Leica M6 vs. M2

<p>Another <strong>"Look inside":</strong></p>

<p>Something simple this week. Check out the difference in choice of materials and complexity.<br>

This time from a M6 vs. an M2. (or for that matter any "M" before the M6 camera bodies)<br>

These two <strong>same function</strong> parts, are significantly different in their respective designs and build quality.<br>

They are the lens/film chamber plugs. Located at the floor area of your lens mount film gate.</p>

<p>One is a simple rubber push in / pop out plug, that discolors and disintegrates with age.<br>

The other, is a metal, riveted spring metal, bayonet, <strong>super forever cap... </strong></p><div></div>

<p>A good example of cost-cutting measures, Gus, apparently started at Midland with the ressurection of the M camera (or perhaps earlier) as the M4-2, and continued at Solms or Wetzlar with the M6, and presumably carried through to the M7 and (for this particular part perhaps) the MP?</p>

<p>As you know much better than the usual photographer, the question of longevity of the cheaper part is very important for a film Leica which enjoys a long life cycle, but I wonder if the same sort of cost-cutting means anything with the new digital Leica M's that may well not require the same lifeline as an M film camera. The oft-used side gate for the junction and connector to download image files from the M8 (and presumably more recent models) is of rubber construction, while the rest of the body is metal. How long will this moveable part weather continual opening and closing?</p>

This repairman claims that Leicas are the "Chevrolets" of German cameras.. Scroll down half way and to

the right column: http://www.zeissikonrolleirepair.com/page04.html

 

Is he right?

<p>Please don't tell me the Leica MP is poorly built. </p>

<p>I don't know if I could handle that. It would be worse than finding out the truth about Santa Claus.</p>

<p>I've been thinking about getting a used Leica MP for some time now, thinking the camera is made to the standards of the Leica M3. If this is not the case, I am not interested.</p>

<p>What do you think of the Leica MP build quality, Gus? Is it the same as the M6/M7? Say it ain't so.</p>

<p>When did Leica stray into the cost cutting abyss? With which model? Is the Leica M4 still of the old quality materials and workmanship?</p>

<p>The M3 wasn't built to a price - it was the best camera Leitz could possibly build at the time and was aimed at professionals or the uber-rich. Hobbyists would have viewed it as we now look at an S2 or something. Everything since has been built with an eye on costs and the market, although the M2 was a bit more honest about the cost-cutting, being quite openly positioned as a budget alternative to the M3. The M2 has, of course, benefited over the years from its 35mm framelines, the lack of them being possibly the M3's biggest problem as a general-use body and also its greatest blessing (the legendary 0.91x finder).</p>

<p>I only want an M3 and an M2, having used meterless cameras since about 2002. TTL metering is nowhere near as good as an incident reading anyway, because you never know if what you're aiming at is 18% grey, and it usually isn't.</p>

<p>Thanks very much for your interesting posts, Gus. I have a 1958 button-rewind M2 and a 1967 M4, both of which have provided excellent service for me. The M2 has had only two CLAs and has never had any issues. The M4 has had some CLAs but also had the viewfinder replaced due to prism separation. I replaced the vulcanite on the back door of the M4 since the original had cracked and chipped. There is a subtle difference between the two with the M2 having a slight edge.</p>

<p>While I have never owned an M6 I did try several at various dealers and found that they lacked the "feel" of my older Ms. I understand that there is a difference in the materials used in the gear trains in the newer cameras. Perhaps you could illustrate this in your "next installment".</p>

<p> </p>

Some parts may be cheaper, but I wonder if a 50 year old tuned up M3 is really preferable to a 10 year old lightly used M6TTL

in terms of practical use.

<p>I believe S. Gandy on Camerquest has some interesting comments on the change of manufacturing methods from repair and adjust to fail/replace. The older Leica's reflect the one philosophy and the later versions the other. I think he said the M4 and M5 were the last versions of the older style with the M4-P etc being the newer style. Camera's are still built pretty well, but yes, the M3's, M2's , M4's 5's and the older LTMs really are jewells.<br>

None of this would keep me from thinking that the best user Leica for film is the M7, but it's not because it's a better build than an M2.</p>

<p>...next you're going to tell us that there really aren't any Keebler elves in the forest...</p>

Two things about the M6 and later are the choice of mating surfaces and the lubricants. The steel lens mount flange of

my M2, 4 and 5 makes for much stiffer lens rotation than the M6, which uses a different metal. Very nice in use, very

smooth. I can't see myself wearing out an M6, or bothering with an MP. Or getting rid of my M2, or M5. They're all

more than good enough. Nice to see Gus's posts from the interior, and that he is mentioned recently in the same

breath as the other two. Ray's link to another repairman's view of the superior internal finish of the Contax accords

with other things I've read.

<p>I had always heard that the Contax IIa and IIIa shutters were very problematic. Do those reviews now go down the drain because one repairman (Mr. Hansen?) thinks differently? One can probably find many different viewpoints on camera construction. I have one older book by a Montreal photographer and his repairman that found no cameras were a match for the early Leica M series and that most cameras of the time (late 1970s) with electronics were very unreliable.</p>

<p>I own M3 SS, M6 and two M7's. As a former Newspaper and Wedding photographer, I can unequivocally tell you that if your aim is to take the best picture with as much certainty that you have the correct exposure, then the M7 with Motor M followed by the M6 with Motor M make shooting vastly easier and better than any M3 or M2. Agonizing over interior parts or fondling your camera and comparing turning of parts has nothing to do with photography and is the realm of collectors.<br>

The real choice is, do you collect or do you take photographs, if you collect, the choice is simple, M3/M2, if you shoot, M7. Frankly my M6 will probably outlast me and I don't think i will worry about any of its internal parts.-Dick</p>

Some photographers like cameras, too. Believe it or not.

<p>Richard, are you seriously suggesting that a camera which will last 203 years is not better than one which will last only 191 years?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I had always heard that the Contax IIa and IIIa shutters were very problematic</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not in my experience. The pre-war Contax II and III had a cloth ribbon that would easily break after many decades, but the post-war IIa and IIIa did not have this design. My father purchased a IIIa in 1958 and used it until 1969 when he bought his Nikon F FTn. I used the Contax IIIa for a couple years and shot a dozen rolls of film with it and enjoyed it. His IIIa had a pre-war Sonnar f2 collapsible that performed very well indeed. Sadly I later sold it to fund the purchase of my first MF SLR camera, a Bronica ETRS.</p>

<p>That being said, I'd take a lightly used M6 over an old M3 any day.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That being said, I'd take a lightly used M6 over an old M3 any day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm trying to find the best of both worlds. I'd like to get an informed opinion of the build quality of the Leica MP as compared to the Leica M3. Those in the know seem reluctant to comment here. If this is the case, please email me with your opinion</p>

<p>My uncle (photography teacher) simply refused using Leica after buying that best ever model... a M3. At that time he couln`t afford any new M6 or M7, thought. After checking that speeds were off, focus off and after being serviced several times without solid success, he decided to recover the money and to continue working with quartz controlled cameras.</p>

<p>Robert, my knowledge of english doesn`t let me know if you are speaking seriously. I want to think you don`t. Or, maybe you`re an engineer that enjoy craftmanship instead of photography... as you say, I`d take the best of two worlds; the tool (MP) and the ideas (the ones you have in your mind). I don`t think it`s a collectors issue.</p>

<p>Even with a wretched plastic part inside, the latest mechanical model should benefit of the Leica experience making cameras, including film transport, film flatness, RF mechanism, focus accuracy, viewfinder, shutter precission, etc., etc., etc. Or maybe, you prefer that metallic part instead of the latest non-reflective viewfinder...</p>

<p><em><strong>Arthur:</strong></em> I think you're on to something as to Leica's belief that the Digital M's don't have the marketing longevity concerns as their past film cameras. It has to be in their discussions as to "how long should we allow this part to last" vs. the "bottom line cost limits".<br /> <em><strong>Ray: </strong></em>I don't entirely agree with the conclusions made by Mark Hansen in his website.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The built quality is like many price point cameras from Nippon--kind of cheap, with loads of soft brass parts, and little or no hardened parts. They will take some nice pictures, but don't expect them to last as long as the German cameras, because they won't."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He addresses Nikon RF cameras there. They are wonderfully machined and finished cameras, made with the finest choice of materials. They proved that being in second place really did mean you tried harder. They just flawed on some of their "Contax" design decisions. (The shortcomings of the mount & focus) They are rock solid and professional grade...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Leica cameras are the Chevrolet of German Cameras, not the Rolls Royce, as many would have you believe. They are made of good materials, but they cut many corners in making them price point products."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Ridiculous !</strong> Time has borne out the fact that Leica made the right decisions in the production choices for their flagship camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"in terms of built quality, no other camera can come close to the Contax IIa/IIIa. Here is why:"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seven out of the twelve in his list are flat out wrong !<br /> <em><strong>Arthur</strong></em> is right and once again, <strong>time has borne this out</strong>: There's a reason that Professionals didn't overwhelmingly latch on to Mark's favorite Contax. Though it does incorporate precision with beautiful finishing; <strong>over time</strong>, the Contax has become an exotic, fussy, light duty film waster...</p>

