rolo

If you want compact and 4 megapixels, go buy a Canon G2.

Same lens, better camera -- the pictures aren't posterized and

RAW capture doesn't take a day and a half. TTL flash, too.

Jay wrote: "What evidence would lead anyone to believe the M7

would somehow be a departure from Leica's ongoing product

cheapening and spotty QC?"

<p>

What a horrible thing to say! One highly regarded European

analyst referred to the Leica M7 as "one step closer to

perfection." You doubt this?

<p>

ROFLOL!

"Once a TTL flash has been activated in the shoe the ambient

metering is cancelled and the diode indication is irrelevant. "

<p>

On which camera? On an M6TTL with a Metz 54-MZ3 in TTL

mode the flash does not affect the camera's ambient light meter

reading at all. Why would it?

I suspect that Salgado being Salgado, he gets fast track repair

and/or loaner gear from Leica when his cameras fail. If one

breaks, he's got backups and he probably gets some kind of a

replacement from Leica ASAP. Nothing wrong with that;

obviously he provides valuable marketing/publicity for Leica.

<p>

As far as Leica improving the reliabilty in late production

cameras, my anecdote cancels your anecdote. As I said, I

bought an R6.2 new last year and it had problems, including a

mechanical jam, in the first eight months of use. If I actually

used the self-timer, I would still consider the camera broken. I

would definitely call my camera late production.

Bought a new, USA Passport R6.2 early last year. Within weeks

the TTL flash circuit failed. It was fixed and returned by Leica NJ

within 10 days. Toward the end of the year the advance

mechanism jammed. Again Leica NJ fixed it and returned it

within 10 days, this time assuring me that the camera had been

gone over thoroughly. Works fine now, though the self-timer is

intermittent, which makes me wonder about the stability of the

electronics (and the thoroughness of Leica's inspection). Nice

camera to use when it's working. ;-)

This thread is wonderful, as all of these Erwin Puts threads tend

to be.

<p>

It's like driving slowly past a bad car wreck. Morbid, sad and

irresistible.

Unless the R8 differs wildly from from other modern,

TTL-equipped SLR's, the f/stop and ISO info are passed to the

flash unit by the camera body. Of course the f/stop comes first

from the lens, but it's processed by the camera (think about your

exposure measurement). The focal length info comes via the

lens. If the zoom doesn't pass along the focal length, it's no big

deal, as manually zooming a Metz flash is easy. And as Matthew

said, if you're using a diffuser (Omnibounce, etc.) -- and you

should, the flash head setting is largely irrelevant. Set it wide

and forget it.

"I looked at a photograph of a holiday villa in France.Guess

what...when i got there it looked just the same as the

photograph. "

<p>

Small and two dimensional? How disappointing.

Rob,

<p>

You're right, of course. I should have specified, "excluding New

Old Stock." They'll be with us for a while. . . .

<p>

Allen,

<p>

Regarding Leica's unambiguous statement: I consider it as

unambiguous as Mr. Cohn's remark of a couple of years ago

saying that there would be no M7. Perfectly clear. But things

change, other plans have been made, etc. Of course the M7 will

not be a replacement for the M6TTL, as long as Leica has stock

of M6TTL's to sell. When they're gone, the M7 will be sold as the

"modern classic." No problem.

The same basic language was in the Leica literature about the

parallel existence of the R8 and the R6.2 "for purists." On-hand

stock of R6.2's is gone and so is the camera. . . .

<p>

Every time Leica posts its financials, they don't look good. Can it

really be feasible for them to produce simultaneously M6TTL's in

.58, .72 and .85 models and M7's in the same configurations?

<p>

I'll be impressed if we can still buy new a M6TTL in two years. I'll

also be surprised.

Actually the "details" I seek relate to time and expense. It's nice

to know that after two decades an answer may be at hand. But

how much will it cost and how long will it take? BTW, the Leica

comment about the partial solution being in the M6TTL and the

M7 is ambiguous. I have two M6TTL's, they both flare. My .58 is

a fairly late number, 272-something, and it flares as badly as my

1995 M6 and my 248-series .85 TTL.

<p>

We'll see. . . .

In an M7 thread Eliot Rosen wrote:

<p>

"John. Can you tell us what you are referring to? I thought Leica

had addressed the VF flare issue (a problem that I have never

experienced myself) in the M7 by multi-coating the VF window.

Are they planning on another change to further address the

problem beyond that?"

<p>

I'm not John, but here's what I know. In his newsletter review of

the new M7, Leica enthusiast Erwin Puts wrote: "Everything can

always be improved. The finder windows have an anti-reflection

coating that diminishes clearly the flare of the rangefinder

patch that occurs in some situations when strong light sources

are shining obliquely into the finder."

<p>

The flare that "occurs in some situations" occurs on every M6 of

every flavor (.58, .72, .85) that I have ever owned or handled.

High-angle light sources (someone went so far as to peg it at

110 degrees) in a normal to dimly lit room (wedding receptions

are classic environments for this) will cause the rangefinder

patch to flare or "white out" unless your eye is situated perfectly

at the eyepiece. I wear eyeglasses, so I guess I never get my

eye in that "sweet spot." My M6's flare easily. Moving my eye can

sometimes clear the flare enough to focus, but at a great time

expense when working quickly. When shooting weddings, I slap

a strip of 3M Durapore surgical tape over the frameline

illuminator window and go to work. Looks bad, works fine.

<p>

Rich Pinto, a reputable Leica dealer in NYC, said that in the brief

time he had an M7 in hand, he could not make the rangefinder

flare in a situation that caused an M6 to flare readily. I have to

assume that the multicoating of the windows helps a great deal,

but it's not THE solution. Why?

<p>

Here's where the story gets interesting. In a post that appeared,

perhaps mistakenly, on the Leica Users Group and has yet to be

challenged as inauthentic, Erwin Puts revealed to a

correspondent: "But while I know the problem, the causes and

the solution, I was forbidden to mention it. But now Leica is

telling all of us that we have to upgrade our M7 in a few months

for a substantial amount of money, because they lacked the drive

and the time to add this solution to the current M7."

<p>

Fascinating, but inconclusive. For one, neither Erwin Puts nor

anyone else has clarified "the causes and the solution." Two,

the nature, price ("a substantial amount of money" !) and time

frame for this "upgrade" (nice spin on "correction of a 20-year

problem of our creation") is unclear, as is whether Leica will offer

a similar "upgrade" to M6 owners.

<p>

Knowing that a solution may be down the road is somewhat

reassuring. Being kept in the dark on the details is rather

annoying, but not really surprising.

This guy gets a more positive reception around here than

William Gedney. Go figure. . . .

I was on the fence, but now I'm convinced. If Alfie wants one,

sign me up.

A small strip of white, porous surgical tape (in the U.S. its sold

as 3M Durapore) placed over the frameline illuminator window

knocks out the flare without dimming the framelines or RF patch

too much. I replaced those infernal plastic strips on the

baseplates of my cameras so that I would have a slick surface to

leave strips of tape ready for flare situations. After a while the

tape adheres too well to the baseplate, so the plastic strip helps.

<p>

I'm aware of one individual who swears that the rangefinder on

his M6 does not flare. I would LOVE to see his camera.

You received Sherry's standard speech. She takes these

cameras apart and puts 'em back together for a living, so I trust

her opinion of the guts of these machines far more than I trust

the opinion of some who praise every new product to come out

of Solms.

<p>

That said, I believe that Leicas, even the M4-2, are better made

than probably any other camera on the market today. And there's

no reason that Sherry Krauter's Golden Touch can't make your

M4-2 essentially better than it was when it left Midland. If you

think you're going to keep this camera, then doing all the fixes is

a worthwhile investment. Get the overhaul, get the new RF

mechanism (only you know whether you want 28 and 75

framelines, can't help you there), get a new clutch and replace

the shutter curtain if it needs it. I would bet that the camera will

keep clicking for a lot longer than four years before you need to

send it in again.

<p>

I have an M6 that Sherry has worked on three times in the last

two years -- overhaul, new advance gear head and clutch, new

ISO dial switch, new upper light shield (and some minor surgery

on the lower light shield which tore), new frameline lever

mechanism -- about $600 total. The camera is truly better than it

was new (and I bought it new). BTW, it was new in 1996, so her

four to five year estimate was true in my case. It was worth it to

me because I figure I'll use that camera until it absolutely dies.

I'm not selling it.

<p>

One other line you will hear Sherry K. utter like a mantra: "The

systematic cheapening of every part in the camera." I bet she's

not happy about the new electronic shutter. . . .

"I do not see Erwin Puts returning any derogatory attacks to

those that have been less than courteous. "

<p>

You don't? Then I guess you don't subscribe to his newsletter.

"The full solution to the flare problem has not yet found. The

coating is part of the answer, but more is needed before the

problem is tackled."

<p>

Thought so.

<p>

If they hadn't messed with the M4 viewfinder/rangefinder

mechanism in the first place, there wouldn't be a problem to

tackle.

I guess I'm cross posting, but this topic is playing out in at least

two locations. Erwin informed me that there in fact is no coating

on the M6/M6TTL finder windows. The coatings that visible are

on the *internal* finder elements.

<p>

I have no confirmation that the new coatings actually

alleviate/eliminate the rangefinder flare that is painfully common

on the M6/M6TTL. I get rid of the flare on my cameras by

slapping a piece of surgical tape over the illuminator panel, so I

suspect that light passing through the illuminator is a major

source of the flare. If the new coatings actually do reduce or

eliminate the flare, my next question will be, how much to

replace the window panes on M6's?

I answered my own question today. Took my friend's Canon D30

and 550EX flash, set the flash to ETTL, HS; set the camera to

1/4000 at f/2; took a picture. Perfect exposure, perfect fill flash.

<p>

And it occurred to me that the new D60 will probably cost about

the same (or less) than an M7.

Erwin Puts stated in an e-mail to me that the electro-mechanical

shutter in the M7 is in no way cheaper to produce than the

all-mechanical M6 shutter. He said, partly, "The cost advantage

of the gears that are not needed are offset by the chips, the

additional circuitry, the different assembly and the adjustments

and testing."

<p>

This sounds reasonable at point of introduction for the M7, but

surely the cost of the electronics will decline as production

continues. So I suspect that over a not-so-long period of time

the actually cost of the M7 shutter will be less than that of the M6

mechanism. And wasn't the all-mechanical shutter rated at far

more than 100,000 cycles?

I had a brief e-mail exchange today with Erwin Puts on this

issue. He said that what I thought was coating on the viewfinder

windows of the M6/M6TTL was actually reflections from coating

on the INTERNAL elements of the viewfinder/rangefinder

mechanism. The M7 has coating on the external window panes.

<p>

Erwin, however, has not responded so far to my follow up

question, which was:

<p>

One last question about the viewfinder/rangefinder, coatings, etc.

(I'm sorry, but the rangefinder flare in the M6 has become one of

my minor obsessions, since it is a MAJOR annoyance). I can

essentially eliminate the rangefinder flare on my M6 and my

M6TTL's (.58 and .85) by placing a piece of surgical tape over the

illuminator panel. How does coating the external viewfinder

optics decrease or eliminate rangefinder flare if, in my

experience, the flare is caused by, or at least greatly exacerbated

by, the illumination system?

<p>

Anyone care to take a crack at that one?

<p>

I suspect (and I hope to find out soon by looking through one)

that the M7 flares in the same way as the M6/M6TTL. If, in fact,

the new coatings have alleviated/eliminated the problem, the

next question will be: how much will it cost to have the new

coated windows installed in my cameras?

Then these must be NEW coatings as the windows on my M6

and M6TTL's are all coated (lights don't typically reflect in shades

of purple and green otherwise). I'll have to get my hands on an

M7 to check it out, but I would bet you a rear lens cap right now

that the M7 rangefinder flares and probably to almost the same

degree as the M6/M6TTL. The problem is internal, which is why

it can be abated somewhat by taping over the illuminator panel.

The flare isn't coming through the viewfinder window.

Brass bends more readily than cast zinc. I can't see where

brass would be an improvement.

"So does the Metz flash work in TTL mode at 1/50th on an M7?

Or, would one need the SF-20 flash for TTL mode?"

<p>

Yes, the 54MZ3 will work in TTL mode at 1/50th on the M7. It

works on the M6TTL. Erwin Puts implied that it ONLY worked in

TTL at 1/50, but I suspect he meant 1/50 and slower, as that's

the way the TTL circuit works on the M6TTL.

<p>

As I've noted before, the 54MZ3 is a great versatile flash, but it's

top heavy on the M6TTL (as it will be on the M7) and it can torque

the top plate enough to shift the rangefinder vertical alignment.