Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc, >The Van Hasbroeck reference is quite interesting, though, just between u= s >chickens, I am always VERY wary of relying on him as a source. = I agree that he is not really "scientific". It is often frustrating. But thanks to van Hasbroek, you can see several prototype that you never see elsewhere. Good friends in Wetzlar ?? >It would be >nice if he gave us some measured dimensions instead of his off-hand remarks >about these cameras being 'akin' to the M5. Without some details -- >dimensions, dates, &c, the Van Hasbroeck reference doesn't stand for muc= h. The photography of the camera loking like a later prototype is engraved M= 4. And it look really like a M5.(size etc.. ok, it's only a photography) In the revised edition of the book, there is a new color section at the front where you can see what look like an older prototype with M2/M3 lever etc.= =2E, but still with a M5 look. BTW in the same section there are two M3 prototypes with like M5 exposure= meter. >These prototype M4's, in any event, more likely date from '66 or so, fou= r >years after the Viso III was designed. I don't know, I will say that it is more logical that when the Viso III come out Leitz already had some prototype on the shelve. You know, it take them almost 20 years to come from the LTM camera to the= M3 and more than 10 years for the Leicaflex. ;-) Lucien BELGIUM