Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Got it. I do understand that there are several important differences between the M4-P and the M4, especially in the design/construction of the RF. I have always been curious to know how close the M4-P is to the M6; according to Gandy, there's even overlap in the top-plates). Chandos - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Seth Rosner Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:42 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera Hi Chandos: What I meant to say was that the M4-P and M4-2 were not the equal in build of the M4. That is not my experience as I have not ever owned or used either. My comment was based upon information provided byg experienced LHSA people who had used both extensively. In fact, I believe Roy Moss, past President and former editor-in-chief of VIEWFINDER wrote an article detailing the ways in which they both fell short of the M4. Seth LaK 9 - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chandos Michael Brown" <cmbrow@wm.edu> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 9:34 AM Subject: RE: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera > Seth, > > I'm confused. I thought that the M4-P *was*, for all intents and > purposes, an M-6, sans meter circuitry, and with fewer plastic parts. > Do you know what the differences actually are that make it inferior? > > Chandos - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html