Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: M Body Construction
From: Marc James Small <>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 09:39:06 -0400

At 06:21 AM 6/6/97 -0700, Roger Beamon, thoughtful cuss, wrote:
>Related issue is that few consider the M6 as well done as the M3, yet 
>their performance and service record seems as good. Hell, Pop. 
>Photog. magazine did an article comparing the failings of the M6 vs. 
>the M3 a year or more ago. Complete with pictures comparing the 

I'll concede that there is a popular myth -- bolstered by that rather
shallow Pop article -- setting out that the M2/3/4 are better built than
are the M4-2/M4-P/M6.  But this simply isn't true.

Both families are exceedingly well built.  The difference -- and one
pointed out in the Pop article, though they catastrophically failed to
understand the significance of the fact -- is that the earlier cameras have
almost infinite adjustments at many points of there construction, allowing
them to be fine-tuned like a set of Weber carburetters.  The later cameras
have replaced a lot of these adjustments with 'go/no-go' parts:  that is,
the part is either in spec or out of spec, and no adjustment is possible.
If it is out of spec, then it is replaced. 

I have had several M3's and a couple of M4's.  All were constantly going to
the shop because something or other was slipping out of whack.  My M6 just
chugs along flawlessly.  From a user angle, it is by far the finest M body
built to date.


Marc James Small
Cha Robh Bas Fir, Gun Ghras Fir!
FAX:  +540/343-7315