Poor man’s Konica Hexar AF

mrjr · Aug 29, 2014

Here’s something I’ve been preoccupied with for weeks: what camera should receive the title "the poor man’s Hexar AF"?

The background for me is this: I had a Hexar AF earlier this year for long enough to shoot a single roll of film before I had to return it for an undisclosed filter ring dent. I'd like to get another, but the prices have actually gone up, and there are so many other capable compacts with 35mm lenses available for a fraction of the price, that it hardly seems justified. So I'm looking at alternatives (with intent to purchase): fixed-lens compact cameras with semi-wide, fast lenses and the best balance of enthusiast features... priced to be wallet-friendly.

I think most people would agree that the Hexar is a benchmark camera in its class—a standard of comparison for all others. I have a couple candidates in mind (one of which I own), but I’m asking the collective:

Make your case; what camera is the poor man’s Hexar?

(To be clear, this is not a theoretical exercise intended to create a heated debate. Rather, I’m asking for your well-reasoned input to assist in a purchasing decision.)

Paul Howell · Aug 29, 2014

I dont recall the model name or number off the top of my head, but I have a Canon Auto Focus with a 50 1.7, auto film advance and rewind, I think it uses the same lens as the IIIG, light meter is just over the lens so that filters are metered. The lens is very sharp, just not as wide as the Konica. I found mine as thrift store for $5.00. I also have a Vivitar point and shoot, 35mm 2.8, all in one type, not pervision for a filter, but not Dx so you can fool the meter. Yashicha Ts and Nikon all had very good point and shoots with wide lens.

snapguy · Aug 29, 2014

well resaoned

Well reasoned debate, huh? Perhaps you are asking a lot. We are passionate -- even nutty -- about this stuff. Anyway, since I have no idea what a Konica Hexar
AF is, I can't agree that it is the bee's knees. But I've only been taking photos seriously since 1956 when I won a Rolleiflex in a raffle. The secret with older cameras is the condition of the individual camera, not raves by the so-called experts.

BradS · Aug 29, 2014

The Contax G2 comes to mind.

John Koehrer · Aug 29, 2014

The G2's like the Hexar AF but with interchangeable lenses. Excellent comparison.

mrjr · Aug 29, 2014

Guys! It's not a "poor man's" anything if it's as expensive or more so than the Hexar! Haha.

BradS · Aug 29, 2014

Oh...wait...I was confused. Somehow, I was thinking Konica Hexar RF which does have interchangeable lenses and does (last I checked) command a higher price than the Contax G2. Just realized that the Hexar RF and the Hexar AF are completely different cameras....

Ok, how about the usual suspects: Yashica T4, Contax T3, Ricoh Gr1....or, my favorite (really poor man's), a Canon Eos Rebel Ti with a prime AF lens. You can pick up a good used body with the kit zoom for $25 and spend maybe another $50 to $100 on a nice 35mm prime AF lens?

Jon Buffington · Aug 29, 2014

I am really amazed by the lens on my Nikon L35AF. The camera is cheap to find used, has a fixed 35/2.8 (5 element design) that is sharp and flare resistant, ability to add a filter (46mm threads), ability to focus/recompose, built in flash, bright/big viewfinder and quick lever for back light compensation. Though no hexar af by any stretch of the means, the handling and lens performance are top notch. Downside is that it has a noisy film advance. Just so I don't seem biased, I have no less than 3 different Olympus AF's with 35/2.8 (mju, mju II and original AF1) as well as numerous fixed lens rangefinders from various brands. The Olympus' fixed lens AF cams are nice but the Nikon feels more like a real camera in my hands and has given consistently better results (for me).

blockend · Aug 30, 2014

BradS said:
.or, my favorite (really poor man's), a Canon Eos Rebel Ti with a prime AF lens. You can pick up a good used body with the kit zoom for $25 and spend maybe another $50 to $100 on a nice 35mm prime AF lens?

Indeed. An EOS 3000 with new 40mm pancake for about £100 beats all those cult compacts for flexibility and price. Given the complete lack of parts and servicing support for up-market compacts in C21st, they seem like a risky "investment". I use mine like a P&S and it fits in a jacket pocket no problem.

