Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have seen titanium Olympus OM-4s and they really looked very bad for wear. So it can be a disadvantage - Leica´s titanium may be better, though. Raimo photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen nyt myös Kameralehden juttuja suomeksi - ---------- > From: Jack F. Matlock <jfmatlo@ibm.net> > To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us' > Subject: RE: [Leica] Qualities of a Titanium M-6 > Date: 27. lokakuuta 1998 22:18 > > I note the exchange and would ask whether Titanium has distinct > advantages over chrome for durability. (I have heard that Ti is > more scratch-resistant, but can the thin plating they put on the > M-6 really make it more durable and help it keep its looks? Or > is it primarily a ploy to create a scarce item to snare > collectors? > > As for the esthetics, it seems to be that the black lenses look > fine with all the M models, while the chrome look right only on > the chrome and the titanium only on the titanium. A chrome lens > with a black-finish camera looks very strange, and I imagine > that a titanium on anything but a titanium would also look > misplaced. > > Any thoughts? > > Jack Matlock > jfmatlo@ibm.net > > ---------- > > > 2. Other than appearance, any benefits of the chrome or > titanium finished > > over the black? > > Chrome keeps looking better longer. My M3 from 1959 looks > flawless. >