Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/25

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: M4-2 Reliability
From: "Hans Pahlen" <hans.pahlen@mark.komvux.se>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 09:51:53 +0100

The M4-2 was produced in Canada during 1978-1980.

What is true? (1)
In 1972 the Canadian plant made 500 KE-7 military models and during
1974-1975 they produced the last M4:s, the black chrome variant. I have
used two of the black chrome M4:s (and I still have one), with no problems
at all. I think that the parts for these M4:s were shipped to Canada, and
then assembled there.

What is the difference in the production of these M4:s compared to the
M4-2? Did the Canadian plant this time take over all the tools and
machinery from Germany, but somehow were not able to keep up to the high
production standards? Does anyone know?
Or was it the model changes (winder shaft and hot shoe) that caused the
eventual problems?

What is true? (2)
In June 1995, Popular Photography published their test of the M6 (7 pages)
with pictures of a dissassembled M4P and a M6. They said: "Both bodies are
nearly identical mechanically".

But in Nakamuras book "Leica Collection" is stated about the M6: "Although
the exposure meter appeared to be the only change from the predecessor M4-P
at first glance, it seems that most parts were newly designed".

Who do we believe?

Conclusion
There must be some LHSA members reading this. An interesting article for
the Viewfinder would be to visit a Leica specialist repairman, and let him
explain the eventual differences in construction for the different
M-models. An idea is for some LHSA members to coordinate the 3-year
overhaul for their M4, M4-2, M4P and M6 bodies. And then send somebody to
make an interview with the repairman, and take a close look at the
different parts.

- - - - - - - 
To whom may concern:
Please leave politics out of this list! 
There are other forums for discussions of what is politically correct!
- - - - - - -
/Hans

> 
> Whether its fact or fiction, the M4-2 undoubtedly suffers from the worst
> reputation of all the M series cameras.   The general consensus is that
> while the Canadian plant turned out--and still apparently turns out--top
> notch optics, that they somehow were never really up to the task of
> taking on the full M camera body production.  The why may have had
> nothing to do with the Canadians.  A more likely cause was the budget
> they were told to work under.
> 
> Workmanship is not up to the M3/2/4 levels.  Materials and productions
> costs were cheapened whenever possible compared to its predecessors.  
> 
> Several LUG members over the past few months have commented on their bad
> experiences with M4-2 reliability.
> 
> But of course, some have also praised the M4-2.  
> 
> The comment I made was a bit tongue in cheek.   Still, they is no doubt
> in my mind that while some M4-2's may be wonderful, they are the most
> suspect in terms of reliability within the M family.
> 
> Stephen Gandy