back alley
IMAGES
joop, you really should ask permission of the writer first.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I would like to second the opinion that the M6/M6ttl series is a seriously tough camera. It may not have the spit and polish of something like an M4, but you'll probably experience 'operator failure', before the camera gives in.
Almost all pros that I see with an M camera have an M6 series body and they look like they have been bouncing around in a bag for the past 20 years. I think their dependability, built-in meter and reasonable prices for used examples make the M6 series popular with that crowd.
The biggest problem I have experienced with my TTL, is that if it receives a serious whack on the top plate, the RF patch can go out of vertical alignment. It's happened to me twice in the 8-10 years that I've owned the camera and in both cases it was due to a serious fall (aka self-inflicted). You can still focus properly, but the patch is slightly offset. But I suppose that is better than a separated prism block, like you may experience with the Canadian balsam glued M2/M3. Unfortunately the newer cameras need a special tool to fix this. With the earlier cameras you could dial it back in with a regular screwdriver.
I think the difference between the older and newer cameras is very much reflected in their personality.
The M3/2/4/5 cameras are highly capable and built luxuriously, like a vintage wooden race boat. The M4-P/M6/TTL is equally capable, but its mechanical execution and demeanor is purely functional.
It's the difference between a finely made English shotgun and a Remmington 870 you see in a police cruiser.
The MP/M7 are somewhere in between.
The MP is a seriously smooth camera, especially when you consider that it uses steel gears, instead of brass. It's probably as good or better than anything that Leica has ever made.
I have an M7 and while the shutter release isn't as smooth as my M2/M4 (due to the meter?), it's far more polished and tighter than any M4-P/M6 I've ever seen.
The only M that I don't trust is the M4-2. Sherry took mine apart and put it back together again and it died 6 months later. Sherry didn't mince words with her opinion of the M4-2 and I've heard the same from other repair shops. I would pass on this one.
HL
Almost all pros that I see with an M camera have an M6 series body and they look like they have been bouncing around in a bag for the past 20 years. I think their dependability, built-in meter and reasonable prices for used examples make the M6 series popular with that crowd.
The biggest problem I have experienced with my TTL, is that if it receives a serious whack on the top plate, the RF patch can go out of vertical alignment. It's happened to me twice in the 8-10 years that I've owned the camera and in both cases it was due to a serious fall (aka self-inflicted). You can still focus properly, but the patch is slightly offset. But I suppose that is better than a separated prism block, like you may experience with the Canadian balsam glued M2/M3. Unfortunately the newer cameras need a special tool to fix this. With the earlier cameras you could dial it back in with a regular screwdriver.
I think the difference between the older and newer cameras is very much reflected in their personality.
The M3/2/4/5 cameras are highly capable and built luxuriously, like a vintage wooden race boat. The M4-P/M6/TTL is equally capable, but its mechanical execution and demeanor is purely functional.
It's the difference between a finely made English shotgun and a Remmington 870 you see in a police cruiser.
The MP/M7 are somewhere in between.
The MP is a seriously smooth camera, especially when you consider that it uses steel gears, instead of brass. It's probably as good or better than anything that Leica has ever made.
I have an M7 and while the shutter release isn't as smooth as my M2/M4 (due to the meter?), it's far more polished and tighter than any M4-P/M6 I've ever seen.
The only M that I don't trust is the M4-2. Sherry took mine apart and put it back together again and it died 6 months later. Sherry didn't mince words with her opinion of the M4-2 and I've heard the same from other repair shops. I would pass on this one.
HL
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
Joop van Heijgen said:
not sure what you mean.
joe
back alley
IMAGES
Joop van Heijgen said:
i wasn't talking about the legality of what you did but more about the courtesy of asking tom first.
not a big deal.
joe
dreamsandart
Well-known
Tom said it about as well as can be. I would add that the later M6s changed the film counter from a metal to plastic disk and this failed under use for some of us, a replacement counter was the answer. And my new M4-2 (later) was just not built well as the 'classic' Ms I felt, came new with a rangefinder window that was not glued and acted like a window that slid open (opening the camera and gluing fixed the problem) and in general needed more adjustments (maybe the parts just didn't fit together as well)in the time I had it then any other M I've owned. The M5s I've had have been great, solid cameras built (and repaired by people that know them) as well as any M-series camera.
jerry spies
steroid leica
i thought my m4-2 was a great, well-built camera. it is quiet, sturdy, dependable, and the f/2 summicrom very sharp. maybe i should sell it. any offers?
