Re: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera

["Don R." <don.ro@verizon.net>]

Seth, you are 110% dead on.  The old German soldiers who placed great value
on pride of workmanship and precision would be turning in their graves if
this "Leica stuff" still carried the "Leitz" label.  However, that logo has
disappeared along with the mechanical precision of the distant relative
cameras.

One of the most glaring examples of Leica imprecision was the batch of
defective M-6's that carried pressure plates that went through Leica without
a hiccup and tore the heck out of the film in the hands of the user.  The
M-6 I had put scratches on the film from one end tothe other. The Lecia
story was quality control was down becasue the QC fellow was home ill.

Maybe Marc can tell us how many and the name of the M-6 parts that Leica
farmed out to subcontractors.

Since I have manufactured items to millionths tolerances for amost 40 years,
lapping the M-6 defective pressure plate to useable smoothness was no
problem. However, that brought my attention to the construction of the new
Leitz cousin.  After a review of the M-6 construction my opinion was that
the finish on some parts including the Leica logo appeared to have been done
as part of a 9th grade shop exercise.  Needless to say, no M-6 resides in my
camera equipment stable.

The f/stop ring on the "new" 135 apo is so sloppy it reminds me of 1946 Jap
camera construction.

Pride of ownership at one time was a lure of Leitz, but the glow on that
disappeared long ago.

It is interesting that Marc wishes to compare 1953 autos to their 2003
cousins.  Now Ford vans (and maybe other Ford vehicles) are equpped with
PLASTIC radiators.  Hasn't Leica followed suit with some of the parts in the
camera bodies?

Quite frankly, I have not witnessed any improvement in vehicle reliability
in the last 40-50 years.

Maybe Marc will grace us with the specific page number on the Industrial
College of the Armed Forces materials on MTBF methodology manual at which
the precision and wear characteristics  of the M-3 and M-6 are compared
side-by-side.

March made a very interesting observation regarding the time required to
take the rough edges off an M-6.  If a well used M6 is just as grating on
the nerves now as it was when it was taken from the box 16-17 years ago, I
would hazard a guess that it will "never" be broken in at least in the
lifetime of the original owner.  If the customer must spend 30 years of his
or her life doing the factory's job, why not let Leica keep its product? Oh,
I know, there is still a market for pet rocks.

My M-3's have never disappointed me and that is where I will stay.

Seth, don't be discouraged by the Leica priests.  They swarmed to the
defense of the defective pressure plates as if an intruder had stuck a stick
into a fire ant hill. So you may expect the same response regardless of the
defective Leica part.

This cadre reminds me very much of the "Clinton spinners" who rushed forward
to declare dear Billy was only "ministering" to Monica in the oval office
when some questioned his virtue.

Don R.


- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc James Small" <msmall@infionline.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera


> 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
>


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