Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/28

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera
From: Marc James Small <msmall@infionline.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:56:42 -0400
References: <CA16508C-C089-11D7-9F7D-003065F2FE36@xsmail.com>

At 09:10 AM 7/28/03 -0400, Seth Rosner wrote:
>
>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 will simply say that these are probably the very people who told me the
opposite, Seth.  I suspect that they were telling you what you wanted to
hear, as all small merchants must do.  In my case, I spoke with them at
great length concerning engineering standards and the switch from
adjustable components to go/no-go components as used in the later cameras.
Why not call them back and discuss the changes in engineering approaches
between 1937, when the M3 began life, and 1975, when the M4-2 was designed.
 Specifically, ask them about the longevity impact of that changeover from
adjustable to go/no-go components.  Don't just ask, "WHAT" is better;  seek
their referent, and ask "WHY is it better?"

One primary example of change was the shift from bronze gears in the M2
through M4 and the steel gears used since the M4-2.  Bronze gears lap into
themselves fairly readily, and thus we have the buttery smooth advance of
an M3.  Steel gears take millions of advances to do the same.  But the
bronze gear will be worn out by the time the steel gear is just getting
lapped into smoothness, and the steel gear will outlast the bronze by a
factor of 10 or more.  Sure, my M6's advance is rougher than my M3's -- but
my M6 is only 17 years old, so it hasn't had a chance to be broken in yet.

The change in engineering methods is easily documented by anyone who cares
to examine the maintenance schedule for a 1953 automobile and for a 2003
automobile and who can then compare the AAA rates on highway break-downs:
in olden days, breakdowns were frequent and so was maintenance.  Today,
maintenance has been reduced and breakdowns as well.  The same works for
mechanical cameras.  (Seth, if you are REALLY interested, I can pass on
some Industrial College of the Armed Forces materials on MTBF methodology
for your review.)

Those interested in this are encouraged to check the archives, as this
topic has been discussed to death.  I will probably have no more to
contribute on this thread, as I've had my say multiple times over during
the past ten years.

Marc

msmall@infionline.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!

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

Replies: Reply from "Don R." <don.ro@verizon.net> (Re: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera)
Reply from Marc James Small <msmall@infionline.net> (Re: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera)
Reply from Marc James Small <msmall@infionline.net> (Re: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera)
Reply from Seth Rosner <sethrosner@direcway.com> (Re: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera - LONG RESPONSE)
In reply to: Message from Mitch Alland <malland@xsmail.com> ([Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera)