Jump to content

Leica Toughness

jimofnyc

By jimofnyc
in Film Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

pico

pico

Posted
Posted
How do you think the ruggedness of the modern MP compares?

Pete

 

The MP is not hand fitted as the M3 was. For the M3 each part was hand-filed to fit if necessary. Today machined and stamped parts of various, but fine differences are assembled or exchanged until they work - or not as evinced by the failures of late model M cameras.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
CalArts 99

CalArts 99

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The MP is not hand fitted as the M3 was. For the M3 each part was hand-filed to fit if necessary. Today machined and stamped parts of various, but fine differences are assembled or exchanged until they work - or not as evinced by the failures of late model M cameras.

 

Don Goldberg told me that when he was an apprentice at Leitz Wetzlar, he had to hand-make his own tools as part of the program. He said that 14-year old boys would start their apprenticeship program and it wasn't until after 20-30 years that they were allowed on the assembly line. They knew how to fabricate and hand fit parts since they knew the cameras intimately.

 

But that's all over now and Leica hires semi-skilled/unskilled labor that is taught how to assemble only from the parts bins. As Pico says, if a part doesn't fit then they look through the bin to find one that does. I think those assembly differences do show up in cameras made after the mid-1980s.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
semi-ambivalent

semi-ambivalent

Posted
Posted
Don Goldberg told me that when he was an apprentice at Leitz Wetzlar, he had to hand-make his own tools as part of the program. He said that 14-year old boys would start their apprenticeship program and it wasn't until after 20-30 years that they were allowed on the assembly line. They knew how to fabricate and hand fit parts since they knew the cameras intimately.

 

But that's all over now and Leica hires semi-skilled/unskilled labor that is taught how to assemble only from the parts bins. As Pico says, if a part doesn't fit then they look through the bin to find one that does. I think those assembly differences do show up in cameras made after the mid-1980s.

 

The romance of made-to-fit-parts not withstanding, a part that has to be altered (by hammer, file, drill, whatever) to fit in its assembly is of a lesser quality than a part machined to tolerances small enough that "any" similar part will satisfy tolerance demands. If the old ways were so good then you wouldn't hear the stories you do about how beautifully someone's M3 has 'worn in' because the wear-in would be minimal. My MP is crisper and a bit louder than my M3 and at times seems to be getting ever so slightly smoother, but I won't be alive in 50 years to see how incorrect I might be about this now.

 

If this forum is any indication the problems plaguing Leica are gross errors in assembly, not the lack of fine hand filing on this part or another. Yes, the skill of the labor pool and the training received might be a problem but I would also look at the workload placed on X assemblers, the use of parts designed in such a way that it is possible to fit them incorrectly (e.g. aperture rings) and the possibility that Leica optics are approaching some sort of upper limit as regards their size and complexity. I will admit my time with Leica is very short but in my time I've never seen much good come out of bemoaning the loss of those good old days, which were rarely as good as we remember.

 

My culture tells me I'm well into geezerhood now, but if a workable opportunity to learn to repair Leicas for some degree of steady compensation arose I'd jump at it. What I've seen in my time is not deficiencies in what people can do but in what they care to do.

 

s-a

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hugh 38

Hugh 38

Posted
Posted

I have never owned an M3 , but my black SL2 is a testament to Leica toughness.

Once a temporary neck strap broe an the camera landed on a paving slab , the lightmeter stopped working , otherwise fine. Then a few years later ai was hurrying up the stairs on QE2 and tripped at the top , the SL2 bounced off the aluminium deck , making a dreadfull noise and I picked it up fearing the worst. I lost the next frame as the mirror locked up ,,which then dropped down when I took the lens off and the camera was back to working fine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
CalArts 99

CalArts 99

Posted
Posted
The romance of made-to-fit-parts not withstanding, a part that has to be altered (by hammer, file, drill, whatever) to fit in its assembly is of a lesser quality than a part machined to tolerances small enough that "any" similar part will satisfy tolerance demands. If the old ways were so good then you wouldn't hear the stories you do about how beautifully someone's M3 has 'worn in' because the wear-in would be minimal. My MP is crisper and a bit louder than my M3 and at times seems to be getting ever so slightly smoother, but I won't be alive in 50 years to see how incorrect I might be about this now.

 

If this forum is any indication the problems plaguing Leica are gross errors in assembly, not the lack of fine hand filing on this part or another. Yes, the skill of the labor pool and the training received might be a problem but I would also look at the workload placed on X assemblers, the use of parts designed in such a way that it is possible to fit them incorrectly (e.g. aperture rings) and the possibility that Leica optics are approaching some sort of upper limit as regards their size and complexity. I will admit my time with Leica is very short but in my time I've never seen much good come out of bemoaning the loss of those good old days, which were rarely as good as we remember.