<p><em><strong>Robert: </strong></em>Though the MP uses this little rubber plug, (& other minor items that are cheaper than it's predecessors - see picture) everything else about the MP, and for that matter the Special edition "Millennium" M6 TTL cameras are absolutely top notch !<br /> The M4-2 really was the model that most suffered from cost cutting. This of course was the era of the completely new M5, Leica CL and Leica R4...<br /> <em><strong>Roger:</strong></em> Well said...<br /> <em><strong>Ray:</strong></em> Take your pick; viewfinder or internal meter...<br /> <em><strong>Barry:</strong></em> That "fail/replace" thing is over stated; maybe during the initial warranty period. But apart from heavy impact, I've never had to replace <strong>major</strong> components because I couldn't get them <strong>within</strong> the tight Leica factory tolerances.<br /> <em><strong>Tom:</strong></em> I like their cookies, so I won't take the chance with possibly upsetting them...<br /> <em><strong>Richard G:</strong></em> The firm feel of the lens mounting comes from the spring metal sandwiched on the opposite side of the lens mount. As the lubricate dries up, the mounting becomes more labored. Knowing this, they applied a "less pressure design" on the later versions of that same part.<br /> <em><strong>Richard B:</strong></em> For speed and in those fast paced situations (assignments), a more consistent exposure. I couldn't agree more.<br /> <em><strong>Jose': </strong></em>I believe that <em><strong>Robert,</strong></em> wishing to cut through the <strong>possible hype</strong> of "the finest mechanical camera", basically asks: "is it true or just a rip-off? <em><strong> </strong></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>"after being serviced several times without solid success"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Something was wrong there. Either question the condition of the M3, (assuming it was acquired used) <strong>or</strong> the competence of the technicians...</p>

<p><em>Sorry that this response was so long; I was working uninterrupted for the whole weekend on a very exotic "French" FOCA rangefinder camera.</em></p><div></div>

<p>Hi Jose,</p>

<p>I am serious, though I try to incorporate humor into my posts when possible. Also, I was once a serious photographer, but because of health reasons, I am now more of a collector than a photographer. Sometimes I feel well enough to get outside and take pictures, but I don't travel well, anymore.</p>

<p>Consequently, I find researching and collecting cameras an interesting hobby. However, since I can't look inside cameras like Gus can, certain specific information about individual models will always elude me. This is frustrating. I have had correspondence with James A Lager, (<strong>LEICA: An Illustrated History I, II, III</strong>) that left me with the impression that even he is frustrated in a similar way with not having all the answers.</p>

<p>Gus,</p>

<p>Thank you for the M6TTL vs MP comparison photo. Just the kind if information that fascinates me.</p>

<p>The only build problem with the M3 is the use of Canada balsam (it's purified tree sap) in the VF prisms. Because of this, none of them will really go on for 200 years; at least, not unless they're kept in an oxygen-free environment. First they go yellow, then they start to separate, then one good knock and poof! No viewfinder image at all. This balsam was probably the best option at the time, to be fair to Leitz.</p>

<p>I must ask my repairer if he uses a modern UV-cured adhesive to stick them back together after he's cleaned up and resilvered them. That lasts indefinitely because nothing in the environment attacks it and it can't start to crystallise.</p>

<p>More recent Ms don't have this problem so an M6 or MP kept in its box will still probably work, after a CLA, when your great great great great great grandchildren find it and go out to take panning shots of flying cars.</p>

<p>Robert, you seem to be well documented on Leica. I have one of the many periodic editions of the Leica Manual by Morgan, which is quite informative, and I notice from Google that they are also available quite inexpensively from booksellers ($10 or less). I also have a 1961 Leica catalogue of products (amazing variety) that I could send you if you wish and if don't have it. I would just photocopy a few pages beforehand that are related to my Focomat enlargers for future parts reference.</p>

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>I am familiar with the Morgan & Lester series of Leica Manuals and have a few. I would be very interested in the 1961 Leica Catalogue. I will send you an email. Thank you.</p>

<p>I understand it now. Gus last image is truly descriptive! About the M3, yes it was a second hand camera.</p>

<p>I love Leicas, but I suspect I`m currently not so much concerned about this topics. Years ago I was looking for the best binoculars for field use; after testing the very best ones in the market it was a shock to find that the best to my eyes were a just released, superexpensive Leica model, plenty of dissapointing cheap looking plastic parts in opposition the wonderful, full metal, reference Swarowsky model... I gave up and bought what I considered the best optics. After years of use I think it was the right decision. I`m plenty satisfied with them.</p>

<p>But I also appreciate, like you (Robert), that old way of manufacturing. BTW, looking at you portfolio, I`d not say you`re more a collector than a photographer!</p>

<p>A comment on the point that Josh brought up concerning the viewfinder cement that Leitz used - I bought my 1958 M2 used in 1972 and have never had any problems with the viewfinder, or anything else with that camera. It has had a couple of CLAs, but that's all. On the other hand, I bought my M4 new in 1967 and by the 1980s it had developed bubbles along the base of the viewfinder prism. The viewfinder was replaced in Toronto with an M2 finder with the M4 frames and has been fine since. My M2 vs M4 experience was opposite to that experienced by Jay (remember him?) and we had some very cordial email correspondence about it. I can only concluded that the matter of viewfinder separation is a function of the individual camera involved, and not a general problem that affects all of certain models.</p>