Jump to content

M's Cheapened - How?

chris_chen

By chris_chen
in Leica and Rangefinders

 Share

Recommended Posts

chris_chen

chris_chen

Posted
Posted

I've read in previous posts that since the M4, Leica have continually "cheapened" the design, materials and construction of the M's in order to survive.

 

<p>

 

I know about the substitution of plastic for metal, zinc for brass top plate (ease of manufacture), discontinuing engraving, printing for engraving, made to fit (mass production concept of parts interchagibility for adjust to fit), et al.

 

<p>

 

What material is the body itself constructed from (looks like Mg or Al), and was this ever changed? My M4 looks and feels (density/weight-wise) the same as my M6. Perhaps a body material/thickness change would have too many consequences (rigidity, fit of existing parts, tooling, etc.)

 

<p>

 

But, what specifically was changed in the viewfinder/rangefinder to cause flaring? What other changes, deletions of parts, lack of adjustability has taken place? Anyone talk to the repair people on this topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matthew_pulzer1

matthew_pulzer1

Posted
Posted

Erwin Puts doesn't know everything, but I certainly don't know of any

one who researches harder and mre comprehensively. He is quite clear

on this issue:

 

<p>

 

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/choosem.html

 

<p>

 

The quality of engineering, assembly and tolerancing of the several M

versions.

There is a persistent, but totally unfounded position that the

Wetzlar based products are he best in terms of choice of material,

care of assembly, quality control and a host of mostly intangible

parameters. In the past the story was that Midland was not as good as

Wetzlar. Later it became Wetzlar versus Portugal and now it is

Wetzlar versus Solms/Portugal.

 

<p>

 

Let me start by stating that no one who has made claims for the

superiority of one manufacturing location or base versus another one

has ever brought forward substantial evidence to support the claim or

has even defined what superior manufacturing quality is.

 

<p>

 

In my view choice of materials, the quality of machining of parts,

the fit of parts should be measured if any quantifiable statement can

be made. Choice of materials could be classified in terms industry

standards as to the parameters of metal alloys, synthetic materials

and other components: the stress coefficients, the durability

estimates etc. The machining of parts would be defined in terms of

surface roughness indicators, tolerance bands for dimensions and more

industrial parameters. The same for the fit of parts.

 

<p>

 

Any quality difference between the M3 and the M6 should be quantified

by stating that some M6 gear #205 is of inferior alloys, has a higher

roughness indicator, Young�s modulus is lower and the tolerance is

±0.02mm where the M3 for the same gear has ±0.01mm. Or the roller

bearing in the M3 shutterspindle is fitted in the M3 with a play of

0.005mm where the M6 has another value. Or the average breakdown

period of this gear is 10 years in the M3 and 9 years in the M6.

 

<p>

 

I have been able to observe the assembly of the current M6, and

discussed all the engineering measures with the production people and

quality assurance people at the factory . I took great care to

compare the M3 components with the M6 components : I watched while a

qualified repairperson dismantled the M6 and M3 and I could discuss

every small item with this person. I even repeated this procedure

with a second person to check any bias.

My considered view is this: there is some costcutting in the changes

from the M3 to the M6. Basically however (shutter, rangefinder,

transport mechanism etc.) the M3 and M6 are identical in all measures

of engineering and production quality.

 

<p>

 

In reliability, durability and quality feel every M is a precision

engineering mechanical masterpiece. There are real differences of

course and they should be assessed intelligently. The change from

brass to steel for some gears made the M4-2 suitable for the

motorwinder (which I personally would never recommend) and the steel

makes for more durable components. If the gears jam however the

strong steel will destroy the winder mechanism, while the weaker

brass gear will fall apart without doing damage to the mechanism.

Which version is better?

 

<p>

 

The Wetzlar products were made in the tradition of the fully

integrated production cycle, where most components were made in the

factory or by closely allied suppliers. This was the traditional way

of manufacturing as deployed since the start of the century.

 

<p>

 

The current M6 is built according to the modern, or maybe

postindustrial technology of manufacturing, that blends manufacturing

with the service industry.

 

<p>

 

The factory is now changing from a high cost handcraft based

production and assemblage facility to a combination of new

technology, lean production and supply chain management to produce

the M models (and of course the R models too).

 

<p>

 

Nowadays the smooth and relaxed relationships between a manufacturer

as Leica and its customers and suppliers defines a new type of

manufacturing company, one that is capable and able to produce the

opto-mechanical precision instruments to the same if not higher level

of quality and precision as the previous type of industrial

manufacturer that Leitz was.

