Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/09/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark Rabiner wrote: >I've also owned most of those bodies having used them extensively over >decades and I'd describe their mirror operation as excellent which would be >stating the obvious and a long time industry consensus.. I spent very little >to nothing on repair. They're reputation was deservedly excellent. Not sure >if a Minolta I mean the early Leica R's was as reliable. I'm thinking not. >Way not. Nikon's reputation for reliability (apart from resistor rings) was in part due to the loose tolerances that allowed dirt and grime to fall right through them while a camera with tighter tolerances depends more on keeping the dreck out. And I would not describe the F as having a quiet mirror action. It was more an industrial clunk. The Leicaflexes are quieter and smoother in my experience, and apart from the FTN resistor ring (parts getting scarce by the mid-1980s) and the SL's shutter speed dial (parts still available) the reliability was pretty much the same. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com