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: Re: [Leica] Third Quarter Viewfinder
From: "Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:53:30 -0700
References: <B7FACBC0.15F24%jbcollier@powersurfr.com>

I have two M4-2s that perform well for me.   I must be doing something
wrong.

I am supposed to find them a problem, I guess.

Roland Smith
Oakland, California
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "John Collier" <jbcollier@powersurfr.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 6:24 AM
Subject: 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.
>
> > From: Nathan Wajsman <wajsman@webshuttle.ch>
> >
> > Mark Rabiner wrote:
> >
> >> I got mine.
> >> The new "Viewfinder" was waiting for me when i got back from San
Antonio last
> >> weekend with the Leica M4 on red box on the cover.
> >> A week later than everyone else cause i drove.
> >
> > It is a great magazine and itself sufficient reason to join the LHSA. I
got
> > mine
> > yesterday, but given the news I am watching re the seemingly more and
more
> > widespread
> > anthrax threat I am not opening the envelope nor any other mail from the
> > U.S.:-(
> >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

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

In reply to: Message from John Collier <jbcollier@powersurfr.com> (Re: [Leica] Third Quarter Viewfinder)