 

<p>

 

The nostalgic feelings to the classical products of the Leitz era are

quite understandable and even enjoyable. The idolization of the

Wetzlar products to the detriment of the Solms products, shows a

gross ignorance of the facts.

The classical Leica products as M2/3/4, and this is part of their

enduring charm, evoke a feeling of confidence and material solidity,

Current Leica products as the M6, while as reliable and durable as

the predecessors, have a different look and feel. And some

manufacturing changes are clearly the result of simple and harmless

type of reduction of cost of production: the frame counter is a clear

example of cost cutting. Sometimes the components have changed to

implement a simplified assembly and so saving on labor costs. The

change of filt for the shutter trapdoor to a composite material is

such an example. These changes however are in part of a cosmetic

nature. Cosmetic because the basic functioning and reliability are

not jeopardized. The number of adjustment possibilities has also been

reduced, partly because adjustments are not always necessary and

partly because of cost reduction. In the latter case, we should have

the camera adjusted a bit more frequently.

 

<p>

 

Bottom line we should accept that the M6 is as reliable and durable

as an older one, is assembled with the same or even higher precision

and tighter tolerances as an older one. We should also note that the

M6 has an improved viewfinder and some nice additions as the exposure

meter. On the other hand the M6 needs to be adjusted in slightly

shorter intervals than the M2/3/4 when in heavy duty use and the

simplification of some components make it a bit more sensitive on

occasion. Let us have no illusions. Any Leica cameramodel can develop

a fault. Look at a typical Leica repairshop and you will see every

model represented: M3's as well as M6's.

 

<p>

 

The engineering of the current Leica M bodies, the quality of

production and the high level of shop testing ensures that a new

Leica M will function according to specs and with the reliability and

longevity that is part of the charm of the Leica. Engineering is a

human act however, and incidentally a fault will occur, such is

Murphy's Law.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
giles_poilu

giles_poilu

Posted
Posted

Chris, yes the M's have been cheapened but not just the bodies - the

whole Leica production philosophy and reputation is becoming

cheapened too.

 

<p>

 

When the M4 was discontinued and in the fifteen years preceding,

Leitz was probably in it's golden period of absolute precision

engineering and quality production. Within these fifteen years the

M3,M2 and MP were available the IIIg was still being produced and the

Leicaflex and M4 were introduced. The Leitz company was still run

the old way, a family business with engineers and workers at the

height of their skills and dedicated to creating the finest products

available.

 

<p>

 

Unfourtunatly (!) for Leitz, the 70's saw the SLR boom, expensive M

sales nosedived and the company was in trouble. The Leicaflex

struggled, the M5 and M4 were dropped altogether and for three years

no M's were available. In 1978 Leitz Canada re-introduced M

production with the M4-2, yes this saved the M but the M4-2 and all

subsequent models were certainly not produced like M's of old.

 

<p>

 

The situation today of lenses with pieces of dirt inside, misaligned

front elements and stiff focusing rings; bodies with misaligned

coverings, mal-adjusted and flaring rangefinders, incorrect focusing,

faulty electronics and stiff gears - all these things simply didn't

happen in Leitz's heyday. A line up of three or four dedicated

quality control inspectors as in the M2/3/4 days would collapse in

disbelief at some of the end products coming from Solms.

 

<p>

 

The obvious cheapening in production methods and quality control

staff is unfourtunatly matched by the continuing search for cost

cutting in the materials and way of engineering: Removing the self-

timer (before the metered M6), removing elements in the rangefinder

(causing flare), plastic film counters instead of engraved or stamped

brass, PVC plastic covering instead of Vulcanite (or a modern

equivilent), the stamped zinc top plate, less finishing on the guide

rails, painting not engraving the film diagram, poor paint and chrome

quality etc, etc.

 

<p>

 

Now, modern Leica defendees will say what does it matter? - just quit

moaning and take some pictures! But it does matter - Leitz's (sorry

Leica's) reputation is in danger. Sure stamped top plates etc don't

affect the camera as a picture taking tool but all these little

things add up, in the same way that Ferrari or Jaguar trade on their

heritage so does Leitz - the way products are engineered and finished

DOES matter - a bit of engraved brass stands for a lot more than

simply a fiddly detail.

 

<p>

 

Yes the M6 TTL is still a fine camera but sit down with a nice M2/3/4

and examine it and play with it next to Solm's latest - in terms of

engineering and finish it just doesn't stack up. You don't need to

be an engineer to see this, but if you read well known Leica

engineers comments in Leica historical articles they will say the

same thing.

 

<p>

 

Leica (Leitz) always has been a unique and incredible company, but

now with the ever growing drop in QC and cheapening of production

together with a desire to stuff the "improved" M's full of

electronics and flashing lights they are I believe, heading in the

wrong direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matthew_pulzer1

matthew_pulzer1

Posted
Posted

Sorry Giles, but this really is romantic tosh. If I were a Wetzlar

engineer brought back to the Solms factory I wouldn't waste my time

enquiring about vulcanite. I would marvel at the apsherical

technology being employed - hardly cost cutting as we are all too

aware. I'd be fascinated by the evoultion of glass types and formulas

used. I would welcome the new and incredibly durable coatings

employed. I might regret the passing of some of the cosmetic details.

We'd all like a brass top cover, but so what? Leica put their

research and ultimately our money where it counts - the best made,

most innovative optical designs on the market. Like Erwin says,

plenty of people knock their modern products, but how many actually

go to the factory and talk candidly to the engineers? M3s are

beautiful, but their solidity and elegance does not mean that M6s are

somehow second best. I'm sure they had their quality control issues

in the fifties. It's an inevitable part of the production process. In

my experience what counts is not how often a problem occurs, but what

a company is prepared to do when it does occur. Here I do feel, in

the UK at least, they could certainly pull their socks up. That aside

I have never had cause for complaint or felt the need to be nostalgic

about some Leitz golden era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
giles_poilu

giles_poilu

Posted
Posted

Matthew - Sorry, but if you read my post I have no axe to grind on

the quality and advances in Leica glass.

 

<p>

 

"..this really is romantic tosh. If I were a Wetzlar engineer brought

back to the Solms factory I wouldn't waste my time enquiring about

vulcanite.."

 

<p>

 

Please, romantic tosh it is not!

 

<p>

 

"..Erwin says, plenty of people knock their modern products, but how

many actually go to the factory and talk candidly to the engineers"

 

<p>

 

Erwin has his opinion, but he is just one of many Leica commentators -

many of whom disagree wholeheartedly with his opinion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
john_collier5

john_collier5

Posted
Posted

A couple of facts first!

 

<p>

 

One Leica-User had his brand-new M3 delivered with out a

rangefinder roller arm. Leitz sent another arm to the dealer who

had to install and calibrate it.

 

<p>

 

The M4 is the first camera with plastic cosmetic parts.

 

<p>

 

I know of no M cameras ever made non-functional by the failure

of a cosmetic plastic part.

 

<p>

 

The M4-2 is where the plastic exposure counter first appeared.

There were no problems with this design. In the middle of the M6

production, further plastic pieces were added which were

problematic. Any M6 with these extra plastic pieces has them

automatically changed for no charge during regular servicing at a

Leica repair facility.

 

<p>

 

The change to a Zn composite material is to simplify

manufacturing not reduce material costs. It reduces the amount

of post casting machining required. The greater impact

absorption of the Zn composite material is BETTER. The Zn

material probably costs more.

 

<p>

 

The whole myth of poor construction and reliability arose when,

in order to save the M camera, production was shifted to

Canada. All the machines necessary were moved as well. Now

imagine starting from scratch with a new work force, new

material suppliers, and no money to spare. The first cameras

were very problematic indeed. PopPhoto tested an early M4-2 in

1980 and had some very minor adjustment problems that an

experienced Leica tech. quickly fixed. The Leica tech. said, "Great

camera, just needed a little tweaking."

 

<p>

 

Manufacturing tolerances back then were such that you had to

have adjustments in order for the damn camera to work at all. In

these days of CAD and CNC, parts are identical and fit and work

right out of the box. Far fewer adjustments are needed. The last

M6TTL tested by PopPhoto had a shutter within 10% of all

nominal speeds. Very, very good for a mechanical shutter. Heck

film, paper and chemical stocks are not even that close from

batch to batch!

 

<p>

 

Rangefinder flaring is annoying but did not start with the M4-2. I

had a late M4-2 and rangefinder performance was EXACTLY the

same as my M2.

 

<p>

 

My TTL has flare sometimes as I move my eye away from the

center of the eyepiece. On my M2, no flare, the rangefinder patch

just slowly disappears! Which is better? The flare is more

annoying but both are equally dysfunctional. After three years of

TTL use, I do not notice the flaring at all. I automatically move my

eye back to the center and it disappears.

 

<p>

 

Here are some links to other postings on Leica quality:

 

<p>

 

<a

href="http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg07414.htm

l">

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg07414.html</a>

 

<p>

 

<a

href="http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg07904.htm

l">

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg07904.html</a>

 

<p>

 

<a

href="http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg07968.htm

l">

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg07968.html</a>

 

<p>

 

<a

href="http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg07981.htm

l">

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg07981.html</a>

 

<p>

 

And my personal favourite,

 

<p>

 

<a

href="http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg08114.htm

l">

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg08114.html</a>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iván

iván

Posted
Posted

"what counts is not how often a problem occurs, but what a company is

prepared to do when it does occur"

 

<p>

 

There is no way that I could agree with this statement.

