Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dans un courrier daté du 17/01/01 01:03:01 Paris, Madrid, dante@umich.edu a écrit : << Before that, body focus was adjusted to the castings by hand. Leica professes (or at least did) to have every part within a tolerance for ultimate interchamgeability. I would be wary of either approach. One can lead to difficulty in replacing parts due to a larger tolerance in a particular part; the other can have lots of little tolerances adding up. Maybe I have just been lucky, and everything adds up right. My Hexar RF consistently produces better pictures with LTM lenses than my M3 does; and on bayonet lenses, it's hard to tell the difference. I would give the telephoto edge to the M3, because it's easier on my eyes, but I'm not seeing any noticeable difference in details at 2700dpi scans. But then again, I stop looking when I find a camera with good "karma" and everything adds up nicely. I think tolerances of whatever make have gotten tighter with better instrumentation and better quality control methods. The question I have is whether the new Ms are higher-precision than the old. In other words, with the same 90mm f/2 lens, would an M3 be better than an M6 0.85? I would guess not, unless you were shooting into the light. DAS >> Just to contribute a little bit to your interesting post , I may add that nowdays Leica still adjusts the film rails by hand in an empirical manner . I've seen this being done last summer at the Leica factory in Portugal . This is a pretty time consuming job , but I guess it's the only final adjustment that has to be made that way . This is just like "blueprinting " one of my Drag car engines , I love that . Jo Goodtimes , France . airborne radar tech live free or die