Joop van Heijgen
Established
jerry spies said:
When your M4-2 functioning well, keep the camera!
Since its introduction in 1977 nowadays this camera will you not give special problems!
The concept of the camera is the same like the 'german' M4
Last edited:
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Except for his conclusion about the MP being one of the best in the M line, I think Tom has summarized things well.
The differences between an M6 (classic) and the latest MP are primarily aesthetic with no difference in build tolerances.
The differences between an M6 (classic) and the latest MP are primarily aesthetic with no difference in build tolerances.
Last edited:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Jerry, the M4-2 is a good camera and if it works fine,keep on shooting. It was only the earliest version of this camera that had a problem with the shutter. I had a couple of them along for a year stay in Paris in 1982/83. They were paired with my M4P and I had to have one of the M4-2's serviced for shutter bounce and the other one for rangefinder alignment (no fault of the camera - Parisian cobble stone streets are unyielding when you drop a M on them). The M4-2 was based on the M4 and Midland had a lot of experience in making M4's. At the moment I dont have a M4-2 - only a MD-2 that I use on a Visoflex for close up stuff.
The problem with discusions like this is that we hear about the problems that users have, but not about the 100 000's of M's that keep on working for decades without anything going wrong! The M's are mechanical contraptions and like any mechanical device - there can be problem with wear and more often than not- having them sitting idle for long time. So the shutter speeds might not be perfect, mechanical timing devices are not as precise as electronic ones, but they can be adjusted.On your "all singin all dancing" electronic wonder this usually involves changing or replacing the dreaded "module" at a cost that often exceeds the value of the camera!
My write up here is mainly to inform a potential buyer of a camera what to look for in a used M. Never buy without running a film through it (i hour labs are a great bonus) and always negotiate the price to take into consideration a CLA and dont take the sellers word for "it was CLA'd a while ago" unless there is a invoice dated with details of it!
As for "re-posting" somewhere else "the i-net" is a public forum and is just like speaking in public; what you say can be distributed every-where. It is fine by me as long as the source is given and in cases like this; it is my opinions about whatever is being dicussed, not an absolute statement.
The problem with discusions like this is that we hear about the problems that users have, but not about the 100 000's of M's that keep on working for decades without anything going wrong! The M's are mechanical contraptions and like any mechanical device - there can be problem with wear and more often than not- having them sitting idle for long time. So the shutter speeds might not be perfect, mechanical timing devices are not as precise as electronic ones, but they can be adjusted.On your "all singin all dancing" electronic wonder this usually involves changing or replacing the dreaded "module" at a cost that often exceeds the value of the camera!
My write up here is mainly to inform a potential buyer of a camera what to look for in a used M. Never buy without running a film through it (i hour labs are a great bonus) and always negotiate the price to take into consideration a CLA and dont take the sellers word for "it was CLA'd a while ago" unless there is a invoice dated with details of it!
As for "re-posting" somewhere else "the i-net" is a public forum and is just like speaking in public; what you say can be distributed every-where. It is fine by me as long as the source is given and in cases like this; it is my opinions about whatever is being dicussed, not an absolute statement.
Last edited:
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Order of build quality (IMHO):
M3
M2/M4/M5 (are equals - splitting hairs)
M4-2/M4-P/M6/M7/MP (are equals - splitting hairs)
M6TTL
I have had and used all of these cameras over the years, so I write with user experience. I have had at least a dozen M3s (or more) of various generations and found them all to be equals.
In reality all M cameras have very similar design features and one could make an argument that comparing any of them for long-term use is a hair-splitting exercise. Any should last longer than a generation as long as there are spare parts and technicians to service them.
This is assuming of course, there is film available to run through them...
M3
M2/M4/M5 (are equals - splitting hairs)
M4-2/M4-P/M6/M7/MP (are equals - splitting hairs)
M6TTL
I have had and used all of these cameras over the years, so I write with user experience. I have had at least a dozen M3s (or more) of various generations and found them all to be equals.
In reality all M cameras have very similar design features and one could make an argument that comparing any of them for long-term use is a hair-splitting exercise. Any should last longer than a generation as long as there are spare parts and technicians to service them.
This is assuming of course, there is film available to run through them...
