[Leica] Devil's advocate

[AlastairF@bhs.grampianshealth.org.au]

G'day Mike, 

I'm delighted to have comments from someone in the business, but I'll stand
by what I said in many ways,

1. beautiful language, but mine was not meant to be a determined apologia.
You may well be right about the G2, though from my understanding, Leica is
not having any problems in selling M series cameras despite its
introduction. I do not profess to be in a position to give any thing like a
definitive answer, but the R series [certainly in my personal experience] is
Leica's real bug bear at the moment.

2. At no time have I "put down" the CLE. The CLE was my introduction into
the Leica system, and I loved the camera to bits. Minolta let me down, by
not servicing it and its very well thought out accessories. But [and only
from personal experience] I know that that little camera introduced 2 people
to the M6, and I know of at least 3 others who started with the CLE, and
then switched to the M6. Given the small number of people I know, this is
not a bad percentage. As I said towards the end, I'm one of those who
believe that Leica should be introducing an electronic version, but perhaps
it is not as "simple" as we have previously thought, which brings me to --- 
XXXXX
I furthermore don't see how Alistair can say, "So hats off to Leica, [;]
its exposure system is old, but has not been advanced by the newcomers,"
when the latest newcomer, judging from the specs, offers some features
that are very obviously improvements (top speed, sync speed, AE, shutter
speeds in the finder)
XXXXXX
3. Yes hats off to them, for producing a camera that has now lasted since
the early 80's and still sells. Hats off to Leica for producing an exposure
system that the 2 new kids have done nothing but copy. I don't have a
Konica, but much of my comments as you will notice, were based on the X-Pan.
Neither of them have anything any more sophisticated than a white dot on the
shutter curtain. What goes in come out - True, they have added aperture
priority exposure automation, but in reality this is a product of their
using an electronic shutter, not any improvement in the exposure system.
There is no matrix metering, no spot metering, no shutter priority or
programme [only because they really want the camera to be compatible with
Leica lenses and of course they are "pre-set" diaphragms] and their flash
syncronization is no better than one would expect from a vertically
travelling shutter. Top speed -- well the X-Pan is 1/1000, and obviously
Konica have uped that [again an advantage of having gone to an electronic,
vertically moving shutter, and pretty standard by todays specs], shutter
speeds in the finder -- well I admitted that this was one of the unexplained
weaknesses of the X-Pan that make its AE system all but useless. The other
is the dim led that I really struggle to see outside of a darkened room. Iff
the Konica's leds are easily readable, and you can turn off the pesky
shutter information when using the camera in manual [you don't really need
it do you, as the speed is set "usually" before the camera is raised to the
eye in manual,] then they have thought through the cameras design from a
users perspective, but I suspect they have not, and if you argue that you
need full viewfinder information, then lets hope that the aperture is there
instead of the shutter speed when the camera is in manual [as it was with my
lovely XD7] as well, or that arguement is put to rest. No, I maintain and
defend my "hats off to Leica". The so called advances you have sited are due
to the electronic shutter, which is one feature you later want to discard.

4. I have in NO way condemned Konica. I'm just amazed that with 20 years of
electronics/computerization, exposure system development and newer materials
that the exposure system is one that we have 'laughed' at here for
"potential" inaccuracies. As far as their advances, the CLE "had it all"
again in the mid 80's, nothing new here apart from a faster shutter. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>The biggest problem with the M6 is not that it is a bad camera (it's a
>great camera, and progress will not alter that fact), but that it has
>stood still for too long.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
5. Well you are not telling me anything here that I have not proposed in my
arguements, except that I for one feel amazed that improvements have been so
slight. The rangefinder is the same, the frame system is the same, the
focusing accuracy is "down" and the advance has been to incorporate a new
shutter and the CLE did that years ago. The motor would be an advantage to
some, but only if it is quiet. Many people will prefer the battery miser
that the M6 has been, why I even manually rewind the R8 to save power, but
that may have to do with my ancestory ;-)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>If Leica itself had had its way, the M6 would not be the M-mount camera
>on offer now anyway.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
True, and a good point. But those were the days when technology forced them
to build a bigger camera to include a light meter, and it was the camera's
size, not functionality that was to blame for its demise as far as I'm
aware. They then came up with the current space saving system, that has
survived into the new cameras as mentioned above. I suspect that "if Leica
had had its way", they would have included a meter without increasing bulk
and that the M6 is indeed the M mount camera that they would have liked to
have offered. Dust seal, maybe, don't know, not many gaps on my camera, and
it seems to hold together pretty firmly. Australia is a pretty dusty place,
but then things could always be better. Film loading, maybe, but just
because its different doesn't mean its bad. To be honest this group has
bashed Leica and defended Leica on this one so often that it may be worth
joining the "pack" just to get the monkeys off the back but --- 

6. come come now, you want to keep the shutter? Yes I like its quietness,
and I like its longevity, and I like its repairability, but could ANYONE let
alone a cash strapped niche maker make the camera you demand with it. Leica
are [again] to be congratulated that they have done so much with such an old
[but obviously fantastic] design. To keep the shutter is to keep the camera,
and I for one hope they do both. 

I presume you disagree with my final thoughts where I ask Leica to leave the
M6, and break the mould, looking for a design that will really advance
rangefinder design. I do feel that your implication that I am putting Konica
down and defending Leica in an uneducated, unthought out way bad judgement.
As you yourself say "Don't get me wrong". None of us have the time to fully
explore the whole situation. We get our opinions by offering our own, and
then hearing others. This is why this group is great, and why I welcome your
comments, but my thoughts are not reflex blind loyalty as you seem to imply.

Finally a question. After all the above, could you explain why you prefer
the M4 to the M6. Same camera sans meter really to this bunny. Build? I am
genuine in my interest, for when I joined this group, I would have "blindly"
advocated changing the M6 to the CLE, but time and comments have made me
appreciate why Leica do not let go of their jewel, and I now appreciate
their cautious strategy. I hasten to add that I'm of the school here who
want the M6 to continue as a mechanical version much as they run the R6
besides the R8. Lets all hope Leica get it right, for our group would be the
poorer for losing them ;-)