Re: [Leica] Quality (was: Chrome M4 made in Canada)

["John Shick" <bosjohn@mediaone.net>]

- ----------
>From: Rob Schneider-Laura Tully <robslaurat@earthlink.net>
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] Quality (was: Chrome M4 made in Canada)
>Date: Tue, Jan 18, 2000, 10:38 AM
>

> Since many folks around here like to ponder the imponderable, chew on this
> awhile:
>
> M4 cameras were made at the Midland plant in Canada.  Bill Rosauer noted
> that M2's and M3's were built at Midland as well.  If I'm not mistaken, no
> one challenges the quality of these cameras -- they're good ol' M2's, M3's,
> M4's that just happened to have been built in Canada.  Some of these cameras
> sell for oodles o' greenbacks, so they are "collectable" as well.
>
> Yet, when the M4 was revived as the M4-2, with all tooling and construction
> shifted to Midland, the consensus, apparently, was that the camera was a
> dog, the build quality sucked, etc.  When I owned an M4-2, which worked fine
> and felt like a Leica to me, I was told by one highly regarded independent
> Leica repair person, in a totally unsolicited remark, "the M4-2 is the worst
> Leica ever built."
>
> So, was the M4-2 a 16,000-piece demonstration of Canadian forgetfulness
> (they had built these cameras before, right?) and incompetence?  Or is there
> just some collector's bias that says, since they "cheapened" the M4 (is a
> self-timer really a crucial indicator of camera quality?) the camera is a
> pile of crap.  I don't believe that bias applies to the gold-and-snakeskin
> "Elvis" edition M4-2, but I suspect few of those classy numbers were ever
> put through their paces.
>
> 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?
>
> Rob Schneider
>
>> The Midland engraved M4 Chrome cameras are in the batch 1178001 - 1178100.
>> Lager's book shows #1178005 with Midland engraving.  I have seen another of
>> these cameras but did not record the serial number.  All of the black chrome
>> M4's were made in Canada, although most were engraved Wetzlar.  Again, only a
>> minority were engraved Midland.  In fact, M2's and M3's were also made in
>> Canada.  Another tip off of manufacturing origin is the wax seal at the 12
>> o'clock position on the lens flange.  Cameras made in Wetzlar had an "L"
>> seal, whereas Canadian cameras had a "C" seal.  Of course, subsequent repair
>> would destroy these seals.
>>
>> Bill Rosauer
>>
>
My esteemed Leica repairman told me that the quality control was ok but when
the M4-2 appeared, Leica replaced the brass film drive gears with steel
gears to withstand the motordrive forces.  Apparently the problems with the
M4-2 were related to this change.  Also the original motor drive for the
M4-2 was extremly harsh on the camera.  The combination of the steel gears
and the harsh motor drive caused failiers in some cameras,  So said my
repairman.  He also told me that if a camera was going to have problems it
usually appeared earily on, so if you have used your M4-2 a while it should
not be a problem.  I owned and used an M4-2 for four years and found it to
be a fine camera.  I think M4-2s may be the best value for the money in the
used M market.
John