RE: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera

["bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Actually, my F3 was every bit as smooth as any M6 I've owned.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of
grduprey@rockwellcollins.com
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 5:17 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M
camera



Engineering excellence is why they went to steel.  smoothness of the
advance does not improved the pics.  Plus it seems quite smooth to me,
and I've used M3's also.  Who cares as long as it works reliably?  It is
alot smoother than any Canon or Nikon I've ever had.

Gene


 

                      Martin Howard

                      <mvhoward@mac.com>                  To:
leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us                                       
                      Sent by:                            cc:

                      owner-leica-users@mejac.palo        Subject:  Re:
[Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M  camera      
                      -alto.ca.us

 

 

                      07/28/2003 03:49 PM

                      Please respond to

                      leica-users

 

 





Marc James Small wrote:

> One primary example of change was the shift from bronze gears in the 
> M2 through M4 and the steel gears used since the M4-2.  Bronze gears 
> lap into themselves fairly readily, and thus we have the buttery 
> smooth advance of
> an M3.  Steel gears take millions of advances to do the same.  But the
> bronze gear will be worn out by the time the steel gear is just
getting
> lapped into smoothness, and the steel gear will outlast the bronze by
a
> factor of 10 or more.  Sure, my M6's advance is rougher than my M3's
> -- but
> my M6 is only 17 years old, so it hasn't had a chance to be broken in
> yet.

While this is all very good and interesting, it raises the issue of
relevance.  You've had your M6 for 17 years.  Let's assume that you put
200 rolls of film through it in a year, which means that after 3,400
rolls of film (122,400 frame advances) it is still not "broken in".

Personally, I'd be much more concerned with whether my M6 felt smooth,
efficient, and broken in *during* those 122,400 frames than whether it
would last another 1,000,000 afterwards.  I'd even be willing to pay
$400 in repair costs for new brass gears, say, every 10 years if I could
have that buttery smooth feeling of an M3 in my M6.

I venture a guess that most Leica rangefinder owners do not shoot 200
rolls of film a year, many perhaps not even shooting 3,400 rolls of film
in their lifetime.  The point then becomes, *why* it is necessary to
have gears that last 1,000,000 frame advances at the price of the
smoothness and articulation of that action, when few people are going to
use it that much?  Why not offer steel gears as an option for those who
really need it?

This goes back to the issue that was raised a few weeks ago -- creeping
featurism.  I should think that for the vast majority of Leica
rangefinder users, the steel gears is a moot point.  Sure, engineering
excellence, but at the expense of quality of use.  And isn't that what
Leicas are supposed to be all about?

M.

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html





- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html