Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Don't know about the second one, sounds reasonable. A nice story at the very least. As for which Leica bodies were the best put together or had better quality parts, I think that their condition is much more to do with how they have been used along the way. I doubt that an M3 say five years younger or whatever is automatically intrinsically better although collectors and eBay sellers might differ on that ;-) Cheers Geoff http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman On 22 April 2014 06:54, <lrzeitlin at aol.com> wrote: > There is an oft repeated Leica legend that the best film Leicas > were the late model M3s, particularly those with serial numbers over > 1000000. I don't know if that's true but my old M3, one of the first, > worked flawlessly for nearly 50 years, shooting a few thousand rolls of > film, before I brought it to Sherri Krauter for a CLA. Nothing was wrong > with it. I just figured the camera needed a little tenderness. > But I heard another one yesterday. My son, an executive with > Ericsson, travels frequently to Japan. On his last trip I lent him my Leica > CL (actually a Minolta CL, made in 1974). Seated next to him at the > conference was an elderly gentleman who had been in charge of production > for Minolta. He noticed the camera and told my son that the production > workers took particular care in assembling and testing the CL cameras which > bore the Minolta nameplate. They were proud of their Japanese made cameras > and didn't want them to be thought inferior to cameras allegedly made in > Germany. > I can't verify the truth of either of these legends. Can any > Lugger shed some light on these stories? > Larry Z > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >