Leica's Weird Bottom Loading

The trick for Leica is to continually enhance the capabilities of the

M system without significantly changing its basic character,

handling, and appearance. The RF-VF system, film advance, film

rewind, cloth focal plane shutter, and loading system basically date

back to the M4, with minor modifications.

<p>

As far as the loading system, it may be "quirky", but it works, and I

have rarely if ever had any problems. I think the adage "don't fix

it if it isn't broken" applies here. I am interested in seeing what

they can do to further enhance the M7s capabilities within the

constraints described above. My guess is that the M7 is not the

ultimate evolution of the M Leica, and they can do more.

i found if i load per the diagram with the back door closed, once

opening the back door, the film is not engaged on to the teeth of the

gears. i, everytime, have to nudge the film onto the gear and wind

until both gears are engaged. the take-up mechanism is just such, a

take-up mechanism. the gears move the film. but, since there are no

left side gears for the film, the film would seem slack.

<p>

in my opinion, leica should think about a spring tensioning system in

the rewind assembly for film flatness.

I follow Andrew Nemeth's instructions at http://nemeng.com/leica/ but

I also check, while the back door is open, that the film is hard up

aginst the top guide-rail. If necessary, I push it into place. I

believe it's necessary to do that with the M6TTL because of the lack

of chamfering of the guide rail (mentioned in Andrew's notes).

<p>

I find it a nuisance to hold the motor while film loading. I also

have once left the back open when replacing the motor/base plate -

it's easy to do and is one more thing to check.

The very first roll of film I put into my M6 didn't load properly.

The rewind spool did not turn so I started over. I followed the

instruction manual and only inserted the very end of the film between

the forks. From then on I have always put the film leader completely

through the fork so it extends a bit on the other side and have had

no problems at all. I don't like the loose baseplate, but otherwise

it works fine for me.

<p>

I have regular misloadings with the fully motorised loading on XPan,

maybe once in 10 rolls. You are supposed to pull the leader up to a

mark and close the cover. Sometimes it seems like a millimeter too

long or too short won't load properly.

What, change the sacred bottom-loading? Never!

<p>

I like it. Why? Well, I also have a tiny Olympus 35RC and if you look

up other rangefinder forums (not that they are as entertaining as this

one of course) you will notice quite a few threads going on about

light seals wearing out. Now, you have absolutely no problem at all

with this if you have a bottom-loading camera, even if it is as old as

my 1935 leica IIIa.

<p>

Hence, a great design. Leica: please don't change it! I have never had

a hassle loading a film. Sure, it may take three minutes not three

seconds, but I don't mind. I have seen pros changing films on their

Nikon F5s in under three seconds. So I might find it different if I

was a pro. But then again, one pro I spoke to always looks back

nostalgically on his M3 as the bst camera he ever used, so perhaps the

need for speed is somewhat over-hyped?

Hi Bert:

<p>

Sorry to have been perhaps a bit rude in the way I treated you in

the preceding message.

<p>

However, as a user I can�t think of the M system like driving

a �classic car�� I like very much to drive a classic car (though

I�ve not yet succeeded getting one myself) but it is a leisure time

occupation.

<p>

I have been a professional photo-journalist long enough in my life

to consider � even nowadays photography is no more for me a way to

earn my living � any camera a tool (though there is no reason why

you should be forbidden to like your tool on the contrary). So, on

the contrary to the way you judge a camera with a seemingly great

attention to aesthetic of the body, I�m entirely devoted to

practical efficiency.

<p>

From my personal experience, I found SFRF camera the best way to 35

mm photography, just because, if you excepts the auto-all AF SlR�s

of today when it goes to action photography with big tele-lenses

(something I never practiced, nor I�m very much interested in), the

compactness and silence of a SFRF and the precision of its focusing

when using fast lenses wide open cannot be equalled by any SLR

camera. For me, it is the only way to maximize the advantages of the

35 mm format.

<p>

A format I don�t consider the best by far when it goes to a more

elaborated way of photography. I see no interest to use such a small

negative when you have ample time to take pictures, when weight,

noise and volume are not liabilities. The reason why I use in

parallel a medium format SLR�

<p>

In the M body range, whatever a good camera they were (I owned once

an M4-P), I consider any model without TTL metering a museum piece

(so no more a user�s camera). So the M5 is for me the older M camera

which I consider a valuable asset for a user.

<p>

Having set the pattern of use I intend for a SFRF camera, I consider

my numerous criticisms to the present M models as fully justified. I

can (once again) elaborate about practical situations the outmoded

features (or lack of) still embodied in the M bodies produced today

can be a liability. I think you are experienced enough to imagine

them yourself.

