Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 18/1/00 8:38 am, Rob Schneider-Laura Tully at robslaurat@earthlink.net wrote: > To reiterate, I liked my M4-2 a lot, and thought it was a great deal. (I > still think the M4-2 is undervalued and a great deal.) I did not say the > M4-2, nor Canadian construction and quality control, were crappy. Others, > however, including an esteemed repair person and a noted dealer told me the > camera was a stinker. My M4-2 looked like a Leica M, felt like a Leica M, > and, most important, worked like a Leica M. The people in Midland had > experience building M4's, but to this day Leica connoisseurs say the M4-2 is > garbage. How come? I would recommend reading the PopPhoto test of the M4-2 from the July 1980 issue starting on page 121. It discusses and evaluates the internal changes made and talks about the facts and reasons behind initial quality problems. It should be available from your library. John Collier Who loves his late number M4-2 and his early lever rewind M2