M4-2 Reliability

[Stephen Gandy <cameras@jetlink.net>]

leover@knoware.nl wrote:
> 
> >One good bump courtesy of UPS and gears/adjustments can slip.   I mean
> >after all, it was a M4-2.  Not the M3,M2,M4 or M6.
> >
> >
> >Stephen Gandy
> 
> Could you please explain that, Stephen? Are there any inferior
> materials used compared with the M4? Were the Canadians not capable of
> working according to the German specifications? Exactly why does an M4
> survive one good bump more easily than the M4-2 supposedly does?
> 
> Leo Verwoerd

Whether its fact or fiction, the M4-2 undoubtedly suffers from the worst
reputation of all the M series cameras.   The general consensus is that
while the Canadian plant turned out--and still apparently turns out--top
notch optics, that they somehow were never really up to the task of
taking on the full M camera body production.  The why may have had
nothing to do with the Canadians.  A more likely cause was the budget
they were told to work under.

Workmanship is not up to the M3/2/4 levels.  Materials and productions
costs were cheapened whenever possible compared to its predecessors.  

Several LUG members over the past few months have commented on their bad
experiences with M4-2 reliability.

But of course, some have also praised the M4-2.  

The comment I made was a bit tongue in cheek.   Still, they is no doubt
in my mind that while some M4-2's may be wonderful, they are the most
suspect in terms of reliability within the M family.

Stephen Gandy