Re: [Leica] M4 versus M6

[Stephen <cameras@jetlink.net>]

Well Erwin,


you are certainly entitled to your opinion -- whatever it is, even if it
has little basis in reality.

I've lost count of how many factory trained techs, or former Wetzlar
workers, or experienced Leica repair people that I have talked to about
Leica M construction quality.  Every one that I have talked to regard
regard M6 construction quality as a joke compared to the M3/M2/M4.
Inside is a cheapening of parts and a change from a "adjust to tolerance"

design to a "fit or replace" design philosophy.   Parts that were cast
became stamped when possible.  Plastic was used where possible to lessen
cost.     Perhaps you remember the problems a few years ago when Leica
tried to cut too far with the M6 and used a plastic part  in the film
counter.      Perhaps you don't notice the complaints from time to time
in the LUG about ghosting in the RF image.   It comes about by a cost cut

in the RF design about half way through M4-2 construction -- and  has
continued on to the M6TTL to this day.  And yes,  it has been confirmed
by Solms.   The last test of the M6 by Popular Photography a few years
ago  also talked about cutting corners to save costs. Frankly,  if you
were not able to see or understand the differences in construction, the
fault was was with your own objectivity, ability and understanding.
For someone who modestly claims to have the "Ultimate Leica FAQ" at your
site,  you should literally know better.   I  am surprised at you.

And then there are the external differences.  The engraved top plate on
the M4 costs more than the  non engraved M6 top plate.  The adhesive
backed body covering of the M6 costs less than the vulcanite of the M4.
The black chrome is a cheaper process than black enamel of the M4.   Even

today's chrome M6 finish, while not bad by today's standards, looks thin,

dull and cheap beside the M4 chrome finish.

I am not going to spend hours arguing the point uselessly with you....I
am not likely to change your viewpoint any sooner than you are going to
change yours.    You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am
also certainly entitled to mine ---  that it is you who does not choose
to see, admit,  and understand  the obvious.    Those Rose Colored Leitz
glasses of yours come at a high price -- objectivity and accuracy.

As as side note while I don't like the cheapening of the M product, I am
ironically a fan of its success.  By adapting to a changing photographic
world, by cutting costs where possible,  Leica has to date achieved the
near impossible -- surviving the challenge of  the  Japanese Photo
Industry.    If Zeiss camera production couldn't survive,  it's a wonder
that Leica has.

Stephen Gandy



Erwin Puts wrote:

> Stephen Gandy and now Mike Johnston noted that in their opinion the
> M4 is the last Leica build to standards where cost would be of no
> concern. Mike includes the seven element Summicron to belong to that
> same class. The implication as I see it is that the current Leica
> models are build with a cost conscious mind.
> Now what is truth here? And what is the importance of such a
> statement if true? I am not trying to discuss opinions. If anybody
> would say: "I regard the <whatever camera or whatever lens> to be the
> best build ever" I would not even try to comment. Opinions are just
> that: a person's view about whatever.
> But as soon as an opinion is transformed into a fact, we need proof.
> First we need a testable definition of what constitutes a manufacture
> "where cost is no concern". Secondly we need a standard of deviation
> where any manufacture would depart from that definition.  One of my
> hobbies is the engineering of old trucks and one of my favorites is
> the Mack "Red Ball Express". According to current engineering  the
> strength of the basic chassis could be assessed as overkill and the
> same structural integrity could be secured with a different
> engineering. The second approach might be notified as  "cost cutting"
> as less material is involved. But the new design is smarter and uses
> more mathematics to get the same durability and longevity. So is cost
> cutting in itself a bad act and does it lead by necessity to a lesser
> product? Not at all!
> But independently of the consequences and implications of cost
> cutting, we need to establish some criteria to be able to note when a
> design is beyond these criteria. The original 7 element chrome
> Summicron weights 285 grams. The current chrome version of the
> Summicron weights 335 grams. The current one has six elements. Now
> assume for the sake of the argument that the amount of  material of
> the mount has been reduced or that the choice of material is such
> that in the past some part would be brass where it is now a light
> alloy. Is that bad? But the surfaces of the lens elements have a
> coating that is more laborious/expensive to apply and the surfaces
> itself are better, that is more accurately/more expensivlye finished
> and the mounting is more laborious/expensive because more attention
> is given to the process of centring the lens elements. The glass is
> more costly etc. Now how do we establish that the 7-element version
> is built with a perspective of  "cost is of no concern". We should
> dismantle both lenses and look at the material, the precision of
> machining and of mounting and we should know about the process/cost
> of producing/assembling  this lens then and now. Only when we know
> this all and have verified it, a statement can be made. And as we do
> not have so, any statement about cost cutting is at best a
> hypothesis, yet to be proven.
> My position here has nothing to do with not accepting any critique
> about any current Leica product. I deplore the dust in current
> lenses, the friction of the distance rings, the rough moving of
> aperture rings, the nonalignment of rangefinder patches, the not
> functioning of electronics, the flare in the viewfinder etc.
> I also note that when putting an older Leica lens on the bench I have
> a 50% chance of decentring and when putting a current lens on the
> bench this same chance is less than 5%. That is progress! Is it the
> result of cost cutting?
> The same story can be told for the M4/M6 comparison. Nor Mr Gandy nor
> Mr Johnston have disassembled an M4 and an M6 and have proved with
> solid engineering arguments that the M4 is better built or is built
> with a "cost is irrelevant"- perspective, whatever that is supposed
> to be.
> In fact we have returned to that enigmatic discussion that "they do
> not built them now as they did in the past". I did disassemble an M3
> and M6 and compared it gear for gear, screw by screw and component by
> component. My conclusion? Read the above.
>
> Erwin