Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/02/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 08:05 28/02/1997 PST, seungmin@luxmail.luxcom.com wrote: <snip> >No. A lot of Leica users and collectors believe that M4-2 and M4-P are not >up to M4 or M3 in quality and solidity. I am just one of them. It is pretty >tough to explain it in words. You can feel it. I think one reason for that >is that Leitz sacrificed a little bit of quality for cost reduction. <snip> The old story about the poor Canadian Leica bodies&lenses... Of course the Leica M's made in the 50's and 60's were "better", more substantial. Everything was better before... The manufacturing costs were lower 30-40 years ago, and with increasing costs, the most smooth way of keeping everything under control is to "ease" the product, make it slightly "lighter". This is logical in an economic system where maximum profit is one of the holy principles. The horror now is to find out if the actual M6 also is a victim of this cruel principle. I think so. But who knows? Old repairmen I know have told me that it is like day and night, M6 Light... No, LugNuts with your beloved M6 bodies, if I were you, I wouldn't sleep tonight. The oldest M6 buddies in the world is only about 13 years old. It's nothing. We still have to wait and wait for years to be sure that the Leica M6 is an exception in this world of vultures. I have sold mine, I will sleep well tonight. Oddmund Chinon, France