Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hello Mr. Puts, I would imagine we would both agree the M6 is best made mechanical 35mm camera currently being produced, but that is not the issue. The question how the M6 compares to the M4, which is the better built camera? This question includes both the interior construction and the exterior fit and finish -- both elements combine to make the camera. If Leica Nuts compare mint- or better examples of the M4 besides a M6, it's my experience very few of them will choose the M6 as the better finished camera, not only in terms of the exterior quality of the finish, but also in terms of the smoothness of the film advance and shutter release. Mike and I would certainly choose the M4. For those who haven't done so, I urge you to compare a clean M4 to a clean M6 and make up your own mind --- don't depend upon anyone else's opinion. You asked for specifics on the interior construction, I am gathering data and will post it within a week. In practical terms the M4 vs M6 is much like the story of the bright and beautiful younger sister, who could never quite measure up to her even brighter and even more beautiful older sister. Another way of looking at it is the change in manufacturing over the last 40 years. Older, more labor intensive production methods have been replaced with less costly methods in virtually every field. Leica is no exception. Likewise fit and finish of many products has also been downgraded to lower costs. Interestingly, we are having this discussion because Leica has made a very honest attempt to keep the old standards while playing by the new rules. The Japanese manufacturers went the modern route, forsaking the older construction methods while still aiming for high durability. The "construction joke" of the M6 depends upon one's sense of humor. The joke is that today's M6 has a substandard fit and finish compared to the older M4/M3/M2 cameras, yet sells for much more in simple dollar figures (not accounting for inflation). There is an irony there, whether it's a joke depends upon what you think is funny. The change in the M4-2 rangefinder, which is carried forward today in the M6, defeats the notion of the M6 being the better built camera all by itself. The resulting occasional M6 RF ghosting problem comes up as a regular topic on the LUG. The culprits are missing condensing lenses in the finder of the later cameras -- for cost savings. A LUG member brought this to my attention, and I confirmed it with Solms. If he cares to, he can explain the problem in depth. How can a "better built" M6 rangefinder camera have a rangefinder which is not good as its processors? I don't believe "the better built camera" can have such a deficiency, which alone makes the M4 the better built camera. Even if we agree to disagree on this M4 vs M6 issue, I think we both agree on the overall excellence of Leica products. Stephen Gandy