Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Right you are Mark. That's why your grandly built M6 1) went through more than its share of film counter problems several years ago when Leica changed to plastic components to save costs 2) why there are so many reports of unusually high M6 TTL battery consumption on the LUG 3) why all the best repair people that I have talked to, who don't want to be named because they don't want to piss Leica off, are unanimous in the M6 being a less well made camera. 4) why the M6 's RF/VF has a flare problem which has been a topic of conversation for years on the LUG -- just check the archives. It's cause is a change in the M rangefinder/viewfinder during the M4-2 run to lower production costs (parts were taken out) -- and this was confirmed by the head of Repair at Solms The gibberish is yours Mark. Not that you can't be a fine source of information, but you stubbornly refuse to see the obvious when you don't want to, and become abusive to those who do. On the other hand, maybe you really can't tell the difference. I didn't say the M6 is not an excellent camera, it is. The problem is that it is not as well built, in functional or cosmetic terms, as the M4 and earlier M's. I like this string, it's a LUG oldie that comes up at least once a year. Stephen Gandy Marc James Small wrote: > At 12:13 AM 1/17/2000 -0800, Stephen Gandy wrote: > >If you are talking about the better craftsmanship and > >rangefinder of the M4 and previous M's, yes. > > Stephen > > You have become addicted to spreading False Information on this point. > There is no better-built Leica camera than those currently made. Period. > Speak to some engineers before posting gibberish in the future, please. > > Marc > > msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 > Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!