Jump to content

M6 advice: are late examples improved, better?


Recommended Posts

A zinc-topped M6 will take a knock much better than the softer brass top of the MP, thus better protecting the RF assembly.

This is not correct.

Part of the choice of brass as a material in construction of optical instruments historically was it's superior characteristics in ductility.

 

Zinc alloy die casting materials age and with age they do loose part of their ductility and structural strength.

An old Leica M6 top deck will guaranteed stand up less to heavy treatment as shocks, dings and alike than a top deck made of brass.

 

Zinc die casting does have other advantages over a machined brass components - among others it's lighter weight, lower material costs, lower machining costs with larger quantity production, the ability to integrate functions of the product by means of molding details into the article opposed to machining, etc …

With the brass item it means extensive mechanical precision machining to achieve the same functionality of the product (reason for higher manufacturing costs of a fully machined component like a Leica M brass top deck or an Apple MacBook aluminum shell over similar mold based components … ).

 

In short - brass Leica's will get a ding or a dent, while zinc alloy based Leica's with age will crack and crumble on impact.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're slanting my statement.

 

Zinc will take an impact better than brass and thus protect the RF assembly. The other things you're talking about do not change this fact. Zinc tops are robust.

 

Here, for example, from a simple Google search:

 

http://nemeng.com/leica/042b.shtml

 

If it is this statement by Tom A you're referring to:

The Zinc is not bad; it absorbs and dissipates impact fairly well. If you hit it really hard it can crack, but a brass housing hit with the same force, would have collapsed and crushed the finder assembly and metering circuitry.

 

then I am certain that regardless of whether the RF mechanism would have been housed in a brass or zinc top, it would have broken. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the last bit of M6TTL s made the the m7 top plate out of brass? I think mine is one but i will have to wait a few more years to find out! 

 

There is def a body difference between early M6s and later ones. Edges are sharper on later ones...not sure what it means. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I can only speak for myself.

 

I have a non TTL from 1998. It has worked flawless since its birth 17 years ago. It has newer been serviced and it runs still as smooth as it did when it was new.

 

My M6 has been taken care of, with regards to protecting it from water and dust, but besides that it has been used extensively as i guess Leica meant it to be when produced, and it is still being used, though i've expanded to digital Leica as well.

 

When looking for a second hand M6, look at its overall condition. I think you can get a pretty good impression by looking at the overall condition.

 

Open the battery chamber and look if there is any corrosion inside.

 

Look through the viewfinder; is it bright and clean? Don't worry about the flare thing, it isn't such a big issue as many tend to speak about. All these years i have only missed one shot, though many hundred rolls have gone through mine.

 

Ask if you can try it before you buy it and shoot a roll. Check the light meter, does it measure as intended? Find a bright even lit white surface, and shoot at 1/1000. If the shutter needs service, you will see it on the negative/developed picture, where a part of the photographed surface is darker, though the photographed surface was even lit.

 

Most important: Buy it to use it, and not for storing in a glass closet, and enjoy the moments and memories you will have together. I'm still happy for my M6 marriage.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by BjarniM
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The later m6 Classic have improved electronics and meter than earlier ones according to a Leica technician in NJ I spoke with. Since I had the classic ttl discussion never came up.  Brass is better than zinc. If u want confirmation. Leica went back to brass

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brass is better than zinc.

 

It's a better seller, not a better performer.  You will pay for brass because you want it more, so Leica sells you brass.  I have both, and neither provides an advantage over the other, though I have yet to drop them on the top plates.

 

Fred

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Fred you may very well be correct. I doubt brass is in the MP-7-8-9-MM-240-246 solely because people just like brass better than zinc. Could be true, but I would like to believe Leica knows what most of their customers have come to recognize -- brass is better. Key for Leica was that enough people came around willing to pay up for a premium material.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing about zinc alloy being subject to quick disintegration and being inferior to brass for general use in delicate instruments is a myth. I've looked at WWII military objects (German) that were made from the material, unfinished in any way -- raw -- and they were in perfect condition after 70 years, if very gray.

 

Leica gets accused of cheaping out and taking shortcuts a lot, especially in this matter. I think most of the time they're genuinely seeking to improve their products and will experiemnt. I'm not so cynical.

 

Brassing is pretty, though, I will admit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing about zinc alloy being subject to quick disintegration and being inferior to brass for general use in delicate instruments is a myth. I've looked at WWII military objects (German) that were made from the material, unfinished in any way -- raw -- and they were in perfect condition after 70 years, if very gray.

 

Leica gets accused of cheaping out and taking shortcuts a lot, especially in this matter. I think most of the time they're genuinely seeking to improve their products and will experiemnt. I'm not so cynical.

 

Brassing is pretty, though, I will admit.

I think you have made the point rather well. Leica adopted zinc thinking it was a better material, only to find that it had problems with finish. They then reverted to brass. Both metals are excellent but the brass does take surface plating/paint more effectively.

As you say, the German military (and others) used zinc during WWII, mainly due to availabilty, and it is still going strong. I would expect a Leica M6 to still be OK in 70 years, but it may look a bit tacky. The only problem will be, will film still be available then?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Sometimes the rangefinder patch on the M6 can flare from sources of light coming from the sides at certain angles. This will essentially white out the RF patch so you can no longer see it to focus, usually moving your eye around will help to mitigate it somewhat. In the case of the late model M6TTL I bought, the RF and VF optics had a bit of haze so it was especially pronounced. 

 

The reason this happens on the M6 is that Leica changed the RF optics a bit ( Midway through M4-2 production ) in that a condenser lens was removed to allow for both brighter and contrastier frame lines and to allow for the meter LED's. This was corrected and improved when the current iteration of the MP was introduced in 2003. 

 

I had my repair tech put the RF optics for the MP in my M6TTL as well as get rid of frame lines for the 90 & 135 to de-clutter it. Some seem to be OK with the uncorrected flare, I was simply not as like I said, it was pretty bad due to the haze. FWIW, my M3 or M240 never has any form of patch flare, a testament to how good they are.

Edited by Ai_Print
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Everybody,

 

Just a clarification of a couple of technical points:

The condenser was omtted during the production of the M4-2. Not during the production of the M4-P. The M4-P is the camera that followed the M4-2.

 

Neither the M4-2 or the succeeding M4-P has a built in meter. That is why the number following the "M" is a "4". Both cameras will accept the add on MR4 meter. Or a person can use a separate hand held meter. Or use various alternatives such as "Sunny 16".

 

 

The first "M" camera with a built in meter was the M5. Then came a return of the M4 followed by the M4-2, followed by the M4-P. After the M4-P came the M6.  Only mechanical "M" cameras NUMBERED 5 and higher have  built in meters. 

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
  • Like 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...