Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/02/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I wrote: >>I had the impression from what I read at the time of its release that the >>M6J was an M6 with a different viewfinder. Thus I find the pricing >>unjustifiable. Now I read from many of you that the M6J is better made, >>made by hand, uses different parts in other areas of the camera than the >>viewfinder, etc. Is this a "Leica legend," or does someone have really hard >>information on this? > Lucien wrote: >M6 M6J >Viewfinder :28,35,50,75,90,135 35,50,90,135 >Magnification : +- 0,76 X 0,85 X >Top cover: M6 ZINC M3 like + M4 rewind lever BRASS >Base plate plain Engraved like M3 >Covering: vulcanite like plastic real leather >lever: regular like M3 >chrom: shinny less shinny >shutter: regular seems to be more like M3 sound >(subjective) >no engraving on the top engraving like M3 >speed control regular M3 like, less the hole for the leicameter >+- 110.000 ex 1640 ex > >etc... > >The subjective impression is different. The M6J is much more confortable with a >50mmm or a 90mmm (135 mmm ?!?). It is the only commemorative M6 who justify his >price and who was not made only for collectors. It seems that, like it was the >case for the SL2, Leica loose money on that camera.(may be a legend). > > >Lucien > Thanks for all this information. It's very clear and complete. Except for the different sound of the shutter (and I still believe it's the same shutter) the rest of these changes, outside of the viewfinder, identify the camera as a collectors' item as far as I am concerned. Who needs the extra cost of M3 type advance, speed control, etc., when those things don't affect performance? I still think that if Leica were interested in photographers, and if this viewfinder is a real improvement (back to the future?) they could produce the M6J for a price close to the regular M6.--Charlie Charles E. Love, Jr. CEL14@CORNELL.EDU