Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>I'll concede that there is a popular myth setting out that the M2/3/4 are better built than >are the M4-2/M4-P/M6. But this simply isn't true. Correct. The M6 is even better built than the M2/3/4. First of all the machinery at the plant is more accurate than in earlier days. Than the quality control is more sophisticated and uses tighter tolerances. Then the choice of materials and the finish is of higher quality. There is only one problem with the M6. In the old days Leitz built every part even the most minute screw themselves. Now some parts must be bought from outside sources. There lurks a problem. If the outside source stops delivering the parts, you must look for an alternative. Thats the reason that some Leica products are sometimes in backorder. And to be honest, some of these parts are of lower quality. But Leica stresses the fact that all vital parts are up to the highest quality standards. Marc is right in drawing attention to the switch from the all adjustable instrument to the part assembled intrument. The reason is of course lowering of production cost. And as I mentioned the older quality control and production process could not guarantee that the camera would stay within the specified tolerances for a long time. Then the adjustments are a necessary consequence of the production process and not of some design philosophy. Erwin Puts