Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Possibly everything. If the M3 was not designed/built with > the same tolerances and materials then they are different. > The ability to adjust the rangefinder and for it to > maintain accuracy will only be as good as the > design tolerances and materials will allow. Yes, you are certainly right. But I took a example of properly adjusted cameras. Then, and only then, we can compare their focusing accuracy. And there applies rights of optics and ergonomics, stating that M3 will have an advantage above M6. Many of LUGers stated that M3 were better built than contemporary M6. So, at least with build quality issue, opinions are clearly differentiated :-) There is also a framing issue: M3 has bigger framelines, so you can frame more accurately with Noctilux. This is another advantage. And flare with M6 ? Maybe I am repeating my arguments, but I hear here so frequent woes aout flare in M6's that I can't stop myself from passing it there... As a final word: I am too not very sure about it, just like you. All I wrote above are hypotheses and/or things I heard/read somewhere. I vote for M3, but YMMV... (..little one) <-I couldn't resist to add this. Sorry! :) have a lot of darkness for your (planned) summicron and light for everything else! - -------- St. - ----------------------------------------------- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com