Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/10

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

Subject: [Leica] What happened ? (was: M6 J ... / crashed angel ...)
From: Alfred Breull <puma@hannover.sgh-net.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:27:10 +0100

On:

>   The
>>>only person I know who believes the M6 is as well constructed as the M4
>>>and before is Marc.   While he might be proved correct in the long run,
>>>he certainly seems to be in the minority opinion.

At 11:52 10.03.1998 +0100, Erwin Puts wrote:
>You forget me. I have posted numerous emails trying to explain these facts.
- -- snip

Erwin, Marc, and other dear members of the (LUG) minority - what happened ?

Understanding why a certain event takes place doesn't change the 
character of the event. A broken brandnew Leica is still a broken Leica, 
no matter whether you understand the context or not. 

To say it simple: you pay for quality and you want quality. Almost all of
us need to put bills on small mountains for a long long time to finally 
afford some Leica gear. So, whatever conditions are to understood, Solm's 
failure is not tolerated. Law says the same: if you kill someone by 
accident, you are still responsible.

>But to paraphrase Marc: truth is a commodity not always popular these days.

Yes. Yes. Yes. I also agree to this statement, but our standpoints are 
complertely different. I'm not interested in their problems or whatever, 
specially if I would unpack a broken M or R Leica. 

The problems belong to Solms. All. They are all their business. They 
have to find sufficient solutions. I want a working camera. And, 
besides, I pay for it. 


>Modern production techniques and computercontrolled machining of parts is
>preferable to the old way of crafting the product.

Exactly that statement in this context still needs to be proved. By facts,
not by anecdotes.

>The discussion of the merits of leica bodies has a close parallel to the
>discussion about Leica lenses: old has often been stated to be better, but
>objective measurements disprove it time after time.

This may be true - at least from a certain standpoint. But, the 
pronounciation of certain parameters does not describe the total.

With the same enthusiasm you may describe the large amount of proteines
in a certain mushroom and forget, that its poison is deadly - unfortunately.

I know, that I sound intolerant, stubborn, ignorant, arogant, and 
polemic - more intolerant by far than Marvin, who still tries to stay polite,
and just asks on Guido Ridoli's repeated R8 disaster: "Is this the answer to 
where they go?"

To make myself clear: Even a ratio of 0.001 percent would not put a happy 
smile on my face if I hold a brandnew broken Leica in my hands. I'm not 
interested in Solm's problems, I even don't want to know them. A brandnew 
broken Leica is still a broken Leica. Period, as Eric says.

Alf (happy user of working Leitz & Leica gear since 33 years)
- --------------------------------------------------
Alfred Breull

e-mail:  <puma@hannover.sgh-net.de>
website: <http://members.aol.com/abreull/index.htm>