Re: [Leica] M2 vs M4 vs M6 - Newbie Q

["Guido Soprano" <guidosoprano@hotmail.com>]

Jeff,

Great analysis

My $.02

1. Don't even think about installing a rapidload kit for M3/2, Bill is 
right, get extra spools per below

2. The rewind cranks sold by Richard Wasserman (disfromage@aol.com) make 
rewinding v. quick & easy, & don't get in the way.

3. M6 V/F flare seems related to the small semi-silver strip at the bottom 
of the VF front window. It's there so you can see the red LED's

4. I believe that the eyepiece on the M3/2 is different (the part # changed 
somewhere through the m4/m4-2/m4-p time.

5. Do check for strap lug rotation, as well as everythinmg else that Hans 
Pahlen, CameraQuest et al suggest.

The generations feel different, but perform just as well.

Bon Chance

Guido

>From: "Bill" <ohlen@lightspeed.net>
>Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Subject: Re: [Leica] M2 vs M4 vs M6 - Newbie Q
>Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 23:59:41 -0700
>
>Jeff:
>
>This has to be the most comprehensive, well thought-out analysis and 
>summary
>of the functional differences between the M2-M3-M4-M6 cameras that I have 
>ever
>seen.  I disagree that the M6 rangefinder flare in anyway mirrors the flare 
>in
>the lenses, but there appear to be work-arounds to that problem.
>
>I might add that the "slow rewind" system on the M2 and M3 is not really 
>that
>much slower.  The take-up systems on the M2 and M3 seem to be much easier 
>to
>use if one desires a purposeful double exposure (the tension seems to be 
>less
>and the film seems to stay in the same place better).  Also, the M2s and 
>M3s
>can load as fast as the rapid load models, particularly if you have extra
>take-up spools.
>
>Great analysis.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: 4Season <4Season@boulder.net>
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 9:33 PM
>Subject: Re: [Leica] M2 vs M4 vs M6 - Newbie Q
>
>
> >Skip,
> >
> >The M6 meter is nothing fancy, but it's definitely very handy, and I feel
> >that it makes the M6 overall, the nicest to use.
> >
> >Seeing two framelines in the 0.72X finder simultaneously does not bother 
>me,
> >and in fact, I think the 35mm framelines in the M6 finder are positioned
> >exactly right, and the 50 is good too. I wish they had corners rather 
>than
> >sides though. The 90mm lines are thin and the corner gaps are especially
> >big, but it's useable. It seems to me that the M6 rangefinder patch and
> >framelines do wash out more readily in harsh lighting, but for the most
> >part, photos taken under these conditions are already flaring pretty 
>badly.
> >I usually wear glasses and think it's hard to see the entire 28mm frame 
>at
> >once, but it's better than no frame at all. I plan to skip it and go for 
>a
> >15mm lens, which needs a separate finder no matter which M it's used with
> >(15, 35, 50, 90--and 2x tele extender??)
> >
> >The M6 lens release button has a finger guard and a flat top, so 
>accidental
> >lens releasing is very unlikely. Considering that the lenses twist off in
> >just 1/8th turn, this is no small matter! On my M4, I must've accidently
> >grabbed it's (unprotected) release button as I removed the camera from 
>the
> >bag, because not long afterwards, I heard my new 50 mm smack the pavement
> >with a dull "thud". If I still owned the M4, I'd have an M3-type finger
> >guard added and probably have the lensmount spring and lens release 
>spring
> >replaced, as both were a good deal weaker than those in my newish M6, 
>which
> >hasn't dropped a lens yet!
> >
> >Leica was trying to eliminate some lathe and milling operations when they
> >redesigned the rewind knob on the M6, and the little plastic spinner has 
>a
> >too-small gripping area. The M4's metal piece was much larger and easier 
>to
> >grasp. the M6 piece is adequate, but if you can find a NOS chrome M4 
>part,
> >send me a private email :-) A minor annoyance, given that they clearly 
>know
> >how to do better.
> >
> >The M4, M4-2, M4-P and M6 can be rapidly fired with ease, and you do not
> >need to remove all finger pressure from the shutter release as you wind 
>the
> >camera. With the M3 (and presumably, the M2) you do, and it's real 
>annoying.
> >If I owned one of these older M cameras, I'd certainly look into getting 
>it
> >modified.
> >
> >The M6 eyepiece is rubberized and does not mar acrylic eyeglasses and
> >sunglasses.  I guess when the M3 was designed, eyeglasses were made of
> >harder stuff, because an aluminum eyepiece is not too kind on today's
> >stuff.. It should be possible to retrofit the newer part onto older 
>cameras.
> >
> >Finally, the vulcanite leatherette covering of the M4 and earlier bodies 
>has
> >it's devotees, but to me, it smells faintly like a car tire, it can leave
> >black marks when something wipes against it, and at this late date, tends 
>to
> >be brittle and crack off, sometimes in largish chips. Will today's 
>stick-on
> >coverings do as well 40 years from now? Who can say, but for the here and
> >now, I'll go with the modern stuff. Yes, the older gear can be very
> >appealing in it's own right, but I've confined my opinions to operational
> >differences.
> >
> >Jeff
>
>
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com