Re: [Leica] Re: M6 Reliability

["Bill Larsen" <ohlen@lightspeed.net>]

Michael Gatov writes:

>All of the posts are still making me a bit quesy about buying an M6 again,
>even though I know I need to.  >
>I guess that what I want is a nice small Nikon or Canon rangefinder body
>that would accept the Leica lenses.  Then I could have the best of both
>worlds.


Michael:  There has been some negative posting regarding this.  I think that
the proof is from the professional's on the list that are using the Noctilux
wide open most of the time.  (There are several including Ted Grant, Tina
Manley (there are several more excellent photographers using this lens with
the M6).  Both Tina and Ted make a living and reputation from this lens and M6
body.  I think Ted would be at Parliament picketing Leica if there were
reliability problems with the M6 (did not mean to put words in your mouth
Ted).

I think that the M6 rangefinder is inherently more accurate than an SLR
screen.  I know that it has to be considerably more accurate than a standard
yardstick.  Using both the Noctilus and the 75/1.4 Summilux at close distances
requires more accuracy than a standard yardstick.  I am using an M6-HM with
the 75/1.4.  I try to focus on an eyeball (if appropriate).  I can nail it
most of the time.  The only times I run into problems is when I begin to think
about it rather than just go with my first impression of when it is in focus.
The M6-HM was sent back to Leica-USA after about 6 months for rangefinder
correction --- not for alignment but because I felt I had excessive flare when
trying to use it with high contrast back-lit subjects.  I am perfectly happy
with it now.  I am trying to push the camera and lens combination to its
limits and find out exactly what it can do in terms of my photography.  (To
save my pocketbook and marriage, I have this self-imposed rule that I cannot
buy any new lens until I really know what the ones I own will do).   Now grin
;;;;-) lest I spake too harshly.

Regards, Bill Larsen