Fixcinater · Aug 30, 2014

The Olympus Stylus Epic could be a candidate...35/2.8...no manual controls though.

BradS · Aug 31, 2014

blockend said:
Indeed. An EOS 3000 with new 40mm pancake for about £100 beats all those cult compacts for flexibility and price. Given the complete lack of parts and servicing support for up-market compacts in C21st, they seem like a risky "investment". I use mine like a P&S and it fits in a jacket pocket no problem.

OK, I just took a look at that lens...WOW! It is fantastically small and nicely priced too. Thanks.

Is it, in your experience, well suited for use with 35mm film? One can never tell for sure these days.

MattKing · Aug 31, 2014

BradS said:
OK, I just took a look at that lens...WOW! It is fantastically small and nicely priced too. Thanks.

Is it, in your experience, well suited for use with 35mm film? One can never tell for sure these days.

It is a good choice for film use, because unlike some lenses designed for digital bodies, it has quite low distortion - none of your shots will look like barrels or pincushions unless they are supposed to look that way.

One thing to be aware of though is that the focussing system is designed with video in mind, and as a result it can take a little getting used to. It is a "focus by wire" system - it won't manual focus unless the metering circuit is active.

TheFlyingCamera · Aug 31, 2014

IF you're going to disqualify the Contax G series for having interchangeable lenses, (look at a G1 that's been upgraded to handle the 35mm, and get the 35mm f2 lens), then a Contax T2 or T3 would be a good option. Or one of the Leica Minilux cameras (I forget the model designations, they made a number of them).

Dr Croubie · Aug 31, 2014

Another vote for the Shorty McForty (canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake), on any EF body you wish.
I can see Hexar AFs on fleabay going for $300-400 or so, you can even get an EOS 3 with pancake for that.
I use mine on my EOS 3 all the time, great for streeting and casual snapshots (especially with the eye-control AF, one-handed operation).

It'd be strange calling a Leica a poor-man's anything, but yeah, Miniluxes (Miniluxen? Minilices?) are cheaper than Hexar AF.

mrjr · Sep 2, 2014

PDH said:
I dont recall the model name or number off the top of my head, but I have a Canon Auto Focus with a 50 1.7....

Canon AF35ML, right? I accidentally bought one of those last week. Crude, nasty camera IMO. Woeful AF. But I'm sure you had a better experience with yours than I have with mine. Fastest lens in any compact, right?

snapguy said:
Well reasoned debate, huh? Perhaps you are asking a lot. We are passionate -- even nutty -- about this stuff. Anyway, since I have no idea what a Konica Hexar
AF is...
But I've only been taking photos seriously since 1956...
The secret with older cameras is the condition of the individual camera, not raves by the so-called experts.

I'm sure this post was helpful somehow. Let's see, Rollei guy born in early 1900s doesn't know what I'm talking about, but thought he would suggest that I've been reading nonsense from so-called experts and therefore something. Geez.

I tried the Hexar myself and found it great. Unfortunately, I find myself priced out of purchasing one right now. Thus my request for user input on an approximate substitute.

BradS said:
Oh...wait...I was confused. Somehow, I was thinking Konica Hexar RF which does have interchangeable lenses and does (last I checked) command a higher price than the Contax G2.

Ah, now the previous post makes sense.

Jon Buffington said:
I am really amazed by the lens on my Nikon L35AF. The camera is cheap to find used, has a fixed 35/2.8 (5 element design) that is sharp and flare resistant, ability to add a filter (46mm threads), ability to focus/recompose, built in flash, bright/big viewfinder and quick lever for back light compensation. Though no hexar af by any stretch of the means, the handling and lens performance are top notch. Downside is that it has a noisy film advance. Just so I don't seem biased, I have no less than 3 different Olympus AF's with 35/2.8 (mju, mju II and original AF1) as well as numerous fixed lens rangefinders from various brands. The Olympus' fixed lens AF cams are nice but the Nikon feels more like a real camera in my hands and has given consistently better results (for me).

