Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Are you saying Leica laid the entire quality control staff off, and now have none? jh >From: "Don" <don.ro@verizon.net> > >The brand new M-6 I bought had a defective pressure plate and it was >discovered Leica had laid off the quality control staff and this kind of >stuff flew right on through to the customer. > >No, I do not subscribe to the theory that the M-6 is a better made >camera than the M-3's. > >Don Rorschach >----- Original Message ----- >From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> >To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> >Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 3:59 PM >Subject: RE: [Leica] M Durability > > > > It's pretty simple, Bob, not that you and I will ever agree - With > > incredibly rare exception - and I can't think of such an exception off >hand, > > but I'm sure one exists - a 40 to 50 year old USED mechanical device >is not > > going to be as the latest well built version of the same device. >Better > > build quality? Sure, from an engineering standpoint. But the M6 is a >damn > > well built camera. We're not talking Leicas and Brownies here. > > > > So enjoy your M3 - it's a truly wonderful 1950s machine. > > > > B. D. > > > > And I know the rangefinders don't fall out, Bob, but they do become >harder > > and harder to use. And the shutter mechanism CAN go out in an instant. >And, > > sure, one should have backup bodies. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of BOB >KRAMER > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 1:40 PM > > To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us' > > Subject: RE: [Leica] M Durability > > > > > > B.D., How do you really *know* that the M3 is less reliable than the >M6? > > Unless you can offer some type validation for this view, I imagine >this is > > more of a guess on your part then actual knowledge. If we were >talking > > automobiles, I would agree with you, but a camera doesn't have near >the > > moving parts or wear and tear that a car does. > > > > So pick your poison, I say. An older but better built camera, or a >newer > > camera without the classic build quality. One thing is for sure. One >would > > be smart to carry two bodies regardless of the manufacture date if you >are > > on a paid assignment. > > > > BTW, the mirror separation is a gradual condition that happens over >many > > years. Its not like the prism falls out of the camera or anything. > > > > BK > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: B. D. Colen [mailto:bdcolen@earthlink.net] > > Subject: RE: [Leica] M Durability > > > > > > More power to you, Mark - But old cameras do die, just like old cars >die, > > old home appliances die, and old people die - no matter how well >they're > > maintained. In the case of Ms, the finders go belly up - and, if one > > believes Sherry Krauter, cannot be reliably repaired when they do >(although > > they can be replaced with a more modern rangefinder) - and the shutter > > curtain roller mechanism goes. > > > > But again, its a matter of what you're personally comfortable with. I > > certainly know that when I'm on a job something can go wrong with one >of my > > M6s, but I know that that is less likely to happen if I am using a > > relatively new M6 than it is if I am using an M3 from 1954 - it's just >a sad > > fact of life. > > -- > > 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 > > > > >-- >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html James A. Harrison II KD5LMX Wichita Falls, Texas, USA _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html