M's Cheapened - How?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I've read in previous posts that since the M4, Leica have continually "cheapened" the design, materials and construction of the M's in order to survive.

I know about the substitution of plastic for metal, zinc for brass top plate (ease of manufacture), discontinuing engraving, printing for engraving, made to fit (mass production concept of parts interchagibility for adjust to fit), et al.

What material is the body itself constructed from (looks like Mg or Al), and was this ever changed? My M4 looks and feels (density/weight-wise) the same as my M6. Perhaps a body material/thickness change would have too many consequences (rigidity, fit of existing parts, tooling, etc.)

But, what specifically was changed in the viewfinder/rangefinder to cause flaring? What other changes, deletions of parts, lack of adjustability has taken place? Anyone talk to the repair people on this topic?

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 15, 2002

Answers

Erwin Puts doesn't know everything, but I certainly don't know of any one who researches harder and mre comprehensively. He is quite clear on this issue:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/choosem.html

The quality of engineering, assembly and tolerancing of the several M versions. There is a persistent, but totally unfounded position that the Wetzlar based products are he best in terms of choice of material, care of assembly, quality control and a host of mostly intangible parameters. In the past the story was that Midland was not as good as Wetzlar. Later it became Wetzlar versus Portugal and now it is Wetzlar versus Solms/Portugal.

Let me start by stating that no one who has made claims for the superiority of one manufacturing location or base versus another one has ever brought forward substantial evidence to support the claim or has even defined what superior manufacturing quality is.

In my view choice of materials, the quality of machining of parts, the fit of parts should be measured if any quantifiable statement can be made. Choice of materials could be classified in terms industry standards as to the parameters of metal alloys, synthetic materials and other components: the stress coefficients, the durability estimates etc. The machining of parts would be defined in terms of surface roughness indicators, tolerance bands for dimensions and more industrial parameters. The same for the fit of parts.

Any quality difference between the M3 and the M6 should be quantified by stating that some M6 gear #205 is of inferior alloys, has a higher roughness indicator, Young’s modulus is lower and the tolerance is ±0.02mm where the M3 for the same gear has ±0.01mm. Or the roller bearing in the M3 shutterspindle is fitted in the M3 with a play of 0.005mm where the M6 has another value. Or the average breakdown period of this gear is 10 years in the M3 and 9 years in the M6.

I have been able to observe the assembly of the current M6, and discussed all the engineering measures with the production people and quality assurance people at the factory . I took great care to compare the M3 components with the M6 components : I watched while a qualified repairperson dismantled the M6 and M3 and I could discuss every small item with this person. I even repeated this procedure with a second person to check any bias. My considered view is this: there is some costcutting in the changes from the M3 to the M6. Basically however (shutter, rangefinder, transport mechanism etc.) the M3 and M6 are identical in all measures of engineering and production quality.

In reliability, durability and quality feel every M is a precision engineering mechanical masterpiece. There are real differences of course and they should be assessed intelligently. The change from brass to steel for some gears made the M4-2 suitable for the motorwinder (which I personally would never recommend) and the steel makes for more durable components. If the gears jam however the strong steel will destroy the winder mechanism, while the weaker brass gear will fall apart without doing damage to the mechanism. Which version is better?

The Wetzlar products were made in the tradition of the fully integrated production cycle, where most components were made in the factory or by closely allied suppliers. This was the traditional way of manufacturing as deployed since the start of the century.

The current M6 is built according to the modern, or maybe postindustrial technology of manufacturing, that blends manufacturing with the service industry.

The factory is now changing from a high cost handcraft based production and assemblage facility to a combination of new technology, lean production and supply chain management to produce the M models (and of course the R models too).

Nowadays the smooth and relaxed relationships between a manufacturer as Leica and its customers and suppliers defines a new type of manufacturing company, one that is capable and able to produce the opto-mechanical precision instruments to the same if not higher level of quality and precision as the previous type of industrial manufacturer that Leitz was.

