Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Marc, I don't think my comments are contradictory since, at least in my mind, the two statements speak to different aspects of the camera. No. 5 speaks to the film advance, as well as a few other operational details while item No. 6 concerns the overall sturdiness of the camera, such as resistance to damage when used to smack someone up-side the head (I really love your "war stories" Ted!). So my brass bearings will give me a million exposures, eh? That's about 8 rolls of film shot every day of every year for 10 years. I can live with that. Bob Kramer Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: Preferring an M3 was: M6 as jewelry > > At 11:33 AM 3/15/2000 -0500, BOB KRAMER wrote: > >5. There really is a silky smoothness to the operation of an M3 that is > a > >true pleasure to experience, that doesn't seem to be there with an M6. > > > >6. The M3 is built like a tank. I bet it would make an excellent weapon > if > >one were attacked on the street. <g> > > > These two statements are actually contradictory. The reason for the > smoother film-advance of the M3 and M2 cameras comes from the use of brass > gears in the film wind-on mechanism. Leitz found that these wore out with > time, so they went to steel gears, which are not as smooth -- the brass, > being relatively soft, "laps in" over time to make a wonderfully fine fit > of gear-tooth on gear-tooth, while the harder steel takes a LOT longer to > wear in this way -- but which last indefinitely. > > The difference is probably not of much interest to most of us -- I recall > the MBTF was something like a million exposures on the brass gears, and 10 > million on the steel gears. But a professional might well take a million > exposures in ten years or less, so it did matter to that part of the > market. > > Marc >