|
M-Camera build quality
Hi there Tom,
Much has been written in these forums and elsewhere regarding the legendary build quality of Leica M cameras and I was hoping you might be able to lend us your views on how the various models compare with each other in this regard. Specifically, would it be true to argue that the M3, M2 and M4 all share a higher level of quality construction than the cameras that followed them - and that the M3 stands alone as being even better built than the M2 or M4? How do the currently produced MP's compare with the older models in this respect? Lastly how do you rate the longevity of the M camera shutters compared with other cameras, including SLRs? Thanks very much, Bosk. |
Wow, that's some set of questions. I'd also like to see the answers, coming from a truly unbiased source. I do think the M3 is the best built, especially the late ones (mine is a 1965 build).
Harry |
Ribbons snap about every 25 years...
M4-2s and later were built using the statistical tolerance instead of the file and fit and file... Noel |
Sounds bad but they are made on NC machines that hold much tighter tolerences than the originals.
M4-2 were iffy, but they are mostly fitted up better now. I never had a problem with my M4-2 M4 P. M6`s needed light shield replacement. Had trouble one time with RF washout. You can update this M4P, M6 were better. MP and M7 do not have known problems with every camera. |
Hey I did not say bad, and I've a early M4-2 it is ok camera.
I sent in a M4 for a snapped ribbon repair and the repaired camera came back with a viewfinder upgrade. The Canons from '60 were built to statistical tolerances rather than file and fit, if you have a damaged front element you can swap them from the same production batch with pretty high probability you will have a good lens. This is good not bad. I think Leitz went to statistical later then the Ja manufacturers? Noel |
Quote:
|
J J K...
Relax, M4-2 were after the M5... Noel |
Quote:
|
J.J.K.
ok - touche - I over reacted, I'll take of my asbestos suit Noel |
I'm shooting M7's, an M5 and an M6 and find the M7's feel the most solid in the hand. My M5 is well tuned but it does have a different feel to it- I guess it's a lighter feeling in the hand for the size. Perhaps the top plate is less thick? That's the feeling I get from them. A denser camera in the M7.
|
'Specifically, would it be true to argue that the M3, M2 and M4 all share a higher level of quality construction than the cameras that followed them - and that the M3 stands alone as being even better built than the M2 or M4?'
Yes indeed, with these camera types Leitz sets a standard for the quality of her products. The same you can say about the Leicaflex SL(2)! Then you talking about the Wetzlar period! The cameras where mainly handmade by German workers. The quality of material used with the building of the camera, inside and outside was excellent! Since 1977 the factory in Wetzlar had big problems to survive! Cost cutting of the production and cooperation with Minolta were a sign of it! Since that time the quality of the products of Leica were rather irregular! Inside the M camera's; (specially the M4-2; M4-P and the M 6 since 1984) the factory used several cost cutting materials with building the camera. Not long after 1984 the production of the M6 removed to Portugal. The quality of the cameras is still good, but when you compare the actual models with those of the Wetzlar period, you can feel and see the difference! Many years the M6 to serial nr. 19xxxx had all problems with the distance meter; moreover the focus metering was not very sharp! Actually the finishing touch of the new cameras: MP, M7 and M8 gives still problems! |
It is difficult to narrow down issues like build quality. It depends on usage and care more than anything. Today we expect our DS M3"s to work perfectly after 50+ years!
My own experience of the various M's is as follows: M3/ Early double stroke ones. The shutter brake tends to give up and you occasionally find them with either black rangefinder patches or severely faded "half" mirrors. It is still the M with the smoothest advance and the softest release of them all. Later single stroke M3's are among the best built cameras ever. If it has been serviced regularly and not abused, they tend to work perfectly, even after 1000's of rolls. The weak spot is the finder. They can black out through de-lamination of the prism (usually through impact). M2/ Because it is a simpler camera, there are less things to go wrong. The finder is robust and though it can dim through oxidization of the mirrors, it can still be fixed. The advance on some of the earlier M2's (button advance) could get rough with heavy use. If the shaft springs are worn, you can get overlap on the negatives when the shaft turns inside the take up spool. M4/ leica put everything into this camera! It is very well built, but check for bent re-wind cranks and worn take up "tulips". The finder usually hold up well and has the advantage of having many parts in common with the M2 and later M4P's and M6's. It is usually easier to find a "mintish" M4 than M2/M3 as these earlier Leica were the only game in town for press photographers in the 50's. In the 60's the SLR came into play and the pro's switched, mainly because of the ease of using long lenses. M5/ I have had several of these, but I never got along with it. Too big and a bit clumsy. Again, the mechanicals are very good, though the bottom rewind can act up and one of mine decided not to retract the meter arm. Interesting object cluttering up the sky on a whole roll!. The meter sensor can age badly (like most of us) and loose sensitivity and it does use the #625 style battery too. M4-2/ The earliest of these had a problem with the shutter brake and the shutter speed regulator would go 'kabloonk" occasionally. Part of the problem was mis-communication between Wetzlar and Midland. The good news is that most of the M4-2's available now have been fixed. Leica started to add a lot of shims to the various shafts and locks and with time these springs shims get tired and you get misaligned locks on the base plate and interior drives. The film rewind was made from alloy and would bend or "buckle" if you hit it. The M4-P/ This is a generally good camera and it can take a lot of film. The problems with the shutter was rectified. The film rewind is still alloy and occasionally you have to replace it(expensive) or simply bend it back and file off the flange at the bottom. I still have my 1981 M4P and it has had 10 000's of rolls through it. It was my bench tester for Rapidwinders and also primary camera for a lot of trips. The inter mediate drive (motor coupling) came apart once and was replaced and the gear in the advance wore out and was replaced. A couple of curtains got pin holded (not the cameras