Re: [Leica] M4-2

["Jeff S" <segawa@netone.com>]

- -----Original Message-----
From: LEICAMAN56@aol.com <LEICAMAN56@aol.com>
>There were no M4-2's made with the cast zinc top plate.  All M4-2's had
black
>chrome plated brass top plates and a very few were chrome.  The transition
to
>cast zinc came with the late M4-P.  Zinc is much stronger and resistent to
>dents than brass.  It does not allow the fine detailing that the M3 had on
its
>top plate and it is probably cheaper than brass.

So is this why late M4-Ps and M6es have flush windows and other revised
details; that the changes were mandated by the new materials? If so,
interesting, and if zinc is stronger, it would also seem a good argument
that, despite the relative lack of details, the new parts represent a
functional improvement over the old!

But in the case of the M4-2, what prompted Leitz to begin engraving serial
numbers onto the hot shoe, and to stamp markings into the top cover--simple
cost-cutting measure?

>The hot shoe had to be changed to accomodate the hot shoe - not to cheapen
it.
>
Didn't mean to sound like I was grumbling about the changes, but merely
wanted to suggest that there were a lot of them, and wondered what the
cumulative effect must've been on the M4-2's image at the time. On the other
hand, I recall seeing lots of Japanese RF cameras in the '70s, ranging from
the Canonet QL17 and 28 (and 110ED!), various Minoltas--even Vivitar, Kodak
and others had 'em. It must've been a challenge for Leica to sell yet
another mechanical RF camera at this time, and that ELECTRONIC cameras
seemed to be "in" to the extent that Leica and others engraved the word onto
their camera bodies. I know the first serious camera that I lusted after was
not some classic mechanical device with match needles or no meter at all,
but rather, the Minolta XD11; the first multimode camera aimed at the
terminally indecisive :-) For what it's worth, I never did get one, but
years later, when I finally got to handle one, I didn't like it much.

Popular or not, I have never found a pretty clean $600 M4-2, though  have
found M3s in this price range, sometimes even late SS ones with okay RFs and
no dents.

>We owe a debt of gratitude to Midland, because without them there would no
>longer be an M camera from Leica.  Wetzlar was ready to drop the M after
the
>M5 fiasco and Midland continued the line until the M6 came out.


What exactly was Wetzlar building during this time?