Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/01/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc James Small wrote: > > The review as in Pop (hardly a decent source, of course) and found NOT that > there was a use of less rugged components, but that previously adjustable > components had been replaced with 'take it or leave it' parts -- if they are > out of spec, they need replacement as they are no longer adjustable. > > My experience with the M4 is that so many bloody parts are adjustable that > SOMETHING is always out of whack. With the M6, this doesn't seem to be the > case and the camera stays well in spec unless catastrophic failure occurs. > The change to non-adjustable parts seems to have been made to maintain the > camera's long life and not to lower quality or production cost. > > Again, I'm no fan of Pop, but, for what it's worth, the review in question > concluded that the M6 maintained Leica quality nicely. > Thanks for correcting and refreshing my memory, Marc. I'm no Pop fan either, though their bench exam seemed pretty rigorous. I don't condemn the M6 at all. I love mine. And I hope we're not getting carried away with cataloging our woes. I've had them with other cameras too. I bought a Nikon N90s last year. It seized up half a dozen frames into the first test roll and was deader than a doornail. My dealer quickly replaced it with another one for me, and it's given me little trouble. Someone else on the list correctly noted that electronics are prone to fail, if they are going to, right off the bat. The Nikon list has been buzzing for weeks with stories of high battery consumption on the new F5. But experts poo-poo much of that talk as exaggerated. I have been told that the early M6 did have some electronics troubles, however. Is that so, Marc? A friend of mine recently had to have the electronics replaced on an early M6 he just picked up at a show. (The dealer split the cost with him.) My M6 was more recent vintage. Bill Welch