Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Did you buy the bloody thing just so you could complain about it on the LUG? I suggest that you do one of two things; a) just get it cleaned, lubed, and adjusted by a competent repair person, or b) trade it "up" for a Hexar. Whinging and asking LUG members to diagnose your problems by remote sensing is not what I for one consider useful endeavors, though others may disagree and I apologize to all of them now. Buzz Hausner - -----Original Message----- From: Dante A Stella [mailto:dante@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 7:10 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] My new M3 Joe: I will check it out with a flashlight (now where do I keep that?!). Gear trains and 1/15 sound fine. Times to 1 sec on my mechanical watch (with 1/5 second ticks), so I don't think the shutter is out of whack. It could just be that I was looking at it in a room with bad light. The testing will continue. What I had to compare it to on the modern end (Hexar RF) has the benefits of multicoating and a totally different RF design, so we'll see. If it looks iffy I'll have it checked locally and then call DAG. Why don't Canons accumulate crud? I haven't seen a bad one yet. Is the high ozone content of the air here going to cause problems? Cheers Dante Krechtz@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/18/00 1:37:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dante@umich.edu > writes: > > << (1) What is the story with the RF brightness? I didn't see any fog or > separation on mine and compared it to about ten M2s. Nothing really > notable in differences, but even compared to a Hexar RF, well... let's > just say that the 0.91 finder on the M3 seems to be more than overcome > by its old-school brightness. (snip)>> > > The color tends to be on the cool, or blue side, compared to an M6. I have > also read that the M6 is brighter due to removal of a condenser from the > light path, which has the unwanted side-effect of fostering that "flare" we > know and love. > You cannot really see fog or dirt in the finder properly unless you face the > camera and look into the finder from about 12-18" away while shining a small > flashlight through the eyepiece. Unless a finder and/or mirror has been > cleaned recently, it is likely to exhibit some dimming due to accumulations > of crud.. To me, this tends to explain why most of the 40-or-so-year old > finders you saw looked similar. > > (snip) > > <<(3) Are some M3s quieter than others? This one is a SS PV (927xxx) and > it is far more quiet than any M I have encountered. Does it have > anything to do with the shutter brake someone was talking about earlier?>> > > >From what I am told, the double brake was found only on the DS, possibly only > the earlier units at that. Your M3's behavior is, IMHO, more likely to be > the result of a combination of old thickened lubricant and dirt, a very > effective accoustical damper. You didn't mention what the slow speed gear > train sounded like. Check it out on a shutter tester. > > << (4) What was the trick for allowing the RF to work at 0,7m?>> > > First, mount a lens that focuses to 0.7 m...? > > << Well, it will be an interesting experience. The M3 is a much different > beast from the M6 (and sufficiently different from the Hexar RF), and > over the next couple of weeks it will be interesting to see how much > more difficult it is to use the M3-type loading and rewind.>> > > You got that right! I think you will also find that advancing the film takes > a bit more effort than with the Hexar, and the TTL metering is not very > reliable. > > << I am most interested in finding out whether or not the finder really > improves the > long/fast lens experience, especially as against a Canon 7, which has a > 0.85x magnification and a lot clearer finder. I hope it does - it's a > nice camera.>> > > IME, the M3 has a better finder, even if one considers only the square RF > patch. If your 7 seems to have a markedly clearer finder, I suspect that it > is either much cleaner or in better condition, hopefully and probably the > former. > > <<Any tips or tricks would be appreciated.>> > > Don't mention it! Good luck. Your M3 sounds like a good candidate for a > CLA, so don't be too critical of its performance before getting it checked > out. > > Joe Sobel > > - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dante Stella http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dante