Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]do you all believe that leitz--that of course should be their name not leica-has made significant progress since the m4 or even my m2s? take for example the elimination of the self-timer. this is a tragic shortcoming as it is invaluable for steady slow speeds. to say they needed the space for the battery is of course a crock. they did this just to save money like they removed the exquisitely machined captive, automatic 1/4 twenty and 3/8" adapters top &bottom of the large ball &socket hear, money not passed along to the buyer. then there is the current standard viewfinder with 28mm lines added to a m2 finder whose 35 framelines( for which the finder was created) reduced. the state of the art finder they should have this late th would included automatic field reduction actually in a japanese rf forty years ago. its like you have a spouse everyone knows is a drunk but nobody calls attention tol it. there is also the incredible fact that the r3 and r4 were actually discontinued minolta bodies --they even accept the cheap minolta winders. to get a fast 35 right, nikon hit the bullseye with the 35f1.8(available in leica mt) I lost couont on leica attempts after the first okay 8-elelement german 35 f2 with elegant focusing device ,lesser 6 element then 7 element canadians . too bad hexar,voightlander ne cosina) or a limited edition nikon s-3 dont hardly reach the point up the phographic everest the m2,m4 were at nearly fifty years ago. but hey, i like my m2s, like em better than your m6ss, whatever. now for fireworks.did someone suggest fll w/200 speed? > From: drodgers@nextlink.com > Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:49:55 -0700 > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: [Leica] Vintage M observations > > > After printing some photos a few weeks back, I decided to dust off my > 50/1.4 M. I haven't used it much since I purchased a new 35/1.4 ASPH M. I > decided to use my M3, which had been locked away for some time. There's > nothing like the M3 framelines and a 50mm lens. I thought to myself, why > did I need an M6? After a week or so of very average use (a half dozen > rolls shot) I noticed that my formerly mint M3 was shedding large pieces of > vulcanite. Plus one of the strap lugs had come loose (and I didn't even > have a strap attached). As much as they appeal to me in a "classic" sense, > I'm apprehensive about using older M bodies. I'm particularly concerned > about the M3, since it has a unique viewfinder. If it breaks, is it even > repairable. Missing vulcanite is not that big a deal, but it reminded me of > why I like new bodies. Everytime I hear about how well constructed the > older bodies are, I remind myself that I was well constructed two decades > ago. But alas, time can take a toll. In that respect, I think the newer M > bodies are a pretty good value, considering. > > Dave >