Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/04/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, C.M. Fortunko wrote: > Eric, > > I use my M5 a lot and my meter is fine. I know that the metering mechanism > of the M5 is more fragile than that of the M6. But the M5 is a Leica and it > is built like a Tiger tank. However, I like your point of view. I wish there > were more people like you. Then the M5s would not appreciate as quickly. > > I don't know first hand about the CL, but have heard that it, too, is a fine > camera. So, let us know where you heard this rumor about the M5 being fragile? > > Best regards, > > Chris > > > >At 06:52 PM 4/19/96 -0400, you wrote: > > > >>spot metering like my CL and Leica M5, which work well with the > >>Zonal pleasure. The M6 ain't an M5, and it will never be. > > > >I wouldn't consider that a good recommendation considering the problems > >people have with M5 and CL meters breaking quite often. And the meter in the > >M6 is extrememly accurate. > >Eric Welch > >Grants Pass Daily Courier > > > > The CL meter "arm" went on my camera about 15 years ago. I had it replaced and it's been fine since. As for the M5--I've had it about 20 years and it has never failed me. My good friend (he worked in Wetzlar for about seven or eight years in the 1960s) tells me that the problem with the M5 is that if the viewing system requires a repair, the optical line-up of all the pieces requires lots of hand work. It's a problem to get it right and is time-costly to do. I haven't dropped my M5 yet, so I haven't had the problem. I like the camera...Ed Meyers> > > >