Re: [Leica] M4-2

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

- -----Original Message-----
From: LEICAMAN56@aol.com <LEICAMAN56@aol.com>

Bill, looks like you are absolutely right regarding the M4-2 and M4-P
covering materials: As luck would have it, Jones Drug had both onhand today,
and wouldn't you know it: They had the telltale
screws-through-the-vulcanite. Guess my memory is a little lax sometimes! The
M4-P looked to be in beautiful shape and was selling for under $1K, but it
also had the older style cover, and now, I think I'm going to favor the zinc
ones, if indeed they are tougher. Now that you mention it, a tap-test does
suggest the newer parts are much stouter.

>It is more costly to build these cameras, and the number of parts contained
>within is greater than most SLR's.  The rangefinder assembly alone consists
of
>more than 100 individual parts.  The M3 had more than all the other M's
with
>something like 130-140 parts.


In a perfect world, of course, the RF assembly would have fewer, not more,
parts, because it'd be totally non-adjustable, and inherently in a state of
perfect alignment.

>Don't look down your nose at the products from
>Canada.

Jeez, all I said was "Germany vs Canada" and didn't figure anyone would
bother to read any connotations, negative or otherwise, into that one!
What's lacking is the (publicized) lore and legend regarding Leitz Canada
and Portugal--you know, the mystique.

Mystique? What the heck's he talking about?? Just this: We didn't pay a
bundle for Leica gear actually imagining that it was bringing us results
unattainable by other means, did we? Naw, I think we bought it because we
liked the stuff, and bent reality to suit :-)

Jeff