Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEDBB8.F22AA8E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm new to the LUG so excuse excuse me for raising old debates. I have an R4 post 1.6 million (Portuguese) with a 50mm Summicron f2 = (Canada) which I inherited. The camera hasn't been regularly used, I = have had a lapse from photography but intend to become active again. I like the solid engineered feel of the Leica but some of the features = just don't impress me on such an expensive piece of kit. First off the = black finish on the top plate is beginning to bubble and corrrosion has = actually broken through around the eyepiece frame, this on an otherwise = mint body, I expect a replacement top plate would exceed the s/h value = of the body and in any case I would worry that a repaired camera might = come back to me with more faults. I also have an R4 Winder (Austria) = similarly exhibiting signs of corrosion, although the metal is = different, white metal alloy instead of the brass of the top plate. My = old OM1N through much heavier service has never suffered in this way, = even though some of the paint has worn off to reveal brass underneath. With regard to the design of the camera I find the viewfinder difficult = to use, the shutter speeds would be easier to the left of the frame (I = use my right eye) and in many lighting situations the meter readings are = very difficult to read. The film speed and compensation buttons and dial seem poorly designed = and not well engineered and the preview lever seems to be almost an = unsubtle afterthought tacked on (tendency to stick on mine). The light seals inside the back cover have all perished, but this seems = to be common on any camera of similar age. The lens, is perfect in = every respect, why were Leica unable to manufacture the body to the same = standard? I have considered changing to a rangefinder instead of the R, the main = use of the camera will be travel/trekking/landscape photography, weight = and size are an issue but I wonder if I would lose too much flexibility. = The M's are beautiful looking cameras and feel suberb to handle. Is it = generally true that M's do not suffer the same quality problems as R's? = They clearly hold higher resale values. Any views/comments/suggestions gladly received. Jason Hall Birmingham, UK - ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEDBB8.F22AA8E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm new to the LUG so excuse excuse me = for raising=20 old debates.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I have an R4 post 1.6 million = (Portuguese) with a=20 50mm Summicron f2 (Canada) which I inherited. The camera hasn't = been=20 regularly used, I have had a lapse from photography but intend to become = active=20 again.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I like the solid engineered feel of the = Leica but=20 some of the features just don't impress me on such an expensive piece of = kit. First off the black finish on the top plate is beginning to = bubble=20 and corrrosion has actually broken through around the eyepiece frame, = this on an=20 otherwise mint body, I expect a replacement top plate would exceed the = s/h value=20 of the body and in any case I would worry that a repaired camera might = come back=20 to me with more faults. I also have an R4 Winder (Austria) = similarly=20 exhibiting signs of corrosion, although the metal is different, white = metal=20 alloy instead of the brass of the top plate. My old OM1N through = much=20 heavier service has never suffered in this way, even though some of the = paint=20 has worn off to reveal brass underneath.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>With regard to the design of the camera = I find the=20 viewfinder difficult to use, the shutter speeds would be easier to = the left=20 of the frame (I use my right eye) and in many lighting situations the = meter=20 readings are very difficult to read.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The film speed and compensation buttons = and dial=20 seem poorly designed and not well engineered and the preview lever seems = to be=20 almost an unsubtle afterthought tacked on (tendency to stick on=20 mine).</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The light seals inside the back cover = have all=20 perished, but this seems to be common on any camera of similar = age.</FONT><FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> The lens, is = perfect in every=20 respect, why were Leica unable to manufacture the body to the same=20 standard?</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I have considered changing to a = rangefinder=20 instead of the R, the main use of the camera will be = travel/trekking/landscape=20 photography, weight and size are an issue but I wonder if I would lose = too much=20 flexibility. The M's are beautiful looking cameras and feel suberb = to=20 handle. Is it generally true that M's do not suffer the same = quality=20 problems as R's? They clearly hold higher resale = values.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Any views/comments/suggestions gladly=20 received.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Jason Hall</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Birmingham, UK</FONT><FONT face=3DArial = size=3D2></DIV></FONT> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML> - ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BEDBB8.F22AA8E0--