matthew_pulzer1

I've bought from Classic and never had a serious problem, they are

though rather expensive. Nevertheless, its very complete stock and

rare items make it is a must for any Leica London visitor,

particularly as it is only a stone's throw from one of the world's

great museums. Despite a reasonably good collection of equipment I

boycott Caplin's. They were once very rude - essentially wouldn't

take a lens out of the window for me to examine. No explanation, just

a very condescending snear. The best advice I can offer anyone

interested in buying Leica, or photo gear in general, in Britain is

to purchase a copy of Amateur Photographer magazine and examine the

ads in the back. Any serious dealer has a listing there.

<p>

Robert White and Ffordes are British dealers I have also bought from

and can recommend. They have good web sites and will ship abroad.

<p>

Hope you enjoy London

<p>

Matt

Gary's right, so right I bought mine off of him! The ASPH is

wonderful - it was my favorite lens for a long time. The only reason

I don't use it now is because I have a 1.4. SO if anyone in the UK is

in the market for a fantastic silver 35/2 ASPH please contact me off

list.

<p>

Cheers

<p>

Matt

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.

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.

11. Avoid making your life difficult by sticking to other people's

rules

I have to say I think Steve is right. I cannot understand why anyone

would buy into Leica M simply to have a compact/low

light/rangefinder... If that's the reasoning then there's nothing

wrong with Hexars or Voigtlanders. No, the only reason that its worth

spending two to three times as much as the competition is the quality

of the image. If you want the best wide open quality, finest bokeh

and subtlest tonal graduation then there is only one system to go

for. I'm sure other brands produce some fine lenses and consequently

good images, but IMHO they simply are not as good as those from Leica.

<p>

The Afghan girl is truly a startling image. It would probably have

been even better if taken with a 75 or 80 'lux. I'm not knocking the

set up used or the image that was produced, just putting forward the

proposition that it is possible that it could be improved. Sticking

with the hi-fi analogy, classical record companies regualarly issue

operas recorded in the 60s or even the 50s. Why? simply because the

performances are magnificent. Do the recording deficiencies jar? Of

course, but that doesn't stop the beauty of the performance shining

through. However, they would sound even better with modern recording

technology, digital or analogue (let's not get bogged down in that

one!). I think it's the same with many respected and admired

photographs, such as the Afghan girl. Use the best lenses and other

things being equal then you will end up with best image quality.

I've used Joe's for C41, E6 and B/W. Good, consistent results. Not

used Metro, but never heard anything but praise. Either way you will

be safe hands.

<p>

Matt

Sadly, Leica now only do UV filters, which is a shame for purists,

but probably makes little difference when looking at actual pictures!

(Second hand Leica E39 filters are not too hard to find, but do check

for scratches etc. I have some silver ones, which complement my

silver lenses nicely - trivial I know, but I'm harming no one!)

<p>

Heliopan, Hoya and B+W all make filters in E39 format and some of the

other less usual sizes. I use B+W and like them very much - nice

Leica quality feel about their construction. As a Leica purchaser,

you will aleready be programmed to accept without a blink B+W

prices. - £$£$£

<p>

Although it's not E39, it's worth pointing out that you need an extra

thin profile filter if you are using the tri-elmar, otherwise you may

vignette at f4 on the 28mm setting. (Not sure if this applies to both

versions.)

<p>

Cheers

<p>

Matt

Hi John

<p>

£1357 is cheap for a new M6 TTL body. I would usually expect to pay

around £1400/1500. Second hand M6s can be very good value. Prices are

usually around £1000. As for lenses, I can only suggest my own

personal favorite: 35mm/2 asph. You can usually find these for about

£650 second hand. Contact me if you want suggestions about where to

buy in the South-East/London. Do keep an eye open for items in the

classifieds in Amateur Photographer and Loot. I have bought well from

both of these.

<p>

Cheers

<p>

Matt

Hi Muhammad

<p>

I find 'objectionable' a bit strong! Personally, with a 35/2 I would

have used the full aperture and shot Delta 100 pushed one stop. You

seem to have got the worst of both worlds. A fast grainy film and

small apertures when you could have really exploited the quality of a

wide open modern Leica lens and used a much finer film. But it's easy

to be smart after the event!

<p>

Keep at it

The R 16mm fisheye is a minolta made in Japan.

<p>

Matt

The V35 is designed to work in autofocus ONLY with the lense with

which it is shipped.

<p>

I would be interested to here about any real tests with other lenses.

<p>

Kind regards

I like Astia, but for landscape I must confess I would hate to be

parted from Velvia - not good for skin tones though! Why not take

along a little table top tripod?

<p>

Happy shooting

<p>

Regards

<p>

Matt

Try Classic Camera in London. I saw them there this summer.

<p>

Matt

Same happened to me until I realised the shutter was being depressed

in the bag I used to store it. It's those little red LEDs that drain

the batteries. Now I always set my (old non-TTL) M6s to B and the

problem has gone away. Presumably this is the reason for the

introduction of the OFF switch. Apologies if this is old knowledge,

but it has certainly worked for me.

Dear Serge

<p>

Glad I am not the only one. I too have looked high and low for real

information and prety much drawn a blank. All opinions are very

positive, but no real user experience seems to be out there. If I

find a useful site I will flag it up - please do the same!

Presumably it's just a rebadge job like their boring digital P&S

offering, but plus a 'nice' new case. It is a bit pathetic though. A

leica APS? - about as useful as those ghastly gold 'specials' they

insist on producing. They really should stop all this nonsense and

stick to what they do best, or start on something genuinely

interesting such as a digital back for the R8, MF or perhaps a new

enlarger.

<p>

When Leica are good they are great, sometimes though they are just

embarassing!

<p>

Matt

I have been offered an MPP 4x5 monorail camera. MPP was an English company and I think the camera is roughly 30 years old, but still in

good condition (including the bellows - concertina and bag-type (?!)). I am new to large format and although it is heavy, looks well made and sturdy I would be interested to hear the views of photographers who have actually used one. I have read quite a few positive reports of MPP's field cameras, but information on the monorail is proving hard to find. Incidentally, another option is an MPP autofocus large format (up to 5x7) enlarger. I think they only made one model and views on this would also be much appreciated.

<p>

One final point; I am very much aware that this is a home/studio camera and definitely not one to drag around the countryside. I simply want to know if this would make a good tool to use and learn with, perhaps progressing to a diffrent camera as and when experience dictates.

<p>

Thanks very much

<p>

Matt