Great input, Jon. You suggested the #1 and #2 camera candidates I had in mind. First, the Nikon, for all the reasons you listed plus manual ISO settings. I just got one last week, and am about to develop my first roll from it. Shutter button jammed 32 shots in, so this copy may be on the blink. But my analysis says that a good L35AF is probably the closest thing to a "poor man's Hexar".
The runner-up in my mind is the Olympus Stylus Epic you mention. It has a hugely good reputation, and if it's even better than my Infinity Stylus, it seems well deserved. Thanks for sharing your impressions, because I'm definitely considering spending for one.

blockend said:
Indeed. An EOS 3000 with new 40mm pancake for about £100 beats all those cult compacts for flexibility and price. Given the complete lack of parts and servicing support for up-market compacts in C21st, they seem like a risky "investment".

No doubt the EOS is "better" than a compact at plenty of things, but I'm not convinced that's really relevant to someone looking for a compact. I'd suggest there are much nearer approximations of a Hexar substitute than an SLR. And this probably isn't relevant either, but I don't find a 40mm lens to be a good substitute for a 35mm lens AT ALL. But I agree with you… a $300 unserviceable luxury compact is hardly a better buy than a $450-500 Hexar.

Fixcinater said:
The Olympus Stylus Epic could be a candidate...35/2.8...no manual controls though.

Yeah, this is on my radar. I'm weighing it as a possible purchase. Do you have one? Do you like it?

TheFlyingCamera said:
IF you're going to disqualify the Contax G series for having interchangeable lenses
.....
then a Contax T2 or T3 would be a good option.

The Contax Gs are disqualified, not on features, but on price.
The Ts are a little less than a Hexar.... I was setting my sights quite a bit lower down on the price scale. Those Ts and the Nikon TIs are beautifully crafted cameras.

Dr Croubie said:
Another vote for the Shorty McForty (canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake), on any EF body you wish.
I can see Hexar AFs on fleabay going for $300-400 or so, you can even get an EOS 3 with pancake for that.

I'm sure that Canon is a nice lens, and it certainly is small. Use what works for ya, but this really isn't the kind of thing I'm looking for. I'm looking for something of the same "kind" as a Hexar.

blockend · Sep 2, 2014

mrjr said:
No doubt the EOS is "better" than a compact at plenty of things, but I'm not convinced that's really relevant to someone looking for a compact. I'd suggest there are much nearer approximations of a Hexar substitute than an SLR. And this probably isn't relevant either, but I don't find a 40mm lens to be a good substitute for a 35mm lens AT ALL. But I agree with you a $300 unserviceable luxury compact is hardly a better buy than a $450-500 Hexar.

The EOS 3000 is no Olympus MjuII/Stylus Epic, that's for sure. Which is why I keep one of those for vest pocket shooting. On the other hand the Rebel is genuinely compact, it has a real thru-the-lens viewfinder facilitated by a tiny pentamirror (not even a proper pentaprism), a working autofocus system, and with the pancake it fits the brief to every extent except looking like a compact camera. Personally, I can live with that, and the 40mm is much closer to 35mm than 50mm. If you're looking for style and function, I'd cough up and go for a Contax.

EdSawyer · Sep 2, 2014

just hold out and get the hexar.

mrjr · Sep 2, 2014

blockend said:
The EOS 3000 is no Olympus MjuII/Stylus Epic, that's for sure. Which is why I keep one of those for vest pocket shooting. On the other hand the Rebel is genuinely compact, it has a real thru-the-lens viewfinder facilitated by a tiny pentamirror (not even a proper pentaprism), a working autofocus system, and with the pancake it fits the brief to every extent except looking like a compact camera. Personally, I can live with that, and the 40mm is much closer to 35mm than 50mm. If you're looking for style and function, I'd cough up and go for a Contax.

You're right. That's a hugely practical, convenient, reasonable alternative. I don't know why my mind insists on being so foolishly impractical. I like the concept of an inexpensive, high-performance compact so much that I force myself to accept all sorts of unnecessary compromises in pursuit of something that may not really exist.

