Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/10/23

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

Subject: Vs: [Leica] Third Quarter Viewfinder
From: "Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 20:31:15 +0100

Hi!
There are some cheapening changes from M4 to M4-2 - like elimination of self timer, the frame counter and base of PC terminal - quite minor IMO and otherwise the cameras are alike. When testing the M4-2 PopPhoto (July 1980) reported the teething problems but I´m sure all the cameras that had those are properly adjusted by now.
The article is just one man´s opinion and clearly he loves M4.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen

- -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: John Collier <jbcollier@powersurfr.com>
Vastaanottaja: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Päivä: 23. lokakuuta 2001 15:07
Aihe: Re: [Leica] Third Quarter Viewfinder


>Hi Nathan,
>
>You are right to be cautious. I opened mine and one article was badly
>contaminated and the issue was only saved by Tom and Henning's wonderful
>article on 21mm lenses. Unfortunately Roy Moss's article on M4 cameras was
>about the worst thing I have ever seen in a Leica magazine. I do not mind
>people having personal favourites but to viciously slam other cameras is
>annoying and immature. Initial teething problems in the M4 are glossed over*
>while the M4-2 is raked over the coals for its initial production bugs.
>H***, initial M4-2 production involved moving all the M manufacturing
>equipment thousands of miles and training new staff. He then praises
>(faintly) the M4-P! The M4-P is an identical camera off the same production
>line as the M4-2. The only real difference is the frameline mask set. There
>is a selective quote from Norm Goldberg slamming the M4-2 while I have an
>article from 1980 where he says it is a great camera but the early ones need
>to be adjusted properly.
>
>Once again the KS15-4/M2-R is given the credit as the camera for which rapid
>loading was developed. Looking at production allocation dates and
>prototypes, it is obvious that rapid loading was being developed for the M4
>and used in the KS15-4 not the other way around.
>
>Sorry about the rant but Leica "purists" who think it cannot be a Leica
>unless it is made in Wetzlar drive me nuts. Now where the h*** did my
>therapist's number get to...
>
>John Collier
>
>* Why there would be any at all is amazing as the camera is not that much
>different from a M3 and the same production crew was used.
>



- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html