just bought the motor-m for my M6TTl 0.85, it is quite a nifty gadget. not sure as to its 'quiet' setting, i wouldnt say it was 'quiet' but its okay. i sure like proportions it now gives to the whole M-system. especially when used with a 90'cronASPH APO lens. it feels well balance, although of course heavier, but i don't mid it. it feels like a robust set-up. the only thing that bothered me a little was the clickety-clack on a manual rewind wen the motor was set to off. but i'll get used to it i guess...now my question are to those who have got the 1.25 magnifier on their M's, how are you finding it and is it worth the money. especially those who have a similar setup to mine, as i intend using the mag with the .85 and 90'cron. thanks in advance,

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), November 27, 2001

Answers

>the only thing that bothered me a little was the clickety-clack on a manual rewind wen the motor was set to off. but i'll get used to it i guess...<

Sparkie: Make sure you press the film rewind lever on the body to release the film tension before you turn off the motor, as this lets the motor complete its stroke. The motor stops at the end of the roll, but may not be through a complete stroke as the film isn't long enough. By turning the motor off before you release the film tension, you leave the motor "engaged" and part way through a stroke, hence the clickety-clack...

I don't have the .85 body, but do use the 1.25 magnifier on my .72 body with the motor and with the 90AA. And I really do like the little magnifier -- GREAT combo!

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 27, 2001.

Jack, do you mean each time i want to switch from motorised wind (either speed setting) to off (ie. midway through a roll, not at the end of it), that i should flick the film release catch on the front of the body? will this disengage the motor and solve my clickety-clack problem and hence get a smooth manual rewind?! — but wouldn't this muck up the film counter? I switch several times between the motor and manual, i guess its small consellation. look forward to your confirmation. cheers!

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), November 27, 2001.

* DOH *, what i meant by 'Manual rewind' was actually: hand-wound film advance. sorry to confuse...but is there still a cure to stop the click-clack noise on each hand film advance? regards,

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), November 27, 2001.

Sparkie; NO, NO, NO! DO NOT engage the rewind lever mid-roll. You can upset the image spacing or your roll if you do this. In your original post you stated that you got your noise during MANUAL REWIND, NOT during normal FILM ADVANCE. The two are distinctly different operations! In my response I was referring to film rewind.

In normal advance, I have had NO problems turning the motor off, and continuing to advance the film normally with the camera's advance lever. If you are getting a clickety-clack while doing this, I suggest there may be something not quite right with the motor. After it has completed its stroke, it should completely disengage form the film drivetrain, on or off.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 27, 2001.

If you are getting a clickety-clack while doing this, I suggest there may be something not quite right with the motor

My motor does this as well. Not a problem, just another Leica quirk. See also the detailed entry I have on the motor in the FAQ.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), November 27, 2001.

Motor: I've got the older style, it adds way too much to the bottom of the M for my taste. The new motor adds less, because they moved the batteries up into the handgrip--and I dislike handgrips on M's immensely. The Konica Hexar RF has a built-in motor, no grip, is the same size as the M6TTL.

1.25X: Best thing Leica's come up with in decades. Now I've got one of my 0.72x bodies wearing the 1.25x semi-permanently (took the chain off), but should my other 0.72x break down I've still got a backup with a see-able (with glasses) 35mm frame.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 27, 2001.

mine kicketyklacks too. a bit weird. one thing which is really strange is that the shutter release kicks back. could be helpful in very noisy environments. it is more bearable with abe's softy. but beware: softy+motor left on = nice pictures from the inside of your camera bag (actually a whole roll of film of them).

it's a shame they used these 123 batteries for the motor. they are expensive and even worse, you can't get rechargeables. very unsustainable behaviour. and that of a german company. i thought they were more advanced.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), November 27, 2001.

My manual advance with the Motor drive attached also makes this clickety-clack noise; I think it's normal.

Stephan stated, "it's a shame they used these 123 batteries for the motor. they are expensive and even worse, you can't get rechargeables. very unsustainable behaviour. and that of a german company. i thought they were more advanced."

Hey c'mon Stephan, those batteries last a long, long, long time.

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), November 27, 2001.

Very sorry I should written "Stefan" not "Stephen" my appologies Stefan.

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), November 27, 2001.

Interesting... My manual advance is quiet as a church mouse with both of the motors I have on either body I put them on... Perhaps there is something wrong with motors, and I should send them both in!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 27, 2001.

Jack - instead of sending your motors in for a klickityklack retro-fit, perhaps one of the other fellows would be good enough to do a recording for you. You could then mount an MP3 player on the hotshoe and avoid the expense. ;-)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), November 27, 2001.

My advance clicks as well. I'd never noticed before. Unlike Jay I love grips on my Leicas, and as a result I think the Motor-M is the niftiest piece of non-lens gear they've put out recently.