fault). M6/ The first version of the M6 had problem with the meter "chip" and they frequently died or showed only one of the diodes. Leica replaced most of these under warranty in the mid 80's and after that the M6 is as good as even the earlier M2/M3/M4's. It is a very robust cameras, the alignment in the rangefinder can go out if you bang it hard, but this is rare. There have been problems with a 'grommet" that seals the meter information transfer wires and you could get light leaks. Some of the Titanium M6's had a film counter spring that failed and needed to be replaced. M6TTL/ Initially these cameras had a problem with battery drain. There are a couple of contacts at the bottom of the battery well that would drain the batteries in a matter of hours. The solution is to push these contacts down, below the surface of the bottom. These are "test" connections for probes. Otherwise the TTL is a good camera and as most confirmed M-users prefer the old style shutter speed dial, a good deal too. On a couple I had problems with information transfer from the back door to the diodes (both after having been banged hard against unyielding car doors and door frames). MP/ Early MP's had a faulty seal around the eye-piece and dust would seep in to finder. It was fixed and Lieca actually supplied new and improved seals to "do it yourselfers". Thre was a bit of a flare problem in the finder with the 0.85 and 0,72 versions that could cause problems. Other wise I think that the MP is one of the best built Leica M's ever. The top plate is brass as a Leica top should be, the gears are remarkably smooth (film advance on a MP rivals that of a Double Stroke M3} and the fact that you have a choice of finder magnification adds to the attraction. M7/ I had one for a couple of years and apart from going through batteries at an alarming rate and a tendency to shut down suddenly, it held up well. The electronics worried me though and the magnetic controls of the shutter would be sensitive to a heavy Gauss field ( a large electric motor starting up). I never liked the release on the M7 - very "jagged" feel to it. I loved the 32 second long exposure count though. general problems encountered with M4-2/M4-P and some R6's. The top was made from die-cast zinc alloy and if you got a scratch that penetrated the plating the top turned into a galvanic element and started to bubble the black chrome. More common on the R6, but I have seen some M4-2 and M4-P's with the same problem. The shutter curtains on old M's can dry out and get brittle and the adhesive that holds the 'straps" for the curtains to the shutter drum will loose 'power" with age and can come loose. There is also a felt trap in the track of the M's (up to M4P) that can came loose and jam the shutter curtain. It is again adhesive that gos brittle with age. It is aiways a good idea to CLA any older M' on a regular basis anyway (every 5-7 years) and beware of M's that have sitting idle for a long time. Lubricants dry out and curtains loose flexibility if they are not used. What is remarkable is not the problems that occasionally occur with older M's - it is how well they still work after 40 or 50 years! There are few products available today that can claim that. Even battered old M3's and M2's will produce great pictures after decades of use. So the shutter speeds might be a bit off, learn to compensate, the finder could be brighter - use hyper focal, the rewind squeels a bit - dont worry, it will wear it self in! AND there a few products that have compatibility going back 80 years. You can put your nickel Elmar from 1927 on your 2007 MP or even on the M8. That is foresight in design and, yes a bit of german stubborness too - but it all benefits us, the users. |
Great info, Tom!
Regarding M3s - have you ever noticed a difference in reliability between early DS and late DS models? |
That must be the most information on M cameras I ever seen in a single post!
Quote:
|
Quote:
I have an early M7.58 with this problem- good to know there is a 'do it yourselfers' fix. I shall contact Leica on this one. Thanks Tom Hey Moderators- this one might get a 'stickie' eh? |
Leitz may still replace the M3 finders with later ones, but if you are a collector CRR Luton will rebuild like 'new'.
Noel |
Quote:
|
Thanks a lot Tom!
Yes, the felt is exactly as you describe; I kept it fortunately. No light leaks on the roll since, but given the information you kindly shared, perhaps I'd rather send it off to Sherry for treatment. There are other things to fix along anyway.. Again thanks, very useful thread. |
Quote:
The most interesting of the DS M3's I have owned was an original black paint one. It was part of 51 cameras supplied to the Swedish Press Photographers Union. They had the MP gears in them and where painted black, including the film counter dial and the locking key and disc on the baseplate. When I got it it was a good representative of a "Ugly-" condition camera and in my hands it soon aquired a second - sign to the condition. Vulcanite was peeling off and I replaced the pieces coming off with black gaffers tape and there were probably not even a grand total of a square inch of paint left on it. Even though it had the MP gears in it, they had worn down to a nice smooth movement. It was obviously a very collectible camera and some years later I traded it for a M6.a 50/2 and a 35/2, all brand new 1989 versions! Considering that I paid about $100 for it a couple of decades prior - not a bad deal! |
That's a lot of information. Thanks for the question, Bosk; thanks for the answer Tom! RFF reached a higher level ...
|
joop, you really should ask permission of the writer first.
|
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 |
Quote:
not sure what you mean. joe |
Quote:
not a big deal. joe |
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.
|
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?
|
Quote:
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 :) |
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. |
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. |
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... |
Quote:
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. |
"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). |
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.
|
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 |
Quote:
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! |
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! |
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. |
Quote:
# 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 |
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 |
Quote:
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 |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:17. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.