Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> I though the opposite! Especially in the case of the late M3's and >> the M4's. My impression - from info accumulated over a period of time -was >> that later M's started cost cutting in certain areas and were not as well >> made. . . > > >The fact that something is designed to work until it breaks - without >servicing along the way - doesn't necessarilly mean that it is well made, or >better made than something that requires servicing. All it means is that >certain formerly serviceable parts are now sealed, or what ever, and don't >require servicing. But that often means that they can't be serviced and must >be replaced. By the way, this is a generic comment, not a Leica-specific >comment, as I don't claim to know squat about the innerds of my camera. :-) >> > I thought the main thing that has not been the same since the M4 was the engraving on the top plate -- no longer engraved but painted/stamped. But then again I've heard it said that the film advance mechanism on the later cameras is not as smooth as on an M3 or M2. Mark Hammons