Last edited:
Harry Lime
Practitioner
BillBlackwell said:
According to Leica and my own experience this is not correct.
The M7/MP is not just a rehash of the 6-series with brass top plates and some black paint. Leica them self noted upon the introduction of the MP that they had redesigned many internal components and used improved materials.
As was mentioned earlier the MP and M7 are still built using statistical tolerance, instead of the file-fit and fiddle approach, but frankly I'm not sure if that is the best assembly method for a camera that is not brass geared. As Tom mentioned, brass is a relatively soft metal and after some use the camera settles, as the gears mate. For the most part that's not going to happen with steel components, and the initial tolerances need to be quite high.
I own and shoot M2/M4 (x2)/M4-2/M6ttl/M7 and spent some time with one of the new MP cameras and there is a noticable improvement in it's build quality and smoothness over any of the post M5 cameras.
The fit and finish of the MP/M7 is much better than that of my M6ttl. Just looking at the rewind knob, the machining tolerances on the M7 are much tighter. The anodized black finish is of a higher quality, not to mention the RF/viewfinder, which no longer flares and displays higher contrast. Overall the camera feels a lot tighter and smoother; thus more like the old bodies. Out of the box both the steel geared MP and M7 were considerably smoother and quieter than my ttl (which I also purchased new), approaching the feel of a brass geared camera with low usage. It took me about 300-400 rolls get my ttl to break in until I could no longer feel the gears, when I advanced the film.
Last edited:
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
"According to Leica and my own experience this is not correct."
Well, I suppose we disagree. My I offer a frendly response?
Aside from quoting Leica's marketing hype, to which I too initially got sucked into, I have owned and used both (M6 and MP) and also formed my opinion based on this. I have also chatted with Leica technician, Don Goldberg, on the subject. Based on these factors I have come full circle.
There are differences in the look of black chrome over brass vs. black chrome over zinc alloy. "Better" is a matter of personal preference and completely subjective.
1. The MP has a brass top; the M6 is zinc alloy (these are materials, not "build tolerances");
2. The MP has the "Leica" script engraving; the M6 has no engraving (early M6 camera tops from Wetzlar are engraved "ERNST LEITZ WETZLAR GMBH") and the red dot (these are aesthetic design features, not "build tolerances");
3. The MP has the classic M3/2 RW mechanism with vintage style knobs; the M6 has the M4 style with the slanted crank with M4/5/7 style knobs (these are aesthetic design features, not "build tolerances");
4. The MP has the RF condenser lens (taken out in the M4-2 run); the M6 does not (this is an improvement, but has nothing to do with "build tolerances").
5. Different body coverings (neither are extraordinary).
6. The black MP cameras are painted (the paint rubs off); the black M6 is anodized black chrome (again, nothing to do with "build tolerances");
7. The MP comes with a newly designed screw-in eyepiece (the concept was added to the M7 and M8 as well), which is covered with a glued-on plastic covering. I suppose this saves Leica time and money in the manufacturing process. In any case, no one can make an argument that this system is anything but inferior to that of an M6 (and all that preceded it). "Build tolerances?" Maybe not, but certainly inferior.
8. The MP film advance is "smoother" compared to an M6 – okay, I will concede on this one.
Used, like new, Leica M6 classic - US$1,200-1,500
Used, like new, MP - US$2,200-2,800 or new ~US$3,500.
Functionally they are the same camera with virtually the same build tolerances. They are built by the same assembly-line workers (not technicians). Both have the same shutter mechanism and the same RF (with the condenser lens added in the MP - about a $170 repair at DAG - ~$270 if done through Leica USA).
An MP, in my opinion, is no more than a retagged, rebadged M6 classic with coated RF windows, smoother film advance, and the RF condenser added (these are indeed improvements), but with a far inferior eyepiece.
Given all considerations, overall, they're equals (IMHO).
Well, I suppose we disagree. My I offer a frendly response?
Aside from quoting Leica's marketing hype, to which I too initially got sucked into, I have owned and used both (M6 and MP) and also formed my opinion based on this. I have also chatted with Leica technician, Don Goldberg, on the subject. Based on these factors I have come full circle.
There are differences in the look of black chrome over brass vs. black chrome over zinc alloy. "Better" is a matter of personal preference and completely subjective.
