[Leica] Don't be an idiot

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

>>>>
> So, why does every "common" M6 in some ways not look
> as nice as my 30-yr old classic?

They don't make 'em like they used to.
<<<<


As regulars will remember, we went through a long thread on this topic
months ago, when I innocently suggested that I thought the best-built
Leica, in my opinion, was the M4.

I never really reported this to the LUG (I don't think), but I
subsequently talked to a number of camera repair people who are familiar
with Leica Ms. The overwhelming consensus--without exception--was some
version of "they don't make 'em like they used to."

One repairperson even said to me--unprompted--"You know, I've heard
through the grapevine that some idiot on the Leica Users Group is
antagonizing people by saying that the M4 is better-built than the M6.
I'd never get involved in a silly argument like that myself. But of
course he's absolutely right."

(Whew! Long wait for that last sentence. <g>)

It was enough for me. (I did confess to being the "idiot.")

It should also be enough for M6 users that it's a better camera than the
M4 or M3 because of its light meter, and that it's better-built than
most anything else you can buy on today's market.

What comes close? What comes close to the Zeiss Contessa or the Nikon
F2, for that matter? What's the best-built non-Leica regular production
camera available new today? I'm at a loss, unless it's the F5 or EOS-1N
or Maxxum 9, although those give me a somewhat different impression--of
being exceptionally well-engineered and well-designed, and then just
well-enough-built. I guess the Contax RTS III would be my candidate for
best-built non-Leica camera. Any other ideas?

- --Mike