Re: [Leica] Uses of M series - M2/M6 rangefinder spot brightness

["Robert G. Stevens" <robsteve@istar.ca>]

Simon:

Regarding the less bright rangfinder patch on you M6 versus M2, I noticed
the same when I got an M6 and compared it to an M4.  At some point, Leica
started using a different system for the rangefinder.  I don't know if they
switched from a prism to a mirror or visa versa, but whatever they did made
it more prone to flare and a little less bright because of this.  A M6
rangefinder will white out sometimes when there is a harsh light source
hitting the rangefinder window, while the M2-M4 won't do this.

Perhaps the more knowedgeable on the list can explain it further.

Regards,

Robert Stevens

At 02:43 PM 2/15/99 -0000, you wrote:
>This is only my second posting to the list - the first, about use of R
>lenses on a Viso III, received no response, so I hope for better luck this
>time.
>
>I am an anthropologist and my research work, which has taken place in
>settings such as therapeutic communities for abused children, requires me to
>be an unobtrusive participant. In the  past I have struggled to make
>photographic records of my work using Nikon SLRs, having to be very up-front
>about taking pictures and waiting for the point at which people begin to get
>used to my presence. Recently I have made the change to Leica M. I always
>wondered whether a rangefinder would work better for me, but held back
>because I thought I would find one harder to use than my do-anything F4S. I
>now wish I had made the change years ago - using an M2 has completely
>removed any awkward consciousness of photograph-taking from the situation.
>
>Since starting with the M2 and 35 and 50 Summicrons I've added a 90
>Elmarit-M and a Viso III with 200 Telyt. I use the telephotos for stage
>photography - my wife is an actress - and have found the Viso III on the
>blue dot setting to be wonderfully quiet.
>
>I have a question that relates to an M6 0.85 that I have acquired recently.
>I am surprised to find that the rangefinder image (the one that moves as you
>change focus) of the M6 0.85 is less bright and contrasty than that of my
>1959 vintage M2. There isn't an enormous difference but it is definitely
>there - the M2 double image is easier to focus. The higher magnification of
>the M6 is very useful for fine focusing on the 50 and 90 - but I'm a little
>disappointed by the double image.
>
>Does this tally with other people's experience? Or should I be sending the
>M6 back to Leica for attention?
>
>Thank you to all the regular contributors who make this list such an
>invaluable resource, and also to Erwin Putts, Hans Pahlen and Stephen Gandy
>whose excellent websites have allowed me to become an enthusiastic
>Leicaphile so much more quickly and easily than if I had had to hunt out
>information in old magazines and out of print books.
>
>Simon Pulman-Jones
>London
>
>
>
>
>