<p>

The treasured part of the M system is for me its exceptional lenses.

<p>

Fortuitously (after my M demise), I found one year ago I can have a

camera which can handle these treasured lenses and which though not

devoid of shortcomings, can do the work equally well in most

situations and sometimes even better.

<p>

Point in case: it costs less than half the retail price of a new M

body, it is called Hexar RF. At his time, the M7 has not surfaced

yet and when it appears it was for me a bitter disappointment�

<p>

I would have liked to see an entirely revised body which, if it goes

electronic, would have embodied everything an electronic camera

could do within the original rangefinder concept (I don�t want an

AF): fast shutter, fast sync. speed with TTL flash all the way,

manual + spot metering and AE + matrix metering combo, variable

magnification finder useable for a glass wearer, fast loading

procedure (I thought of something like the QL system once used on

Canon cameras) though manual advance and optional motor to keep a

really silent mode, interchangeable back door to allow for a future

use with a high definition full format digital use to preserve the

investment in time. Something in fact which can justify saving a

large amount of money equivalent to what is to be paid for a modern

SLR. In short a 21st century SFRF aimed to the user.

<p>

So my point of view is IMHO totally incompatible with yours.

<p>

You write:

<p>

>> What I'd hate to see is Leica making an M camera with a side

hinged door. I think that's wishful thinking on my part. IMO Leica

departed the 'right path' by adding 2mm of topcover height to the

M6TTL and in doing so paved the way for the M7 and future models.

The fact that Leica no longer makes an M camera within the classic M

body measurements is sad. <<

<p>

So, your rationale is entirely based on aesthetic considerations ?

So why don�t you buy a classic M3 or an LTM in mint conditions ? Why

do you need Leica produce something new (or even something) at all ?

<p>

>> Similar story about the R8, IMO they shouldn't have dumped the

R4/5/6/7 body design in favour of a design that looks to have been

drawn in 1970 as a vision of the camera in the year 2000. Some

people call that progress, I call it bad taste. <<

<p>

Did you ever take an R8 body in your hands? Sorry to say that but it

is by far the most ergonomic 35mm SLR camera I ever handled� It is

just sad it has no AF for long tele-lenses (and ONLY for them). It

would have been the best tool for a 35 mm SLR user ever! � Again

there is an ample stock of mint second hand Leica SLR�s available on

the market to satisfy you (and other brands too) with strictly

traditional design. You can even get a fair taste of 1970�s SLR

buying a Nikon FM3A new.

<p>

What really bothers me in your opinion is it is conducive to

stagnation and regression. Just imagine someone in the 1920�s having

the same rationale and we would have still the Leica 0 as the

standard Leica camera (I suppose by the way there would not be

anymore Leicas today).

<p>

>> I don't say the M6TTL, M7 and R8 are lousy products, I just don't

like their designs. <<

<p>

Well design might be important, but I think these days it has taken

too much importance. Here its me who is a traditionalist, I still

stay with Mr. Raymond Loewy�s theory: �a good design is first a

functional one�. Besides, if the design of the R8 is specific (a

case of �like it or not�) I sincerely doubt you will readily

recognize the difference in height of a M6 TTL or M7 from a classic

M6 within a few feets (it amounts to 2 to 3 mm).

<p>

Friendly.

<p>

François P. WEILL

" Leica departed the 'right path' by adding 2mm of topcover height to

the M6TTL and in doing so paved the way for the M7 and future models.

The fact that Leica no longer makes an M camera within the classic M

body measurements is sad."

<p>

Leica users must have the most sensitive hands in history - 2 mm!

I guess it finally boils down this (as it always does in these

theads). Francois you have some valid issues with the M as it

pertains to your style of shooting. Others have expressed differing

opinions based on there shooting. Unfortunately Leica can't be

everything for everybody, and in fact, though no where near

approaching the sales of Nikon, Canon etc, the M is selling better

than ever. If you want your points addressed where does it stop.

Some genuinely feel the M should have A/F to compete with Contax.

Others would like a built in drive. Their wishes are just as valid

as your Francois, and unless you expect Leica to come up with an M63

(and all the preceding variants) it probably isn't going to happen.

What I really don't understand are your statements that Leica is

just a tool, then naming the other cameras (tools) you use that have

better features. If this really is the case, why don't you just use

those other tools. It seems there has been a lot of space used here

with your putting down of everyone elses reasons why they like the M

as it is. You know, you could just start your own company and build

your own camera.........

DON'T CHANGE BOTTOM LOADING!!!!.

<p>

It has taken me almost 40 years to train my wife to only buy me

shirts (including t-shirts) that have a pocket to hold the bottom

cover.

<p>

Best,

<p>

Jerry