 

<p>

 

When I'm out to make pictures a failure could mean a whole day ruined

plus the time and expenses needed to get the camera back to its

normal conditions. I asume that few if any professionals would agree

either since they do depend on their gear to make their very living.

 

<p>

 

Quality means no failures. It doesn't mean many easy repairs.

 

<p>

 

My 2 cents.

 

<p>

 

-Iván

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andrew_schank

andrew_schank

Posted
Posted

Current manufacturing techniques have their advantages and

disadvantages over the ways of yesterday. Things are not going to go

back to the labor intensive ways of 30 or 40 years ago, so its

basically wasted time discussing it. And yes, I think the shutter

feels smoother and is quieter on a M3 than M6, and the winding feels

better as well, and the finder doesn't flare hardly ever.

 

<p>

 

I also wonder if there is real data that shows there are a higher

percent of problems (initial and in warranty breakdowns) with the

current stuff than the older equipment. You can't just go by the

complaints that come out here on the internet. For every person that

visits the various forums that has a problem and tells everyone about

it, there are probably very many who get basically perfect stuff out

of the box, but never post their good experience. You can end up

with a warped perspective. Or Leica may not be checking the current

stuff out as well as they should before it goes in the box. Maybe

they should start having the final inspector sign their name on the

warranty slip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eliot

eliot

Posted
Posted

"M6 cheapened" is a double edged question. It depends on how you

interpret "cheapened". There can't be much doubt that the older M

cameras M2/3/4 were better crafted instruments, especially in terms

of workmanship (hand made, unlike M6), materials (brass rather than

zinc top plate, brass gear chain etc.), engraving rather than

stamping, and clearly superior finish to not just the externals, but

also the internal parts (eg. small screws). I thnk PP also mentioned

two internal screws to adjust the rangefinder to specs in the M3,

rather than one in the M6, just as an example.

 

<p>

 

As far as the rangefinder patch, there was a small condenser in the

RF light patch that was present in the original M cameras but removed

some time during the production of the M4-2. Leica decided that this

condenser was just unnecessary, but its absence could account for the

clains of slightly increased RF flare in subsequent cameras:

something I have not noticed myself. A few other minor items have

been changed, like the plastic (rather than metal) tip on the

underside of the revind crank in newer cameras, the omission of the

film plane indicator engraving during the M6 tenure, etc. I think

the infamous "red dot" is certainly not made to the old Leica

standards.

 

<p>

 

Despite these factors, the production tolerances and QC on the M6 is

probably better than on older M cameras, because of the introduction

of modern production techniques: the technology is simply better,

even if the craftsmanship suffers. And the M6 has a built-in meter

of extremely high sensitivity (will go down to EV -1 with the

Noctilux). So take your pick. One thing I can say for sure about

the M6 is that even if this camera is not built as well as the

earlier Ms, it is still built better than any other 35 mm on the

market. Hand crafted precision instruments are simply not made!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andy_piper2

andy_piper2

Posted
Posted

Chris: RE the 'flare'. Leitz took out a condenser lens somewhere about

the time of the change from the M4-2 to the M4-P - possibly to save

money - possibly to add the 28/75 frames.

 

<p>

 

I notice that with my M4-2, if I cover the frame-illumination window

none of the framelines are visible. On my M4-P, the 90 frame not only

remains mostly visible, but actually has a MOVING RF double-image

visible in the framelines themselves (i.e. the rangefinder image itself

is illuminating at least those framelines near the center of the finder

as well as the square RF patch.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfie wang

alfie wang

Posted
Posted

I believe that Leica M4 and M6 models are incomparable to each other.

It's like comparing 2 different periods of history. We live in

different times than way back in the 1950's of course. I think that

in times of ruggedness the M4 and M6 are roughly comparable although

some of the nice finishing touches on the M4 is definitely worth it.

However, the M6 for me is model because it is innovative with solid

TTL metering and compared to Nikon F5's and EOS 1N's they can hold

their own of course.

 

<p>

 

I just believe that engineers have focused more attention on the

lenses recently relative to the days before you know. :)

 

<p>

 

Of course it's time to look at Cosina/Voigtlander as a solid

competitor to Leica. If they release a Bessa-M, Leica would have lost

the entry-level market for rangefinders. At least shooting the Bessa-

R is a pleasure and with the Jupiter 8 lens I have it's rather light

and compact and much cheaper than the M6 w/ Summicron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...