Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/09/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Stephen, Eric, et al.---
In fairness to the guy who flamed me on this question, he did represent
himself as a professional who used his Leicas pretty hard, and felt that the
M4-2 felt short of the mark in the durability category. Obviously, his
mileage was different than mine. I was somewhat surprised by the vehemence
of his remarks, though, as I hadn't previously heard anything bad about the
M4-2 as a user's camera.
Chuck Albertson
Seattle, Wash.
At 09:28 AM 9/20/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Eric Welch wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I expressed the former viewpoint (collector disdain) by some guy who said
>> >every M4-2 he'd encountered was junk.
>>
>> Such snobbery only shows the person for what he truly is, a fool.
>>
>
>Its interesting to me how frequently Leica collectors and users
>misunderstand each other. Both are coming from very different place
>with different motives--yet they each combine to make Leica a success.
>
* * * * * *
>The M4-2 is seen by users as an improvement on the M4 by users with its
>hot shoe and motor capability, but as the first of the cheapened bodies
>by collectors. Specifically, collectors object to the increased use of
>stampings and plastic, the lack of an engraved top plate, and what is
>perceived by many as a slightly lower standard of finish. Whether this
>is true or not, of course, just depends upon the eye of the beholder.
>Since about 90% of the Leica rangefinder sales are to collectors(at
>least in my experience), M4-2's often sell for half of what an M4 sells
>for in the same condition.
>
>Whose right? Both. But I object to name calling as it clouds up the
>issues and keep the collectors and users from understanding the other's
>position.
>
>Stephen Gandy
>
>
>