The M4-2 finally lives up to it's 'reputation'.

[andy_piper2]

The M4-2 is in the shop again, this time for one of those 'real' M4-2 design problems.

 

<p>

 

The frame counter quit turning (stuck at 34). I could hear the mechanism functioning properly (I could even hear it 'reset' when I took the bottom plate off) - but the numbered dial just sat there.

 

<p>

 

Here's the inside scoop from John van Stelten (Focal Point).

 

<p>

 

The Leica-M frame-counter dial is a silver numbered disk that rides on top of a larger, thicker metal disk (see the M7 brochure for a picture of this mechanism uncovered). The underside of the large disk is hollowed out and has 40 'inside-out' gear teeth inside the rim that get ratcheted ahead 1 notch ever time you wind, moving both disks 1 frame number.

 

<p>

 

In the M2/3/4 this disk was a solid piece of metal with the teeth machined out of the metal itself.

 

<p>

 

In the M4-2, to save machining costs Leica molded the teeth into a plastic insert that fits inside the hollow disk - a plastic 'denture' if you will.

 

<p>

 

In my case this plastic piece has separated from the metal parts - it's turning and resetting just as it's supposed to, but no longer turns the metal disks along with it. I.e. the teeth didn't strip - the whole intact plastic piece just - disconnected - from its metal shell.

 

<p>

 

According to JvS, Leica realized their mistake and corrected the part back to all-metal in later cameras (Query: anybody know when? Late M4-2s? not until the M6?). So he's replacing the original with new Leica all-metal part(s).

 

<p>

 

I'd heard people mention/complain about Leica using "plastic in the frame counter" but always thought they meant the numbered disk itself - which didn't seem like a big deal - and may BE plastic for all I know. I didn't realize there was also plastic in the actual linkage/mechanism.

 

<p>

 

Anyway the 4-2 has been in the shop twice in one year (although the first visit was due to a 3-foot drop onto cement, so it doesn't count against the camera design) - so I can see how it got its bad rep.

 

<p>

 

Jsut thought I'd pass this along, in case you're a) considering an M4-2 or b) have one and the same problem crops up.

 

<p>

 

OTOH, it's still a pretty nice camera, and this one ran 25 years before breaking.

[djphoto]

Just to put things in perspective -- 25 years of trouble-free service

is pretty good. You certainly wouldn't expect that kind of performance

from anything other than a Leica.

[godfrey]

<i>Just to put things in perspective -- 25 years of trouble-free

service is pretty good. You certainly wouldn't expect that kind of

performance from anything other than a Leica. </i>

 

<p>

 

Welllll ... two-three years ago, I had my 1951 Rolleiflex 3.5MX

Tessar cleaned and a modern focusing screen installed. I

bought it a couple of years before that and had been having no

difficulties with it. When it was returned, the repairman included

a note saying "Shutter was pretty dirty, doesn't look like this one

has ever been taken apart before." 46-48 years of service without

any service at all... that's not bad.

[andy_piper2]

Dave - just to clarify. I bought this body used a year ago, so I can't

claim it went 25 years trouble-free (I don't know it's history) - but

THIS 'weak' part seems to have lasted 25 years.

 

<p>

 

I shot Nikon Fs for 25 years and never had one of them break/

malfunction, either. The only time one of them went into the shop was

to have worn strap lugs replaced. So actually I WOULD expect expect

"that kind of performance" from an F. But not many others.... 8^)

[leonid]

My nikon f2 from 1973 is still going strong , motor drive and all .

[bobflores]

How much did he stick it to you for the fix? I've never found John

to charge any less than $200 just to LOOK at a camera. And if you

need parts, then you're REALLY in for it.

[andy_piper2]

Bob - Really?

 

<p>

 

He did this same camera last fall (realigning the RF after the big

drop, plus a CLA) for $175. Also opened up and cleaned a 90 TE (and

reassured me that it wasn't showing any signs of etching) for $90.

[jay_.]

I am confused. From everything I am aware of, the switch to the

plastic insert for the frame counter came during later M6 classic

production and to my knowledge persists until today. My older M6 has

the metal type, my newer M6 the plastic. Could it be possible that

your M4-2 may have had its frame counter replaced at some point with

a plastic M6 type? If John Collier is lurking, I'll bet he knows

definitively.

[sait_akkirman]

"Just to put things in perspective -- 25 years of trouble-free

service is pretty good. You certainly wouldn't expect that kind of

performance from anything other than a Leica.

-- Dave Jenkins "

 

<p>

 

I wish people wouldn't come up with such silly statements.

STOP myth making.

[stephen_w.]

i would have to agree w/sait according to my own experience.

 

<p>

 

over almost 30 years of photo, the leicas i have and totally

committed to have their fair share maint issues, and yes they're

expensive to remediate. the nikons i had never had a problem, the

l's lenses are fogged, the bodies go out of service. but, and a big

but, the results are worth living through. for what i do, i will

always be committed to the m-system. i just hope my daughter feels

the same when i pass.

[dave_doyle1]

Mean time between failure is something that all mechanical

contrivances must deal with, the time between failure depends on

design, materials and usage. That a Nikon F has performed better than

a Leica M over 25 years is mostly anecdotal, as I have heard it the

other way 'round as well. Conversely the IIIf I was bequethed needed

an overhaul <i>because</i> of a lack of usage, not materials or

design.

[sait_akkirman]

Well Dave how about the following for an anecdote - I borrow

"Amateur Photographer" magazine from the local library. In most

issues they interview a pro photographer and talk about the gear

he/she uses during typical assignments. In one issue I think

from 1999 or 2000 they were talking to a National Geographic

photographer ( I cannot remember his name ), who was quoted

as saying that he was having problems with the Leica SLRs he

was using and that for this one long assignment he took 8

bodies with him. By the end of the assignment all 8 had failed

one way or another. On his return to his base, he apparently

sold all his Leica gear and replaced it with 2 Nikon 801 bodies

and he said he was now happy.

 

<p>

 

If you visit a Canon or Nikon site you won't find too many if any

complaints about mechanical cameras and their respective

lenses.

[anon_terry]

<i>In one issue I think from 1999 or 2000 they were talking to a

National Geographic photographer ( I cannot remember his name ), who

was quoted as saying that he was having problems with the Leica SLRs

he was using and that for this one long assignment he took 8 bodies

with him. By the end of the assignment all 8 had failed one way or

another. On his return to his base, he apparently sold all his Leica

gear and replaced it with 2 Nikon 801 bodies and he said he was now

happy.</i>

 

<p>I believe you are referring to James Stanfield.

[dave_doyle1]

I believe I will back up (as can Jay) this story about Leica SLR's.

The key weakness (besides the R3/R4 electronics) is in the DOF lever,

why Leica didn't use the same mechanism as Minolta in their XD11/XE7

etc, is beyond me. But this is regards to the R series, the SL series

is as I understand less prone to failure and is a different puppy all

together.

[art_karr]

Leonid:

 

<p>

 

<b> My nikon f2 from 1973 is still going strong , motor drive and

all . </b>

 

<p>

 

I can agree in part.

 

<p>

 

Nikon F2: Mine has a non-metered prism. It is the most reliable

mechanical camera that I have owned. Still works as well as the

day I bought it. Same goes with 15 of my 16 AI lenses. We won't

talk about the macro.

 

<p>

 

Nikon motor drives: I have a large box full of non-functional motor

drives. Not my favorites.

 

<p>

 

Art

[roger_michel]

needless to say, the current prob may be related to the cement

incident. on the subject of nikon reliability: i have never

examined an f or f2 at a show/swapmeet/shop that did not appear to

function properly -- regardless of cosmetic condition. i can't say

the same for leicas by any means. apart from the foam mirror

cushions, has anyone ever had an f or f2 fail in service??