Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/18

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: M6 HM TTL vs Classic
From: Jeff Moore <jbm@oven.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:14:42 -0400
References: <01a301c01ffd$34cfe280$4581480c@preinstalledcom> <B5E90CE6.8F99%jbcollier@home.com>

2000-09-16-13:41:26 John Collier:
> The early TTLs really suck back the juice but my late TTL, 60+ rolls, is
> still humming along on its original factory one. I never turn the camera off
> unless it is going into the bag for a long trip.

Yeah;  the jury's still out on this one, but I have some anecdotal
data.  I bought an earlyish TTL/0.85 (S/N 2474734) and it ate the
enclosed battery in the first TWO WEEKS.  I fed it another one, and
that lasted maybe two months.  Then the camera went back to have its
rangefinder adjusted;  I whined about the battery problem as well in
the cover letter.

Leica NJ sat on the repair for almost exactly a whole year;  BUT, I
assume they had the best of intentions and were waiting for the
engineers and production folk to get the circuitry more right, because 
they then sent me a brand new camera with a radically later serial
number.  I don't have it before me, but could it be as different as
28something?

I can't comment on the new TTL/0.85's battery performance (still
haven't used it as I should probably sell it -- the scheduled arrival
of an LHSA  0.85 makes it now seem like near-criminal excess --
offers?), but my shiny LHSA TTL/0.72, in the 2548 range, is still on
its first battery after a couple of months, so here's hoping...

In reply to: Message from "Frank's Mail" <red740il@worldnet.att.net> ([Leica] M6 HM TTL vs Classic)
Message from John Collier <jbcollier@home.com> (Re: [Leica] M6 HM TTL vs Classic)