Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 >construction. 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 Marc James Small Cha Robh Bas Fir, Gun Ghras Fir! FAX: +540/343-7315