Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] M6 question
From: "Tim Atherton" <>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:58:40 -0600

My M6 (1988) failed in Central America during the course of a recent
assignment in Central America this year - would have been screwed if it
wasn't for my Nikons. (And I found Leica Canada offers NO kind of
professional service at all - really pissed me off).

It had recently been adjusted (which may have possibly been part of the
problem). Shutter jammed completely. On repairing it (she had nothing to do
with the earlier work) Sherry Krauter said it was a rare problem - she has
only seen it a few times.

I have also had other shutter problems with this M6 a few years ago, getting
a band across images from "shutter bounce" - mainly due to the effect of
cold on the shutter mechanism lubricant.

I won't be relying on my M system unless I have at least two bodies with me
(which I don't have at present) and preferably three. I have come to see
that the bodies just aren't reliable enough. I stick with them because of
the lenses and the quiet unobtrusiveness of the M bodies for people

Tim A

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of
> Sent: July 6, 1999 7:59 AM
> To:
> Subject: [Leica] M6 question
> With an upcoming venture to foreign lands, I was wondering, in
> regards to the
> M6, from those who have used them a lot over a period of time, how many
> people (if any) have had them fail in the course of use, and in what way?
> Later or earlier model?  I'm not referring to failures as a
> result of damage
> (impact, submersion, etc.) or things like the infamous
> frame-counter.  I'm
> concerned with something unforseen which rendered the camera
> unreliable or
> unusable, or spoiled film without your knowing it until
> developed...things of
> that nature.  (Like shutter, winding, rangefinder etc. but not
> "out of the
> box" defects).  (I know my description sounds complicated but I'm
> just trying
> to avoid a total rehash of what's probably been hashed here
> before.  Anyone
> can e-mail me privately, of course.)
> Thanks
> DT