[rollei_list] Re: Leica M4: OT

  • From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:32:40 -0500

Thanks, Marc, for this most informative post. I for one learned a lot 
from it.


+++++


On Tuesday, March 29, 2005, at 09:04  PM, Marc James Small wrote:

> At 08:15 PM 3/29/05 -0500, Allen Zak wrote:
>
>> Could you elaborate on this, please. My recollection of the time I 
>> used an M4 was that, while lacking some of the M3 finesse, it was a 
>> capable and substantial camera. My impression of the M6 (I don't own 
>> one, my last was the M42) is that, light meter aside, it is not up to 
>> the fit and finish of the M4.
>>
>> Actually, my favorite Leicas were the IIIf and the IIIG, but they 
>> were pretty well mated to the 50mm lens and awkward with other focal 
>> lengths.
>
> There are two problems with the M4, mechanical design and quality 
> control.
>
> On the first, almost EVERYTHING in the M4's innards is adjustable. For 
> a regularly used camera, this means that something is always out of 
> whack. The M4-2 and M6, on the other hand, have most internal 
> components set as "go/no-go" so that there are no finicky adjustments 
> to get out of spec, just components which, when they finally wear 
> sufficiently, are replaced. That silky advance of an M3 or M4 is 
> caused by the use of bronze and brass gears; these lap themselves into 
> synch fairly rapidly. The M4-2 and M6 use steel gears which take 
> decades to achieve a like smoothness -- but these steel gears will 
> last roughly 50 times as long as the gears in the earlier cameras.
>
> Leicas through the M4 were intended for an annual service. In those 
> days, Leitz ran regular free courses for neighborhood camera store 
> repair guys. Leitz liked these annual visits, as it gave the store a 
> chance to sell the customer a new lens or accessory, while the camera 
> store appreciated the opportunity to stay connected to a potential 
> purchaser of film and processing. As camera stores began to leave the 
> repair business in the early 1970's, the philosophy changed, and so 
> the later cameras were designed to work reliably for a decade or so 
> between services. (This is not to say that there aren't M3's out there 
> which have gone many years without a service or that there aren't M6's 
> which are hangar queens, of course.)
>
> On the quality control, Leitz benefited by a German government tax 
> break which was granted to companies which employed disabled WWII 
> veterans. Leitz hired a bunch of these guys in the late 1940's, and 
> they were a wonderful workforce, being delighted to find work of any 
> sort and rapidly accustoming themselves to the demands of Leica 
> assembly work. The war veterans retired in the middle 1960's and there 
> were few left by 1968, so the M4's were assembled by a less-capable 
> and less-dedicated crew. Again, this is not to suggest that some 
> IIIf's were Monday Morning Specials or that some M4's weren't of 
> simply stunning quality, but, all in all, the dedication which 
> produced my M3 in 1958 was hard to find by, say, 1972.
>
> My Wetzlar M6 is the toughest Leica I own, and I have owned and still 
> own a shitload of these guys.
>
> Marc





















Other related posts: