[Leica] M4-2

["Jeff S" <segawa@netone.com>]

- -----Original Message-----
From: ray tai <razerx@netvigator.com>
>Also, I bought an M4-2 recently for price much lower than a comparable M4-P
>even though they are practically the same camera, and I am beginning to
>notice that the M4-2 in general is the least valued M camera, though it was
>produced in relatively low numbers.  Why is this?  There is certainly
>nothing wrong with the one I have.

I started with an M4-2 and liked it just fine when I had it. Others have
said they had rangefinder problems and stripped film transport gears when
using it with a winder. Mine did have RF alignment problems, and Leica
charged me $200+ for a CLA and repairs, but never did say what they changed.
Worked great afterwards, but as this was already into the M6 era, they'd
have known where it tended to break, and would've been in a position to use
revised parts.

Now that I've also owned a late M3 and an M4, I can understand some of the
complaints about the M4-2: Compare the old and newer cameras, and the
changes probably came as a shock to some:

- -Chrome-on-brass versus black chromed zinc (anyone know why zinc's used
today?)
- -Germany vs Canada
- -Vulcanite covering versus some sort of leatherette sheet
- -Engraved markings versus stamped ones (Leica seems to avoid engraving where
possible)
- -Self-timer versus nothing at all
- -All-metal accessory shoe versus composite hot shoe
- -Mechanical, engraved film reminder doodad versus metal plate w/ blank space
for penciled notes.

I think a trend towards reducing the amount of machining of parts was
already under way with the introduction of the M4, and continues 'till this
day, but modernization has brought some functional improvements, too