Re: [Leica] My new M3

[khmiska <khmiska@umich.edu>]

Buzz,
Your comments hit the nail on the head. I bought my M2 in March. I put film into
it many times since then. I don't coddle it. I enjoy it every time I pick it up.
I live with whatever shortcomings it might have but I don't think it has any.
Wouldn't mind a 135 frame but then I have a finder for that.  BTW - I do the
same with my Rollei TLR.
Kurt
Ann Arbor

Buzz Hausner wrote:

> 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