Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I suspect two things. 1.) not many LUGgers need sophisticated flash with their M6; and 2.) once everyone saw that they screwed-up the basic operation (leds & speed dial) it was sort of a "turn-off." I have an old Sun flash with a photocell that gives perfect flash exposures, two f/stop choices. And it has a head that will point in any direction. And it's small. So why would I want to buy a bass-akward M6, simply for TTL flash. I guess you could say that the new M6 has one plus and two minuses. That adds up to less than desirable to me. There are a lot of people who need TTL flash. But are they M6 people? I also have a Metz 60 CT-4 which has TTL (works with my R7's) and variable power down to a tiny little pop. When I need flash, I use my R7's. With my M6, I use my 35/1.4 . Others use their 50/1.0 . My old Sun works with perfectly with my M6... but I don't want to use flash with my M6. That's not a normal MO for an M6. So... I believe that the Leica marketing people may have built a case for the re-arranged TTL M6, out of cards, which may collapse and prove to be a bad decision. Now, had they left the camera's operation alone... I believe Leica will lose TTL sales to current M6 owners who want another body. They will buy a classic. Perhaps a used classic. Would there have been the same enthusiasm over the HM if they had messed with he leds and shutter dial direction on that camera? Jim At 10:46 AM 10/1/98 +0200, you wrote: >Jim Brick wrote: >> > >> >> Are you the only LUGger to want one? >> >> Enquiring minds want to know. >> >> :) > >Jim, > >It's funny that the new M6TTL seem to attract >much less attention on the LUG than the M6 0,85 >few months ago. > >;-) > >Lucien > Jim Brick (650) 470-1132 http://www.photoaccess.com