Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/07/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric Welch wrote: > > Let's have some documentation here. What gives you the idea they are not > motor driven? I owned an R3, and I've played with many R3mots. Never saw a > signle Mot that wasn't motor (winder) driven. You have evidence this is true? > > The R3 cameras labled MOT were motordriven, but the problem was that the motor was really just a winder capable of only 2 fps--not fast enough to quality for the Motor designation. A European lawsuit, I was told, forced Leica to stop using the MOT designation for a winder. The problem with Leica's handling of the R4, which I consider corporate lying, is that the camera was sold as the best you can buy and then discovered to be inherently defective. While it was good they fixed the cameras of those who complained, what they should have done is taken out full page ads to recall all the R4's within the problem serial ranges. Of course they didn't in order to save the corporate buck. Looks like a coverup to me---along the theory of "what they don't know won't hurt them." On multicoating, I went back to the Modern Photography test of the M4-2 in June of 1978. The camera was tested along with the 50 Summicron, the 35 Summilux, the 90 Summicron and the 135 Elmar. My memory was not entirely accurate on this one. While the 135 is labled as single coated and the 35 & 50 make no mention of the coating, the 90 Summicron is listed as having multicoating. So while Leica may have pioneered Multicoating, all lenses were not multicoated in this period. I have no data on Leica M multicoating today although I could not find it mentioned in the M6 brochure. The focusing "test" I referred was repeatedly focusing on objects at different distances with different lenses and different cameras. The "test" was to see if all the cameras would focus the same lens at the same distance by observing the focusing scale. Note that this test adds the random element of the photographer's ability to accurately focus ---but then the camera doesn't take the pictures by itself. The test was conducted indoors with window light. Conducting it outdoors in bright sunlight would have made it too easy as far as I was concerned. After going through the motions for awhile and being sure that I could get repeatable focus results with the long based M3 and M4, I switched to the shortened RF based CL and CLE. It was then that I found I could not focus the CL as consistently as the CLE, even though the effective baselengths of the two cameras are relatively close. I make no claims my "test" was objectively accurate. Other people might easily have different results. I do wear glasses and I am very near sighted. Someone with great eyesight might be able to focus the CL much more consistently and accurately. Stephen Gandy