The nostalgic feelings to the classical products of the Leitz era are quite understandable and even enjoyable. The idolization of the Wetzlar products to the detriment of the Solms products, shows a gross ignorance of the facts. The classical Leica products as M2/3/4, and this is part of their enduring charm, evoke a feeling of confidence and material solidity, Current Leica products as the M6, while as reliable and durable as the predecessors, have a different look and feel. And some manufacturing changes are clearly the result of simple and harmless type of reduction of cost of production: the frame counter is a clear example of cost cutting. Sometimes the components have changed to implement a simplified assembly and so saving on labor costs. The change of filt for the shutter trapdoor to a composite material is such an example. These changes however are in part of a cosmetic nature. Cosmetic because the basic functioning and reliability are not jeopardized. The number of adjustment possibilities has also been reduced, partly because adjustments are not always necessary and partly because of cost reduction. In the latter case, we should have the camera adjusted a bit more frequently.

Bottom line we should accept that the M6 is as reliable and durable as an older one, is assembled with the same or even higher precision and tighter tolerances as an older one. We should also note that the M6 has an improved viewfinder and some nice additions as the exposure meter. On the other hand the M6 needs to be adjusted in slightly shorter intervals than the M2/3/4 when in heavy duty use and the simplification of some components make it a bit more sensitive on occasion. Let us have no illusions. Any Leica cameramodel can develop a fault. Look at a typical Leica repairshop and you will see every model represented: M3's as well as M6's.

The engineering of the current Leica M bodies, the quality of production and the high level of shop testing ensures that a new Leica M will function according to specs and with the reliability and longevity that is part of the charm of the Leica. Engineering is a human act however, and incidentally a fault will occur, such is Murphy's Law.

-- Matthew Pulzer (pulzer@dial.pipex.com), January 15, 2002.


Chris, yes the M's have been cheapened but not just the bodies - the whole Leica production philosophy and reputation is becoming cheapened too.

When the M4 was discontinued and in the fifteen years preceding, Leitz was probably in it's golden period of absolute precision engineering and quality production. Within these fifteen years the M3,M2 and MP were available the IIIg was still being produced and the Leicaflex and M4 were introduced. The Leitz company was still run the old way, a family business with engineers and workers at the height of their skills and dedicated to creating the finest products available.

Unfourtunatly (!) for Leitz, the 70's saw the SLR boom, expensive M sales nosedived and the company was in trouble. The Leicaflex struggled, the M5 and M4 were dropped altogether and for three years no M's were available. In 1978 Leitz Canada re-introduced M production with the M4-2, yes this saved the M but the M4-2 and all subsequent models were certainly not produced like M's of old.

The situation today of lenses with pieces of dirt inside, misaligned front elements and stiff focusing rings; bodies with misaligned coverings, mal-adjusted and flaring rangefinders, incorrect focusing, faulty electronics and stiff gears - all these things simply didn't happen in Leitz's heyday. A line up of three or four dedicated quality control inspectors as in the M2/3/4 days would collapse in disbelief at some of the end products coming from Solms.

The obvious cheapening in production methods and quality control staff is unfourtunatly matched by the continuing search for cost cutting in the materials and way of engineering: Removing the self- timer (before the metered M6), removing elements in the rangefinder (causing flare), plastic film counters instead of engraved or stamped brass, PVC plastic covering instead of Vulcanite (or a modern equivilent), the stamped zinc top plate, less finishing on the guide rails, painting not engraving the film diagram, poor paint and chrome quality etc, etc.

Now, modern Leica defendees will say what does it matter? - just quit moaning and take some pictures! But it does matter - Leitz's (sorry Leica's) reputation is in danger. Sure stamped top plates etc don't affect the camera as a picture taking tool but all these little things add up, in the same way that Ferrari or Jaguar trade on their heritage so does Leitz - the way products are engineered and finished DOES matter - a bit of engraved brass stands for a lot more than simply a fiddly detail.

Yes the M6 TTL is still a fine camera but sit down with a nice M2/3/4 and examine it and play with it next to Solm's latest - in terms of engineering and finish it just doesn't stack up. You don't need to be an engineer to see this, but if you read well known Leica engineers comments in Leica historical articles they will say the same thing.

Leica (Leitz) always has been a unique and incredible company, but now with the ever growing drop in QC and cheapening of production together with a desire to stuff the "improved" M's full of electronics and flashing lights they are I believe, heading in the wrong direction.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 15, 2002.


A few years ago, Popular Photography published a long article about M6, among all the praises, the article also did a side by side comparison of M6 and an older M model, with pointers to area where the M6 had economized, some built in fine adjustment mechanism was elimiated etc.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 15, 2002.

