Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]We will have to agree to disagree except when we agree :-) I do agree that the premium for an "a la carte" is too high. A couple of hundred is reasonable not a thousand. I do think the "a la carte" is a good idea though. I end up modifying my cameras to suit and it would be nice not to have to. I am not going to shift on the bodies though. I think my M6TTL is just about a perfect mechanical camera now that it has the finder mod. The MP is a step backwards IMO. The retro styling is no problem. Heck it is a gorgeous looking camera. I could even live with the small shutter dial and not complain too much. However going back to knob rewind is too bizarre for words. John Collier On Nov 18, 2004, at 4:06 PM, Emanuel Lowi wrote: > John Collier wrote: > >> Leica deserves a good deal of criticism for its >> pedestrian pace of M >> body development (ie: M7's one shot AE lock!). > > With all due respect, we'll have to disagree on this > one, Brother John. > > Leica is uniquely worthy of praise for not > fundamentally changing its M cameras for so many > years. Unlike most other manufacturers of anything, > they got it mostly right the first time, in 1954. > > Their not changing things has had the added benefit of > us having rather easy access to most parts for > long-discontinued models -- because the parts are so > unusually interchangeable between the decades since > 1954. > > As for the M7 single-shot AE lock, I suspect that > adding a separate switch for multi-shot lock would > have required changing the body somehow. The inside of > the M7 is packed full -- there's no room for added > bells and whistles and many already object to the > extra 2mm of height that started with the M6TTL & that > the M7 shares. > > Some even object to the M6/M7 battery compartment > occupying the place of the old self-timer! > > I suspect that the M7 on/off/lock switch is also where > it is because there was no room to incorporate that > feature into the advance lever (a la Nikon) or into > the shutter release (a la OM4), without adding space > by enlarging the body dimensions further. > > Who wants them to make the camera bigger or change its > time-honoured shape more? > > My only criticism is about the basic "a la carte" > price jack-up.