day and
age when I already have too many camera systems it wasn't prudent to
start another camera system. Too expensive.
: That's what I've been saying from the beginning....why have you been
: arguing otherwise?
I haven't been arguing with you. Just giving options. ;-)
Nathan
Nathan Wong
Kari Eloranta (k...@cc.hut.fi) wrote:
: >you only get one photo. With the Hexar you can finish your roll, rewind
: >just standing there looking at them.
: Give us a break with this. I grant you it's quietness, sure. In that
: respect most rangefinders are far apart from SLR's. But the rest of
: above just shows that your subject are exceptionally dead. Lot of
: hyperbola like your earlier posts.
Sorry, the above statement is true. I can shoot and shoot and nobody will
know I'm taking pictures of them....nobody! When the Hexar is in silent
mode you can't hear it...period!
: There's been speculation about its successor. Ok, if it is continued, fine.
Speculation? I'm the one who posted that message here on the Net.
Apparently there's something in the works by Konica that will be similar
to the Hexar, but WILL NOT have interchangeable lenses.
: and effort. Years and hundereds of rolls. With an automatic thing you
: By shooting technique I mean that you really get to know your thing. How
: to control with it the basic things that make a photograph. Focus, dof,
: shutter speed, exposure, framing. That the camera becomes an extension of
: your hand and eye and using it is like a reflex. It takes a lot of time
: think it does the same as really mastering the basics. Or even if you
: use it manually you are removed from direct control by layers of software
: and arbitrary buttons or leds etc. I find such things higly nonintuitive.
: Moreover as the features and autoeverything cameras change just about
: daily what else is there than to worry that you have the latest features
: and living by them, not by the first priciples.
but this applies to all cameras made today, not just Hexars, Nikons, Canons,
whatever.
: can be overcome by buying a feature-ladden camera. Your sentence "What's
: a photographer's motivation to learn photography with those cameras?"
: (EOS & F5) is telling. Your technique starts from the camera, its features,
: not from the basics.
You're funny. I have over 15 years of HANDS ON EXPERIENCE, been published
in national magazines and newspapers and you're telling me that I've been
overcome by feature-ladden cameras? Hahahaha. I'm someone who can use a
viewcamera as adeptly as I can a manual camera. I wonder if you can say
the same?
Nathan
Nathan Wong
Kathleen Lytle (fin...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us) wrote:
From the response I got from Konica the only "new" modification that's
going to be done on the Hexar is the databack. Nothing else will change.
Kari Eloranta
In article <5fdgn0$2...@crl12.crl.com>, Nathan Wong <nath...@crl.com> wrote:
>Kari Eloranta (k...@cc.hut.fi) wrote:
>: >just standing there looking at them.
>
>: Give us a break with this. I grant you it's quietness, sure. In that
>: respect most rangefinders are far apart from SLR's. But the rest of
>: above just shows that your subject are exceptionally dead. Lot of
>: hyperbola like your earlier posts.
>
>know I'm taking pictures of them....nobody! When the Hexar is in silent
>mode you can't hear it...period!
Things really don't easily penetrate your skull, do they? Nick Silva did
an admirable job to get you see the light to no avail. Here's another sign
how hard it is. You claim that you can open your camera, take the film out,
flip a can open, load another, get ready etc. without anyone noticing that
you are handling a camera. That's what you are claiming in the paragraph
above. The quietness of the opertion, the shutter release in particular,
we already agreed on, so that was not the issue anymore.
snip
>You're funny. I have over 15 years of HANDS ON EXPERIENCE, been published
>in national magazines and newspapers and you're telling me that I've been
>overcome by feature-ladden cameras? Hahahaha. I'm someone who can use a
>viewcamera as adeptly as I can a manual camera. I wonder if you can say
>the same?
>Nathan
Well, you certainly have proved beyond reasonable doubt that you are very
fond of equipment. 15 years of that hardly qualifies to be printed bold.
In this forum there are lot of people with more shooting experience than
that including myself. And since when has newspaper photography merited
for anything else than well, taking newspaper-quality photographs.
I find this thread rather silly and end it from my part here.
Kari Eloranta
Nick Silva
> Nick Silva (n...@inamess.vip.best.com) wrote:
>
> : Then why were you playing this stupid cat-and-mouse game?
>
> I'm not. You started it by saying I didn't get it the first time round. I
> just tried to reinforce your statement, but you kept insisting that I
> didn't get it.
Hmmm, if that was your idea of reinforcing my position, remind me NOT to
have you on my side on a debate team....;)
> Hmmm, you must be taking some interesting pictures if you needed to stand
> in shrubbery.
I'd like to think so.
> : And I'm not coming up with excuses NOT to use autofocus - I CAN'T use
> : autofocus because the M6 doesn't HAVE autofocus...when I use my N90s I AF
> : all the time.
>
> Ah, so you're trying to justify your buying an M6 and not having the
> ability to have the high tech stuff built in. Ah, now I get it. Hee-hee.
> Just pulling your chain. I wanted a M6 really badly, but at this day and
> age when I already have too many camera systems it wasn't prudent to
> start another camera system. Too expensive.
I agree. I don't think I'd buy one again to day for the same money, but I
was younger then....
> : That's what I've been saying from the beginning....why have you been
> : arguing otherwise?
>
> I haven't been arguing with you. Just giving options. ;-)
Got it. Unfortunately, the options you presented were options I had already
long considered and discarded as not appropriate to my needs. Too bad,
actually, I'd really like a good AF M6-like camera (so I could use teh AF
part when I'm NOT seriously shooting - Aunt Edna's bday etc..), but all the
alternatives I've seen so far have some kind of major flaw. Oh well, I'll
stick with what works..
Nick