Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>The III is bigger and taller than the >>II; it's tall enough that it leaves an empty space between the bottom of >>its prism and the camera top plate; I'm not sure, but I think this is so >>it can be used on the M5, which is taller than a normal M body. The II >>will definitly not fit an M5. >Er, the Viso III was introduced in '63, the M5 in '71. There was no way >that Leitz was thinking of the M5 when they designed the Viso III: they >don't think ten minutes into the future, much less eight years. Marc, I got it backwards. I guess they designed the M5 to fit the Viso III. Why did they make the III so tall? I've never actually used a III (I have a Viso II); is there some reason it needs the extra height? - - Paul