Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Curt wrote: >On page 26 of the Leica Compendium, Jonathan Eastland indicates the >"Rangefinder Base Length. 68.5mm" for the M5 and on page 35 he lists tha= t of >the M6 at 49.9. Are these absolute base lengths as opposed to effective= >base lengths? And, if he intended them to be absolute, he is surely wro= ng >because the M5 finder windows are not 20mm farther apart in the M5 than = in >the M6. This issue is something we haven't had much discussion about in= >LUG. What do you think? In Viewfinder volume 28 number 2 second quarter 1995: Page 8 from a letter from Alan Morris, Bethesda, MD M3 0,91 X 68,5 =3D 62,3 effective MP idem M2 0,72 X 68,5 =3D 49,3 M4 idem M5 idem M4-2 idem M4-P 0,72 X 69,25 =3D 49,9 M6 idem M6J 0,85 X 68,85 =3D 58,5 Roy E. Moss , the Editor, asked to Sherry Krauter of Golden Touch Camera Repair for review. She validated the above figures. I think that the figure of Jonathan Eastland's Leica Compendium was from the former issue of the Viewfinder (vol. 28 Nr 1 page 11) "First Impressions of the Leica M6J" by Ralph Childs who wrongly stated t= he M5 Range finder Base Length as 68,5 (a wrong "cut and paste" ??) The letter of the next nr was an answer to that article. What is funny is that a lot of Leica user still think that the base lengh= t of the M6 & M4-P is smaller that the one of the M2, M4 & M5. I think that the 28mm frame is the responsible of that belief. Results of the effective Base lenght contest: (if the above figures are accurate) 1 =3D M3 & MP =3D 62,3 2 =3D M6J =3D 58,5 3 =3D M4-P & M6 =3D 49,9 4 =3D M2, M4, M5 & M4-2 =3D 49,3 Lucien BELGIUM