Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/07/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 20:59 29/07/97 -0500, Chuck Warman wrote: > >>>> Hmm. I've been lurking Me too. In my case for about a week - too busy simply working through the flood of interesting posts to contribute! >keep in mind though, that I've owned an M3 but not an M4 or an M6. Like you I'm an M3 owner, and had considered buying an M6. I compared it a Contax G2 in the shop - and after much soul-searching decided on the G2. Likes about the G2? Beautiful (IMO) external design, clean viewfinder, shutter release feel, Leica-like care taken over design of lens hoods and caps, speed and ease of the whole meter/focus/release process. (But maybe that's because I've been using a Nikon 4S a lot recently :) ) Dislikes? It's honestly doesn't have quite the build quality of an Leica M6, and falls well short of the M3's sheer hewn-from-solid precision. I suppose my expectations of the M6 were too high. I thought it was depressing to see the beautifully engraved serial number from the M3's top plate relegated to a stamped-in impression on the M6's hot shoe guide rails. I disliked the designer-label red roundel on the top plate's front (honestly, does Leica really have to stoop to this kind of snob and/or magnet-to-muggers stuff?), and the subtle but irksome pieces of plastic. But yes, I acknowledge that the current generation of Summicron lens will be superior to my 1959 version. And the new camera is probably as tough. It just doesn't feel like it. So what if the Leica M3, M2, M4 had never existed? I'd have bought the M6! The Contax G2, at least to me, had no heritage to compromise. I know the early Zeiss rangefinders were magnificent, but Contax is now a Japanese brand name, with a very different philosophy from the original. I think it deserves support. And the Zeiss lenses (28, 45, 90) are really, really good. My apologies to anyone in the LUG who feels I was badly mistaken. Who knows? I may have been. Richard richard.spira@chjs.co.uk > >Chuck >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >Chuck Warman >cwarman@wf.net (Wichita Falls, TX) >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >