RE: [Leica] M Durability

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

I don't believe anyone - in their right mind - ever said that an M6 is a
better made camera than the M3. At least not on this list. I can think of
one beloved expert in all matters Leica who contends that the M6 is as well
made as the M3 (and I think he was probably smoking crack when he said it)
but no one has said the M6 is better.

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 5:36 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] M Durability


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

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