Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/10/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]yes, lots of people favour the M2, this was good for Leitz because they were able to standardise on the cheaper M2 rangefinder on subsequent models. The base of the rangefinders is the same, they used the same raw components, but since the accuracy is based on the effective base which equals the physical base times the magnification the M2 (and subsequent Ms) are in a ratio 0.91:0.72 less potentially accurate. I say potentially because the effective base gives an idea of how accurate the rangefinder -can- be. How accurate it actually is also depends on the accuracy of machining of all the parts therein, the lens cams, wear etc. Frank On 4 Oct, 2004, at 21:28, Feli di Giorgio wrote: > On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 12:48, Frank Dernie wrote: >> But if you remember the M2 was originally sold as a stripped down >> cheaper M3, quite a bit cheaper too, like S3 to SP Nikon. The auto >> resetting counter was removed and a simpler less accurate cheaper to >> make rangefinder was fitted (which people liked because a wider angle >> of view went with the simplification). >> Frank > > > Although the magnification of the M2 is lower than the M3, .72 vs. .91 > the base length is the same. Personally I prefer the M2, with the 35 > frame > lines. I'm also not a big fan of the round cornered 50 frame lines of > the M3. > > Feli > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >