Re[6]: Which M camera?

[seungmin@luxmail.luxcom.com]

     Hi Dan,
     
      It is partly true but comments about the quality are true too.  I 
     have heard much more compaints about M4-2 and M4-P than about M4 or 
     M3.  That's also why most of Leica users and collectors believe that 
     M3 and/or M4 are/is the best Leica ever built.  I have both M4 and 
     M4-P and can tell the difference in workmanship and craftmanship.
     
     Regards,
     
     David

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Which M camera?
Author:  leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at Internetmail
Date:    2/28/97 12:56 PM


     
>>Do you think M4-P was built under the same quality as M4?  I don't like M4 
>>because I probably will use 21mm in the future.  
>
>No.  A lot of Leica users and collectors believe that M4-2 and M4-P are not 
>up to M4 or M3 in quality and solidity.  I am just one of them.  It is pretty 
>tough to explain it in words.  You can feel it.  I think one reason for that 
>is that Leitz sacrificed a little bit of quality for cost reduction.
[snip]
     
Is it possible that the perceived differances are due to the heavier brass 
that the earlier cameras were made from?  The M4-2, M4-P and the M6 are made 
from aluminium and zinc, and feel lighter in the hand.  This may give the 
impression of lesser solidity and quality, but in actuality the newer 
cameras may be as tough as the older ones.
     
Perhaps the is the source of the perception that the M6J is more solid than 
the regular M6 as it too is made from brass.
     
This is all conjecture on my part  since the only Leicas that I have owned 
were an M4-P (which was an excellent camera until it was stolen) and my 
current M6.
     
Dan C.