Sorry Giles, but this really is romantic tosh. If I were a Wetzlar engineer brought back to the Solms factory I wouldn't waste my time enquiring about vulcanite. I would marvel at the apsherical technology being employed - hardly cost cutting as we are all too aware. I'd be fascinated by the evoultion of glass types and formulas used. I would welcome the new and incredibly durable coatings employed. I might regret the passing of some of the cosmetic details. We'd all like a brass top cover, but so what? Leica put their research and ultimately our money where it counts - the best made, most innovative optical designs on the market. Like Erwin says, plenty of people knock their modern products, but how many actually go to the factory and talk candidly to the engineers? M3s are beautiful, but their solidity and elegance does not mean that M6s are somehow second best. I'm sure they had their quality control issues in the fifties. It's an inevitable part of the production process. In my experience what counts is not how often a problem occurs, but what a company is prepared to do when it does occur. Here I do feel, in the UK at least, they could certainly pull their socks up. That aside I have never had cause for complaint or felt the need to be nostalgic about some Leitz golden era.

-- Matthew Pulzer (pulzer@dial.pipex.com), January 15, 2002.

Matthew - Sorry, but if you read my post I have no axe to grind on the quality and advances in Leica glass.

"..this really is romantic tosh. If I were a Wetzlar engineer brought back to the Solms factory I wouldn't waste my time enquiring about vulcanite.."

Please, romantic tosh it is not!

"..Erwin says, plenty of people knock their modern products, but how many actually go to the factory and talk candidly to the engineers"

Erwin has his opinion, but he is just one of many Leica commentators - many of whom disagree wholeheartedly with his opinion!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 15, 2002.



A couple of facts first!

One Leica-User had his brand-new M3 delivered with out a rangefinder roller arm. Leitz sent another arm to the dealer who had to install and calibrate it.

The M4 is the first camera with plastic cosmetic parts.

I know of no M cameras ever made non-functional by the failure of a cosmetic plastic part.

The M4-2 is where the plastic exposure counter first appeared. There were no problems with this design. In the middle of the M6 production, further plastic pieces were added which were problematic. Any M6 with these extra plastic pieces has them automatically changed for no charge during regular servicing at a Leica repair facility.

The change to a Zn composite material is to simplify manufacturing not reduce material costs. It reduces the amount of post casting machining required. The greater impact absorption of the Zn composite material is BETTER. The Zn material probably costs more.

The whole myth of poor construction and reliability arose when, in order to save the M camera, production was shifted to Canada. All the machines necessary were moved as well. Now imagine starting from scratch with a new work force, new material suppliers, and no money to spare. The first cameras were very problematic indeed. PopPhoto tested an early M4-2 in 1980 and had some very minor adjustment problems that an experienced Leica tech. quickly fixed. The Leica tech. said, "Great camera, just needed a little tweaking."

Manufacturing tolerances back then were such that you had to have adjustments in order for the damn camera to work at all. In these days of CAD and CNC, parts are identical and fit and work right out of the box. Far fewer adjustments are needed. The last M6TTL tested by PopPhoto had a shutter within 10% of all nominal speeds. Very, very good for a mechanical shutter. Heck film, paper and chemical stocks are not even that close from batch to batch!

Rangefinder flaring is annoying but did not start with the M4-2. I had a late M4-2 and rangefinder performance was EXACTLY the same as my M2.

My TTL has flare sometimes as I move my eye away from the center of the eyepiece. On my M2, no flare, the rangefinder patch just slowly disappears! Which is better? The flare is more annoying but both are equally dysfunctional. After three years of TTL use, I do not notice the flaring at all. I automatically move my eye back to the center and it disappears.

Here are some links to other postings on Leica quality:

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg07414.html

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg07904.html

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg07968.html

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg07981.html

And my personal favourite,

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg08114.html

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), January 15, 2002.


"what counts is not how often a problem occurs, but what a company is prepared to do when it does occur"

There is no way that I could agree with this statement.

When I'm out to make pictures a failure could mean a whole day ruined plus the time and expenses needed to get the camera back to its normal conditions. I asume that few if any professionals would agree either since they do depend on their gear to make their very living.

Quality means no failures. It doesn't mean many easy repairs.

My 2 cents.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), January 15, 2002.


So when any one send his M3/2 or 4 for an overhould to a Leica Professional Repair shop, if they need to change the #205 gear; a similar one will be use, or they will put a new one?. Now if they still have the old one, can it be set in newer M4P´s or M6?.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 15, 2002.

Last I heard, they're all out of #205 gears - seems they have been replaced by a piece of toothpaste tube!!!

