old vs. new Leicas

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

This is the way I look at it: cameras like the M2 and M3 are just

not being made anymore. I may be totally wrong on this, but I don't

think that the later Leicas have the same build quality. I have

absolutely no evidence to support this belief, but think about it.

The M2 and M3 were built in a different time and era, where the

engineers made more decisions than the accountants, which is how it

works today. There is a greater degree of hand-assembly, and the

attitude of workers was different (better, less jaded, more

idealistic, full of hope, etc.) then than it is today. I just can't

see that today's M7's especially, are still going to be around in 40-

50 years from now. Maybe they don't need to be, and that may be a

design/manufacturing decision that was made. Do you agree or

disagree?

[eliot_rosen]

Of course it is correct that the quality of construction is greater on the M2 and M3 than on any of the recent cameras, any Leica repair person will tell you that. On the other hand, I have an M7 and I don;t think it will become unuseable any time soon. It may even outlast film. The same is also true of every other camera manufacturer. Cameras from the 1960s were in fact built better than todays cameras. Its a fact of life. We live in a throw away society for most goods. Most manufacturers don't build there products to last 10 years, let alone 40-50.

[bobtodrick]

Have you held an M7, or an MP. The only way one of these won't be around in 40-50 years is if they are mis-handled. Everyone likes to haul out the 'ole, 'this here M3 is 50 years old and still works fine'...but then, just as now, a lot of Leicas were bought by amateurs, poseurs and wannabe pros...the cameras sat in closets and had little film rolled through them. In fact the disparity between Leicas in the 50's, and say a Nikon F was far less than it is now...probably even more of them were bought by people who just wanted a nice camera. Few of the 'mint' Leicas you see for sale were actually hard used pro cameras. Most of them kacked years ago.

[wmwhee]

"I just can't see that today's M7's especially, are still going to be around in 40- 50 years from now."

 

I'm praying for twenty-five years, both for the camera and for me (for film, too). :-}>

[Karim Ghantous]

I don't agree overall. In fact I'd say that a modern pro DSLR will last just as long as an M2 or M3. I'm talking about cameras like the D2H as opposed to something like a D70.

 

And I think an M7 will last, too. The fact that it was ten years too late should have nothing to do with its perceived quality. :-P

 

Mass production, when done well, is just as good as manufacturing (using the literal definition, 'made my hand'). Sometimes cheaper can be better - sometimes. ;-)

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

"a modern pro DSLR will last just as long as an M2 or M3"

 

I can't swallow that, not if by "last" you mean function.

[john_shriver]

One bad static zap, or failure in IC passivation, and a DLSR is a pile of junk, with no replacement parts. They are "consumer electronics", and those are no longer built with any serious intent of being repairable. Who gets VCR's repaired anymore? Or cordless phones? New ones cost less than the estimate fee...

 

Mechanical cameras, properly maintained, can run a long time.

 

I suspect that the M7 and MP are probably more precisely manufactured, with modern machining techniques. I doubt that there are any "select at test parts". Numerically controlled machining is replacing die casting, which is a fine thing, since die-cast parts do shrink with age.

 

The M3 were built on a more craft model. Parts probably were selected at test, or adjusted to fit a particular camera. (That was definitely the case with the screwmount Leica cameras.) I'm sure that there a places inside the camera that are finished far better than there is any operational need for them to be so. (Not that that is bad, but it's not cost-effective.)

[richard s.]

As the proud owner of a fully functioning Leica II here's my 2 cents:

 

When I took my screwmount in to be overhauled it needed a new half mirror as well as numerous other goodies. The guy who fixed it for me here in Tokyo is a real craftsman in the old sense of the word and he managed to make the parts (somehow) and returned the camera to me in A1 condition. Simply amazing.

 

I wonder if the same could be done for the electronic components in the M7 or a dSLR in 50 years time? I read in the newspaper recently that the London Underground had to search eBay for spare parts for its 20 year old indicator boards ...

[kajabbi]

If the M3 through the M5s were cost effective, they would only exist in industrial histories.

Cost effective means plastic, nylon, or cheap white-metal materials.

As long lasting as the objects that pass for "popular" cameras today.Planned, fast-tracked, throw-aways.

[johnmarkpainter]

<<I don't agree overall. In fact I'd say that a modern pro DSLR will last just as long as an

M2 or M3. I'm talking about cameras like the D2H as opposed to something like a D70>>

 

Three years TOPS

 

jmp

[eliot_rosen1]

How long does anyone think the parts for a D2H will be available, or the expertise to fix it? Probably not much longer than the time it takes to replace it with the next more advanced model. My guess is it lasts until the first time it breaks down, at which point it will not be economically feasible to fix it.

[george_b1]

I started with a IIIc in 1945, then bought an M4 in 1968. My M4 has been back, twice, for CLA and a shutter curtain replacement. It still has many years of photographic life left in it - - - - and my 23-year-old Granddaughter has used it, and wants me to leave it to her, along with my 50mm Chron and 24mm/2.8.

 

She has three digital cameras and at least one digital cell phone photo tuck-into-your-pocket. She merely said( if I might remember exactly what she said): ' "Granddaddy - this is awesome!"

 

We now have an M7 (which I love for the shutter accuracy), and I'm still wondering who to leave it to in my will < humongous grin >.

 

George

[ben z]

I don't know how long my MP will go before needing service, but my 1985 M6 is working perfectly at the 20 year mark (ok, it's had a new meter installed and an overhaul, but I don't know how long ago it was done). My M4 and M3 have also been overhauled by DAG in the last couple years, and I don't know how many times before that. OTOH my Pentax Spotmatics work perfectly and have never been serviced, other than I replaced the gummy light seals and mirror bumper myself. So whether Leicas were or are made to a higher standard, they do require periodic maintenance. As long as there are parts and people who can work on them, I don't believe a Leica of today won't last as long as a Leica of yore. I agree that the M7 may be a problem when Leica is no longer around to supply the electronics, however something tells me someone like DAG will have a supply of them enough to fix the few M7s anyone's going to actually be using 10+ years from now.

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

"...the few M7s anyone's going to actually be using 10+ years from now."

 

Do you say this because film is going away, M7's will break down before then, or the world has come to an end?

[Rob F.]

The interior aesthetics must be weighed against the camera's utility. The additional finder frames and metering capability of the M6, M7, and MP are worth something too.

 

Which model do you think Eisenstadt would have preferred for his daily work? M3? M6? M7? Or maybe an MP?

[vuk_vuksanovic]

<i>"In fact I'd say that a modern pro DSLR will last just as long as an M2 or M3. I'm talking about cameras like the D2H "</i><br><br>

this is funnier than the al kaplan t-shirt.

<br><br>

vuk.

[doris_chan]

Nothing's funnier than the al kaplan t-shirt.

[lee_shively]

I still have a Nikon F2 I used professionally just about every day for 16 years. I bought it new in 1974 from Olden Camera in NYC. It is covered with dents and the black paint is ugly--what's left of it. It was once totalled by my insurance company following an accident, I bought it back for $50, sent it to Nikon Professional Services and had it overhauled. They got it to working again. It still works like it did when it was new although it could use some new foam inside the mirror box.

 

Today's Leica's are as well made as that F2, I have no doubt. There's no reason an M6, M7 or MP shouldn't last an "average" user a lifetime. The main difference in today's Leicas and older Leicas is in the hand work, fit and finish. The utility and durability is not an issue.

 

Sometime soon after Nikon introduced the F3, I remember my photo editor relating a conversation he had with a Nikon USA rep during a seminar. My editor was complaining to the rep about the F3 not being as dependable as the F and F2. After making several excuses, the rep finally told him that it was no longer feasible for Nikon to make cameras like the F and F2. He said they couldn't sell them for less than $1000 each and people wouldn't buy them. That was over 20 years ago. Leica continues to make cameras like that despite rising costs and narrow sales.

 

Very few people wear out cameras and have to replace them. Like clothes and automobiles, we replace them because we're tired of them or we want something more in fashion with up-to-date features. That's why I don't use my old Nikon F2 anymore. Leica really doesn't have much to update in the way of bells and whistles and features.