Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Seth, I'm confused. I thought that the M4-P *was*, for all intents and purposes, an M-6, sans meter circuitry, and with fewer plastic parts. Do you know what the differences actually are that make it inferior? Chandos - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Seth Rosner Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 9:10 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera omigod! ROFLOL!! PIMP!! (for the faint of heart, that is an acronym, not a word!) The usual undocumented - and undocumentable - "for complex reasons." Marc should produce a single Leica repair person not attached to Solms or Northvale to state a single complex (or simple) reason that the build quality of M6's is the best. I am personally familiar with and have employed the services of the three independent Leica service people in the United States best known by reputation to LUG members. Every single one has stated to me explicitly that the build quality of the M2, M3, M4 and M5 exceeds that of any of the M6's. Not true of the M4-2 or M4-P. To say the contrary without documentation is pure bombast. That said, I have the impression that attention to a flawless build quality is Leica's goal with the MP. I hope to Heaven that I am right and that Solms achieves just that. An MP is on my to-buy list. Seth LaK 9 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html