Thanks for being the voice of reason.

blockend · Sep 2, 2014

mrjr said:
You're right. That's a hugely practical, convenient, reasonable alternative. I don't know why my mind insists on being so foolishly impractical. I like the concept of an inexpensive, high-performance compact so much that I force myself to accept all sorts of unnecessary compromises in pursuit of something that may not really exist.

Thanks for being the voice of reason.

I've been through the same process, and concluded I really don't want to pay £300-500 for a pretty compact the manufacturers want nothing further to do with (if they still exist at all). I want something that's light, focusses quickly, fits in a pocket and has plenty of overrides my Olympus MjuII lacks. I couldn't better the little EOS, but I'm open to alternatives. There are plenty of plastic bodied 1990s compacts from Nikon, Canon and Minolta that are pretty good, but come close to the EOS in weight and footprint without its flexibility. It wasn't a Damascene conversion to late period consumer SLRs that lead me here, it was the a rare application of logic to a problem I'd usually solve by throwing money at it, and regretting later.

If a plastic fantastic entry level Canon and digital pancake lens doesn't fit the way you see yourself, the application of folding money may be the only solution to the problem. Or buy some Hello Kitty stickers and pretend it fell out of a Christmas cracker.

darinwc · Sep 3, 2014

Where are you going to put that 300$ camera? In your pocket? Dont think so. Lint. Bulges. Bumps.

You are going to get a little bag for it. You know what fits in a little bag?

Nikon N75 or N80. Either one is super lightweight.
Or Canon EOS whatever im not familiar with the models.

I do not understand the fascination with compact cameras.

darkosaric · Sep 3, 2014

mrjr said:
"Olympus Stylus Epic"
Yeah, this is on my radar. I'm weighing it as a possible purchase. Do you have one? Do you like it?

Many infos are available about this little camera. Lens is great and sharp - when you get the focus right. f3.5 version is better, because on f2.8 version wrong focus gets more often visible. Camera is designed for high shutter priority, so often lens will be wide open, even if you don't expect to be, and focus will be where you don't want it.

Richard S. (rich815) · Sep 3, 2014

darinwc said:
Where are you going to put that 300$ camera? In your pocket? Dont think so. Lint. Bulges. Bumps.

You are going to get a little bag for it. You know what fits in a little bag?

Nikon N75 or N80. Either one is super lightweight.
Or Canon EOS whatever im not familiar with the models.

I do not understand the fascination with compact cameras.

When I want a light small camera in my warm-up jacket or wind-breaker pocket my Contax T2 or Olympus XA fit, are not bulging nor weigh one side down, as an SLR would. Or either fit in my front or back pocket of my jeans. My N80 won't. What's so hard to get about that?

Jon Buffington · Sep 3, 2014

darkosaric said:
Many infos are available about this little camera. Lens is great and sharp - when you get the focus right. f3.5 version is better, because on f2.8 version wrong focus gets more often visible. Camera is designed for high shutter priority, so often lens will be wide open, even if you don't expect to be, and focus will be where you don't want it.

I found this out as well with mju and mjuII. Plus, the original, though very compact, is slightly larger and fits a bit better in my hand. Personally, I love my XA best among my compacts but I realize the times I need AF and something to fit in the pocket. Still, for flexibility and IQ (as well as comfort in hand and to the eye), the L35AF suits me better. Just doesn't quite fit in my pants pockets (will a jacket pocket).

frank · Sep 3, 2014

Mister Junior, I have your answer: the Rollei AF35m, referenced here:

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/h_Rollei_AFM_35/a_Rollei_AFM_35.html

GarageBoy · Sep 4, 2014

The Contax T2 is heavier than the Canon Rebel/40 combo
The Hexar AF isn't that small either

Poor man’s Konica Hexar AF

mrjr

Paul Howell

snapguy

BradS

John Koehrer

mrjr

BradS

Jon Buffington

blockend

Fixcinater

BradS

MattKing

Moderator

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Dr Croubie

mrjr

blockend

EdSawyer

mrjr

blockend

darinwc

darkosaric

Richard S. (rich815)

Jon Buffington

frank

GarageBoy

Poor man’s Konica Hexar AF

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency