Re: [Leica] My new M3

[Dante A Stella <dante@umich.edu>]

Joe:

I will check it out with a flashlight (now where do I keep that?!).  Gear trains
and 1/15 sound fine.  Times to 1 sec on my mechanical watch (with 1/5 second
ticks), so I don't think the shutter is out of whack.  It could just be that I
was looking at it in a room with bad light.  The testing will continue.  What I
had to compare it to on the modern end (Hexar RF) has the benefits of
multicoating and a totally different RF design, so we'll see.  If it looks iffy
I'll have it checked locally and then call DAG.

Why don't Canons accumulate crud?  I haven't seen a bad one yet.  Is the high
ozone content of the air here going to cause problems?

Cheers
Dante



Krechtz@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 9/18/00 1:37:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dante@umich.edu
> writes:
>
> << (1) What is the story with the RF brightness?  I didn't see any fog or
>  separation on mine and compared it to about ten M2s.  Nothing really
>  notable in differences, but even compared to a Hexar RF, well... let's
>  just say that the 0.91 finder on the M3 seems to be more than overcome
>  by its old-school brightness.  (snip)>>
>
> The color tends to be on the cool, or blue side, compared to an M6.  I have
> also read that the M6 is brighter due to removal of a condenser from the
> light path, which has the unwanted side-effect of fostering that "flare" we
> know and love.
> You cannot really see fog or dirt in the finder properly unless you face the
> camera and look into the finder from about 12-18" away while shining a small
> flashlight through the eyepiece.  Unless a finder and/or mirror has been
> cleaned recently, it is likely to exhibit some dimming due to accumulations
> of crud..  To me, this tends to explain why most of the 40-or-so-year old
> finders you saw looked similar.
>
>             (snip)
>
>   <<(3) Are some M3s quieter than others?  This one is a SS PV (927xxx) and
>  it is far more quiet than any M I have encountered.  Does it have
>  anything to do with the shutter brake someone was talking about earlier?>>
>
> >From what I am told, the double brake was found only on the DS, possibly only
> the earlier units at that.  Your M3's behavior is, IMHO, more likely to be
> the result of a combination of old thickened lubricant and dirt, a very
> effective accoustical damper.  You didn't mention what the slow speed gear
> train sounded like.  Check it out on a shutter tester.
>
> << (4) What was the trick for allowing the RF to work at 0,7m?>>
>
> First, mount a lens that focuses to 0.7 m...?
>
> << Well, it will be an interesting experience.  The M3 is a much different
>  beast from the M6 (and sufficiently different from the Hexar RF), and
>  over the next couple of weeks it will be interesting to see how much
>  more difficult it is to use the M3-type loading and rewind.>>
>
> You got that right!  I think you will also find that advancing the film takes
> a bit more effort than with the Hexar, and the TTL metering is not very
> reliable.
>
> << I  am most interested in finding out whether or not the finder really
> improves the
>  long/fast lens experience, especially as against a Canon 7, which has a
>  0.85x magnification and a lot clearer finder.  I hope it does - it's a
>  nice camera.>>
>
> IME, the M3 has a better finder, even if one considers only the square RF
> patch.  If your 7 seems to have a markedly clearer finder, I suspect that it
> is either much cleaner or in better condition, hopefully and probably the
> former.
>
>  <<Any tips or tricks would be appreciated.>>
>
> Don't mention it!  Good luck.  Your M3 sounds like a good candidate for a
> CLA, so don't be too critical of its performance before getting it checked
> out.
>
> Joe Sobel
>
>

- --
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dante Stella
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dante