Re: [Leica] Third Quarter Viewfinder

[Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

At 7:24 AM -0600 10/23/01, John Collier wrote:
>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.

Thanks for your comments on the 21's article. It was fun to do, 
especially since I got to try the Ricoh lens for a bit. I also got to 
use the Voigtlaender 21, which I had on order at the time, but not as 
yet received. I must say, though, that when I received my V-C 21 it 
was not quite as good as Tom's. The difference is very slight, and 
the order of my preferences does not change at all, but I think Tom 
had received a special lens. Also, as has been previously noted, 
Cosina's quality control is not as good as Leica's - understandable 
at the price.

With regard to the M4 etc situation, I too have felt that the M4 was 
better built, as I had an early M4-2 which had a number of fairly 
serious quality problems. They all got fixed eventually, or rather, I 
received new equipment from Leica but as is so often the case, once 
you have some problems with equipment you don't tend to trust it as 
much, and you use other equipment in preference. So I sold it. By 
this time the differences are immaterial, as all teething problems 
have either been solved or have killed off individual cameras. If I 
was looking for a meterless user M body, I would head towards the 
M4-2 as delivering the most for the money.

- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html