Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark Hammons wrote: >I thought the main thing that has not been the same since the M4 was the >engraving on the top plate -- no longer engraved but painted/stamped. >But then again I've heard it said that the film advance mechanism on the >later cameras is not as smooth as on an M3 or M2. The top plate on the M6 is a zinc casting, I believe, so the "engraving" is presumably created by the casting process. There is a photo in the current M6 brochure which shows a tray of "raw" top plates as they look before being plated. I've used the M2 since the early 1970s, but the arrival of the "vulcanite disease" and the desire for an internal meter led me to buy a Wetzlar M6 (I rebelled at the idea of having a Leica with a totally blank top plate!). It has only just returned from a post-purchase meter repair, so I've yet to use it (being caught up in pre-Xmas work schedules). However, I can't say I see a significant difference in build quality betwen the old and newer cameras. The film advance mechanism on the M6 seems *slightly* rougher than on my M2, but feels identical with that of a like-new condition M2 which I know to have seen little or no use. I'd guess that any additional smoothness in my old M2 is due to 40 years of use having removed any residual roughness on the load-bearing surfaces of the gears which make up the advance mechanism. The silver chrome on the M2 has a duller softer sheen than that on the M6, but we're comparing a 40 year old finish with a 10 year old finish, and chromed brass versus chromed zinc. The only area where I can see an appreciable difference is in the finder. Compared to my old M2 the bright lines are much dimmer, and their brightness is very dependant on eye position - I have to keep my eye carefully centred in the eyepiece, or one side of the bright line frame dims out. The visibility of the rangfinder spot is also very dependant on eye position; if the eye is nor centred, the spot becomes brighter and its contrast falls away dramatically. I've since checked with other M6s of different vintages and they all behave similarly. And my dealer says he's noticed the same eye-position dependancy, so it's not something related to my eyesight or spectacles. Discussing this with Marc James Small recently, I said "The published cutways may look the same, but Leica/Leitz has obviously done something which has affected the finder optics." Since the return of my M6, I've done a few more comparative tests under different lighting conditions. The frames in the finder of my M2 are not eye-position dependent, though the rangefinder spot is - but to a much lesser degree than on the M6. However, I've since tried the finder of a like-new condition M2 built the same year as mine, and the visual clarity of its rangefinder spot and frames seem independent of eye position. So this phenomenon could be a matter of how well the viewfinder/rangefinder was set up, or how much it has drifted out of perfect alignment with years of use. Regards, Doug Richardson