Ha Ha!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 15, 2002.


I'm with Giles on this. Particularly with regards to the quality control issue. There is no justifiable excuse for some of the faults getting through the QC process even if they are cosmetic.

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), January 15, 2002.


Current manufacturing techniques have their advantages and disadvantages over the ways of yesterday. Things are not going to go back to the labor intensive ways of 30 or 40 years ago, so its basically wasted time discussing it. And yes, I think the shutter feels smoother and is quieter on a M3 than M6, and the winding feels better as well, and the finder doesn't flare hardly ever.

I also wonder if there is real data that shows there are a higher percent of problems (initial and in warranty breakdowns) with the current stuff than the older equipment. You can't just go by the complaints that come out here on the internet. For every person that visits the various forums that has a problem and tells everyone about it, there are probably very many who get basically perfect stuff out of the box, but never post their good experience. You can end up with a warped perspective. Or Leica may not be checking the current stuff out as well as they should before it goes in the box. Maybe they should start having the final inspector sign their name on the warranty slip.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 15, 2002.


"M6 cheapened" is a double edged question. It depends on how you interpret "cheapened". There can't be much doubt that the older M cameras M2/3/4 were better crafted instruments, especially in terms of workmanship (hand made, unlike M6), materials (brass rather than zinc top plate, brass gear chain etc.), engraving rather than stamping, and clearly superior finish to not just the externals, but also the internal parts (eg. small screws). I thnk PP also mentioned two internal screws to adjust the rangefinder to specs in the M3, rather than one in the M6, just as an example.

As far as the rangefinder patch, there was a small condenser in the RF light patch that was present in the original M cameras but removed some time during the production of the M4-2. Leica decided that this condenser was just unnecessary, but its absence could account for the clains of slightly increased RF flare in subsequent cameras: something I have not noticed myself. A few other minor items have been changed, like the plastic (rather than metal) tip on the underside of the revind crank in newer cameras, the omission of the film plane indicator engraving during the M6 tenure, etc. I think the infamous "red dot" is certainly not made to the old Leica standards.

Despite these factors, the production tolerances and QC on the M6 is probably better than on older M cameras, because of the introduction of modern production techniques: the technology is simply better, even if the craftsmanship suffers. And the M6 has a built-in meter of extremely high sensitivity (will go down to EV -1 with the Noctilux). So take your pick. One thing I can say for sure about the M6 is that even if this camera is not built as well as the earlier Ms, it is still built better than any other 35 mm on the market. Hand crafted precision instruments are simply not made!

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 15, 2002.


Chris: RE the 'flare'. Leitz took out a condenser lens somewhere about the time of the change from the M4-2 to the M4-P - possibly to save money - possibly to add the 28/75 frames.

I notice that with my M4-2, if I cover the frame-illumination window none of the framelines are visible. On my M4-P, the 90 frame not only remains mostly visible, but actually has a MOVING RF double-image visible in the framelines themselves (i.e. the rangefinder image itself is illuminating at least those framelines near the center of the finder as well as the square RF patch.)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 15, 2002.


I believe that Leica M4 and M6 models are incomparable to each other. It's like comparing 2 different periods of history. We live in different times than way back in the 1950's of course. I think that in times of ruggedness the M4 and M6 are roughly comparable although some of the nice finishing touches on the M4 is definitely worth it. However, the M6 for me is model because it is innovative with solid TTL metering and compared to Nikon F5's and EOS 1N's they can hold their own of course.

I just believe that engineers have focused more attention on the lenses recently relative to the days before you know. :)

Of course it's time to look at Cosina/Voigtlander as a solid competitor to Leica. If they release a Bessa-M, Leica would have lost the entry-level market for rangefinders. At least shooting the Bessa- R is a pleasure and with the Jupiter 8 lens I have it's rather light and compact and much cheaper than the M6 w/ Summicron.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), January 15, 2002.


Alfie, you're back on form. The M4 was introduced in '67 not the 50's.

Is there a Leica "entry-level market"!?!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 15, 2002.



Alfie:

M3: 1954-1966

MP: 1956-1957

M2: 1958-1967

M4: 1967-1975

M5: 1971-1975

M4-2: 1978-1980

M4-P: 1981-1987

M6: 1984 to date.

Welcome back.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 15, 2002.


Here's some additonal perspective on old vs. new:

CLICK!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 16, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