1. The MP has a brass top; the M6 is zinc alloy (these are materials, not "build tolerances");
2. The MP has the "Leica" script engraving; the M6 has no engraving (early M6 camera tops from Wetzlar are engraved "ERNST LEITZ WETZLAR GMBH") and the red dot (these are aesthetic design features, not "build tolerances");
3. The MP has the classic M3/2 RW mechanism with vintage style knobs; the M6 has the M4 style with the slanted crank with M4/5/7 style knobs (these are aesthetic design features, not "build tolerances");
4. The MP has the RF condenser lens (taken out in the M4-2 run); the M6 does not (this is an improvement, but has nothing to do with "build tolerances").
5. Different body coverings (neither are extraordinary).
6. The black MP cameras are painted (the paint rubs off); the black M6 is anodized black chrome (again, nothing to do with "build tolerances");
7. The MP comes with a newly designed screw-in eyepiece (the concept was added to the M7 and M8 as well), which is covered with a glued-on plastic covering. I suppose this saves Leica time and money in the manufacturing process. In any case, no one can make an argument that this system is anything but inferior to that of an M6 (and all that preceded it). "Build tolerances?" Maybe not, but certainly inferior.
8. The MP film advance is "smoother" compared to an M6 – okay, I will concede on this one.
Used, like new, Leica M6 classic - US$1,200-1,500
Used, like new, MP - US$2,200-2,800 or new ~US$3,500.
Functionally they are the same camera with virtually the same build tolerances. They are built by the same assembly-line workers (not technicians). Both have the same shutter mechanism and the same RF (with the condenser lens added in the MP - about a $170 repair at DAG - ~$270 if done through Leica USA).
An MP, in my opinion, is no more than a retagged, rebadged M6 classic with coated RF windows, smoother film advance, and the RF condenser added (these are indeed improvements), but with a far inferior eyepiece.
Given all considerations, overall, they're equals (IMHO).
aizan
Mentor
dag told me there is one gear in the mp that is brass instead of steel as it was in the m6. he can put one in for $30.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
FWIW - I just had an email exchange (today) with Don Goldberg ("DAG")... it went like this:
Subject: MP vs M6 classic
Don:
What did Leica do to the film advance mechanism to make it smoother when compared to an M6 classic?
Thanks, Bill
__________________________________________________
Bill,
originally, the M6 classic had a very bad feel to it's winding & release systems. Then around serial #2,000,000 it got very good, perhaps better than the M3. I guess after Leica got it that way they sort of "tweeked" it as good as possible & that's how the MP is. But I have not seen anything in the MP camera that makes it wind nicer. I've heard that Leica used slightly different metals & made gears with slightly different angles but not enough to actually see it. So again, I think Leica "tweeked" the advance abit more & that's about it.
regards,
Don
DAG
Subject: MP vs M6 classic
Don:
What did Leica do to the film advance mechanism to make it smoother when compared to an M6 classic?
Thanks, Bill
__________________________________________________
Bill,
originally, the M6 classic had a very bad feel to it's winding & release systems. Then around serial #2,000,000 it got very good, perhaps better than the M3. I guess after Leica got it that way they sort of "tweeked" it as good as possible & that's how the MP is. But I have not seen anything in the MP camera that makes it wind nicer. I've heard that Leica used slightly different metals & made gears with slightly different angles but not enough to actually see it. So again, I think Leica "tweeked" the advance abit more & that's about it.
regards,
Don
DAG
Joop van Heijgen
Established
BillBlackwell said:
The same you can say about the reflex cameras of Leica!
Order of build quality:
Leicaflex SL
Leicaflex SL 2 (mot)
R 6.2
R 5, RE, and R 7
R 8/R9
Today I brougt my Leicaflex SL ('70) to a technican to service it.
Opened you can see the well builded camera with parts of excellent material used!
After functioning more than 35 years, this camera need only a clean up and a little of very fine oil...
According to the technican (Ton Scherpenborg, Nijmegen Holland) is the use of material the same like the M4 camera!
In a centrain way a more 'robust'!
The Leicaflex cameras and the other R camera are great cameras.
Every M owner has to be the owner of a Leica R camera, specially the Leicaflex SL(2) cameras!