I have a 1.25x, but I suspect I'll only use it much on the .85 body with the 135. All the other focal lengths are pretty well served by the existing finders. That's just a result of the way I work, though - I prefer carrying two bodies, and for me the .58 and .85 make a nice combination that covers pretty much everything. That leaves only the 135 to be helped out by the magnifier. For someone with a .72 body, it's sure a cheaper solution than buying a .85 (and about as good too). I find the magnifier to be overkill on the .85 with a 90.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), November 27, 2001.

> Interesting... My manual advance is quiet as a church mouse with both of the motors I have on either body I put them on... Perhaps there is something wrong with motors, and I should send them both in! <

Jack, I think you are lucky to have TWO which are smooth and quiet, maybe the little mice in yours are better oiled and stealthier than ours. the click-clack noise i'm referring to is probably not that perceptibly bad out in a street situation with surrounding noise, but in the quiet of your own living room, it does stand out, when compared to taking the motor off and replacing it with the original base-plate. i notice wo things: 1) the manual advance is smooth as silk and there is no hitches when you cock the lever back. 2) however, with the motor attached and on the 'off' setting, doing a manual advance will now give you a 'click' have way through the lever cock, and a 'clack' about two- thirds nearer the end of it. Andrew has written this on his site and refers to this quirk as being due to the motor gears not being completely disengaged. I guess the designers didn't find a way around it before going to market, &/or did't think it was that big a deal.

>I find the magnifier to be overkill on the .85 with a 90. <

Paul, why do you say that? I thought it would magnify it up nicely, leaving some visual space around the bright line guides to still see what is coming into the frame. but without it being too small or my liking without the mag. i need to pop down to a dealer to suss it out.

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), November 28, 2001.

I should clarify my comments about the 90/.85/1.25 combo. The reason I think it's overkill is likely because I wear glasses. I find the eye relief not quite long enough, and as a result the frame lines are uncomfortably close to the edges of the visible area. I also find that on my .85 classic the 90mm frame lines fade out more often with the magnifier. I suspect that for someone with only two instead of four eyes the combination would be great - the focussing sure is a dream - but I'm perfectly happy with the 90mm on the unmagnified .85.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), November 28, 2001.

My two bits, now that I have a 1.25 magnifier and that I have used it somewhat with my .85 TTL.

1. As expected, the viewfinder image is delightfully large. Focusing is instantly noticeable as being easier to do. Framing with the 50 is quite easy, with the 75 slightly less easy than expected, and very easy now with the 90. I do not have a 135.

I do not wear glasses, and for me, moving my eye around a bit, the 35 framelines are still visible! For ordinary shooting, with sloppy framing, I still have a 'sense' of where the 35 lines are, and can see part of them at all times. Not bad.

2. Also, as expected, the viewfinder image is noticeably dimmer. In low light the framelines are less 'brightline-ey' and so while the 75 framelines are bigger, they are less prominent, and ease of framing is no different at this focal length, as it is without the magnifier.

Also, the principal problem with the 75mm framelines does not go away. Namely, the 50 framelines are very close and more prominently marked, and thus they distract the eye from the 75 lines.

3. With the greatest possible respect for the very innovative Lutz Konermann, if I have the wonderfully effective SHADE flare remover on the camera and the 1.25 magnifier on as well, the framelines really get quite dim.

Maybe not unusable, but far indeed from the very bright, snappy- looking frames of the .72, the .58 or, of course, the brightline finders.

4. I can get used to the dimmer viewfinder but be advised that a .85 x 1.25 is almost a full two stops dimmer than a .58 (part of the reason that the .58 is so delectable to those who see it for the first time is that the low magnification results in a brighter image).

So there is a tradeoff-the larger image assists low light focusing as subject details are bigger, but the image itself is dimmer, offsetting the size advantage. So in low light, sometimes the magnifier helps, and sometimes it does not.

5. Ergonomically, the magnifier + chain + case are nicely thought out, and more elegant than I expected. On the other hand, the magnifier does stick out a bit, and using it with the 50 causes some noticeable eye-strain for me, probably because the protrusion is pressing against my eyelid on occasion.

6. Lastly, I think I noted once that the magnifier costs about 3.5 times its weight in gold.

I guess buying it makes me Leica's fool.

Once again.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 18, 2001.

The "clickety-clack" sound is due to the now-stationary spring-loaded engagement cam of the motor sliding (and clicking) against the still-moving cam of the camera. This is a very simple and effective way to allow for continued manual wind of the camera while maintaining contact with the motor, without resorting to electronics (solenoids, etc.). I only hope that Leica has thoroughly studied the issue of metal-to-metal compatibility with respect to potential wear over time.

-- John Layton (john.layton@valley.net), December 23, 2001.

John: Yeh, me too. I wouldn't want my M to wear out!!

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), December 29, 2001.