[Leica] old vs. new quality and viewfinder images

["Emanuel Lowi" <mano@proxyma.net>]

For years I was one of those people who asserted that Leica M cameras of yesteryear
were much better built than today's M6. My views were based on the differences in the
sound and the feel of cameras of the different eras. I also was told by respected
independent repair people about a few small features that had been changed.

While this may not be the definitive experiment, I thought the LUG might be
interested in my result. 

I have used a rather shabby-looking M6 as my main working camera for a long time.
Indeed, it's somewhat downtrodden look and feel was my main evidence for the decline
in Leica quality. Well, recently, after a time spent collecting odds & ends parts
from various older cameras, I re-skinned my trustworthy mule with a complete set of
original Wetzlar M4-era black paint outer parts. I also re-covered it with the Fargo
stuff that looks like vulcanite.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the re-cloaked camera's sound and feel had
been transformed too! Now when I wind and shoot, the shutter sounds just like an M
camera of old. All the controls now feel smoother and indefinably nicer. I am not
kidding.

Some wiser person than me may be able to explain why switching to painted brass parts
should make such a huge difference. I can tell you that what was once a very ordinary
well-used M6 now has the heft and silky precision operation of a classic M4.

I also converted the innards by installing an M3 rangefinder unit. All things being
equal otherwise, I can say that the M3 finder is a big help for viewing and framing
with my 50mm and 90mm lenses. But I also find that the M3 viewfinder is slightly less
bright than the former M6 unit. I am beginning to wonder whether the increased
brightness of today's M6 is the cause of the infamous flare problem (note that most
remedies for the problem involve dimming the finder image with tape etc.). In any
case, the differences in viewing with the different eras of finders are not as huge
in use as you may imagine (the larger magnification of the M3 is great, but so is the
brightness of today's .85 M6).

Aside from the few changes that may weaken specific non-critical features (e.g., like
the frame counter plastic bits) and the few others that are definite improvements
(e.g. today's steel lugs are tougher and more easily replaced), I no longer believe
that today's M6  is fundamentally inferior to yesterday's M2/3/4.

I do find, though, that the lens diaphragms of today aren't as reliable. Apparently,
the pins on which the blades are fixed aren't finished as smoothly as they once were,
causing friction wear at the attachment point. This has caused problems for me with a
few lenses made in the early '90s

Emanuel Lowi
Montreal