Last edited:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The original Leicaflex and Leicaflex SL's are probably the most "over built" SLR's ever done! The finder of the 'flex and SL still ranks among the brightest SLR finders made. A couple of the old Leica technicians at Wetzlar once told me that the best built of them all was the Leicaflex SL. All shafts and drives were oversized and made to last. I have seen SL's that has had 1-1.5 million frames though them (used for copy work and film use was documented) and though you could feel some "slop" in the advance they worked perfectly. I have a couple of them, an old Leicaflex with the "pie" shaped counter and a Leicaflex SL Mot in black paint. Both are still being used, mainly for the 100 APO-macro and the 180 APO-Telyt. The black one occasionally misses closing down the aperture on the 100 Macro, but not often enough to warrant a service. I also have a Leicaflex, 2nd version, with the round film counter dial. This one shows the problem with the older Flexes. The curtain is torn and the amount of labor required to replace the curtain is far more than the camera is worth. You have to dis-assemble the whole camera (anywher from 4-7 hours of labor) to get to it. It does make a great paper weight though as it is heavy enough to flatten even the most prolific pile of government documents!
What goes on these cameras are usually the meters, but there is areason for hand held meters anyway.
The SL2 is probably the best "user" of them as the meter circuit was improved. If you get one that is in good shape - it will most likely outlive you (even if you are young). The SL2 Mot and the SL Mot had Leica losing money on each of them. The figure that I heard is that they cost almost 1000 mark more to build than they sold for (no wonder they only made about 2000 of them in total).
I once had a SL2 Mot that had a misaligned motor. You would load up with film, turn on the motor and go through the film. When you opened the camera it had cheerfully torn all the sprocket holes and you had a narrow strip with images, two really narrow strips with filmtype and numbers on it and 100's of small filmchips all over!
Leica made the ultimate exercise tool in 35mm too. The Tandem mount SL2 Mot. Two bodies on a bracket with an interval coupling between them. HUGE and heavy. Mainly used by sports photographers and for aerial shooting. I always felt that it wasen't the athletes that deserved praise - it was the guy with the Tandem SL kit!. Shooting aerials through the open cockpit door of a helicopter, you used one safety belt for the camera kit and one for you!
What goes on these cameras are usually the meters, but there is areason for hand held meters anyway.
The SL2 is probably the best "user" of them as the meter circuit was improved. If you get one that is in good shape - it will most likely outlive you (even if you are young). The SL2 Mot and the SL Mot had Leica losing money on each of them. The figure that I heard is that they cost almost 1000 mark more to build than they sold for (no wonder they only made about 2000 of them in total).
I once had a SL2 Mot that had a misaligned motor. You would load up with film, turn on the motor and go through the film. When you opened the camera it had cheerfully torn all the sprocket holes and you had a narrow strip with images, two really narrow strips with filmtype and numbers on it and 100's of small filmchips all over!
Leica made the ultimate exercise tool in 35mm too. The Tandem mount SL2 Mot. Two bodies on a bracket with an interval coupling between them. HUGE and heavy. Mainly used by sports photographers and for aerial shooting. I always felt that it wasen't the athletes that deserved praise - it was the guy with the Tandem SL kit!. Shooting aerials through the open cockpit door of a helicopter, you used one safety belt for the camera kit and one for you!
back alley
IMAGES
fred, i think rule #6 is more about posting a copyrighted image here on rff.
but thanks for the info, i didn't know the rest of this info.
but thanks for the info, i didn't know the rest of this info.
back alley said:
nope.
# 6 applies to anything copyrighted.
that's the law in the US and most internet active countries.
that's also why Ebay will stop an auction which uses stolen copyrighted text or pics.
Stephen
back alley
IMAGES
incoming was my point, yes.
my problem with taking tom's complete response is that he posted it here and not elsewhere. if he WANTED it elsewhere he could have posted it HIMSELF. if it were me i would feel uneasy about the loss of my intent.
btw, tom has said he was ok with the re-posting of his words.
but i still would rather folks did not do it.
jmho
my problem with taking tom's complete response is that he posted it here and not elsewhere. if he WANTED it elsewhere he could have posted it HIMSELF. if it were me i would feel uneasy about the loss of my intent.
btw, tom has said he was ok with the re-posting of his words.
but i still would rather folks did not do it.
jmho
back alley
IMAGES
CameraQuest said:
stephen,
my point was that the rule is about people posting copyrighted material here - it does not expressly say anything about taking material from rff and posting it elsewhere.
joe