 

My culture tells me I'm well into geezerhood now, but if a workable opportunity to learn to repair Leicas for some degree of steady compensation arose I'd jump at it. What I've seen in my time is not deficiencies in what people can do but in what they care to do.

 

s-a

 

fwiw, I don't see where in my post that I mentioned any "romance" about how things were done in the past. I simply was passing on a story that was relevant to what Pico had stated. And that the differences in cameras made later can reveal themselves. e.g., my M4 has a viewfinder window that isn't perfectly square (the metal outside of the frame) it appears it was hand filed by someone. My later M6 (built after 1980) is much more 'perfect' looking overall.

 

I think you might be responding in respect to your concerns about your recent new camera purchase (which is perfectly understandable.) I can assure you that the design and parts currently used are excellent, just as they were in earlier cameras. So don't worry :) But the way they were assembled has changed (for better or worse.) It's just a fact and I was relaying an anecdote that was said to me by someone who was working at Wetzlar in the 'old' days. ;)

 

But what you mention about QC is really at the heart of current concerns. Workloads, labor pool quality, etc., are part of the issue. It's not about "bemoaning the loss of the good old days" (at least not for me) but about the current model of production that Leica probably needs to evaluate. btw, the same sort of things were happening to Mercedes when Jurgen Schrempp was running Daimler. The quality of parts and assembly had reached a point where their products were suffering from reliability issues and their reputation hit an all time low. Schrempp was more interested in mergers and immediate profits. Things changed after he was ousted and now the company has turned its reputation back around (at least with the automotive press.) I don't think it's nearly as extreme in the case of Leica, but I do think they are under certain pressures (Blackstone?) and are in a period where perhaps they need to reflect a bit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
semi-ambivalent

semi-ambivalent

Posted
Posted
fwiw, I don't see where in my post that I mentioned any "romance" about how things were done in the past. I simply was passing on a story that was relevant to what Pico had stated. And that the differences in cameras made later can reveal themselves. e.g., my M4 has a viewfinder window that isn't perfectly square (the metal outside of the frame) it appears it was hand filed by someone. My later M6 (built after 1980) is much more 'perfect' looking overall.

 

I think you might be responding in respect to your concerns about your recent new camera purchase (which is perfectly understandable.) I can assure you that the design and parts currently used are excellent, just as they were in earlier cameras. So don't worry :) But the way they were assembled has changed (for better or worse.) It's just a fact and I was relaying an anecdote that was said to me by someone who was working at Wetzlar in the 'old' days. ;)

 

But what you mention about QC is really at the heart of current concerns. Workloads, labor pool quality, etc., are part of the issue. It's not about "bemoaning the loss of the good old days" (at least not for me) but about the current model of production that Leica probably needs to evaluate. btw, the same sort of things were happening to Mercedes when Jurgen Schrempp was running Daimler. The quality of parts and assembly had reached a point where their products were suffering from reliability issues and their reputation hit an all time low. Schrempp was more interested in mergers and immediate profits. Things changed after he was ousted and now the company has turned its reputation back around (at least with the automotive press.) I don't think it's nearly as extreme in the case of Leica, but I do think they are under certain pressures (Blackstone?) and are in a period where perhaps they need to reflect a bit.

 

Apologies for being unclear. I was referencing your remark of Don Goldberg's, about workers making their own tools and knowing the work intimately. Didn't mean to imply you said it. "Romantic" was my term and I didn't mean for it to be taken as somebody's quote. I'm OK with my camera; I trust the solidness of its design and construction. It might very well be as complex as, e.g., a 35mm Summilux FLE, but there's a bit more room inside it for all the gizmos and I'm sure they did a good job of it; a five year warranty speaks pretty loudly. I view the modern lenses as a much more intricate assembly but I've never seen the inside of a modern film M so I might be wrong there. I know nothing of Mercedes but I've owned Volkswagens since buying a new 1975 Beetle, and that included an '82 Westmorland Rabbit, so I might understand a bit there. :)

 

Thanks for pointing out my lack of clarity.

 

s-a

Link to post
Share on other sites
pico

pico

Posted
Posted
I know nothing of Mercedes but I've owned Volkswagens since buying a new 1975 Beetle, and that included an '82 Westmorland Rabbit, so I might understand a bit there. :)

 

I still have a 1958 Beetle ...

 

58bug.jpg

 

... other 'stuff'..

 

the_bugs.jpg

http://www.digoliardi.net/inside_58.jpg

 

...and a childhood bicycle

 

blue_bike_1.jpg

 

Man, I really should begin to divest all but the Leicas, of course. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...