Jump to content

wattsy

Members
  • Posts

    11,489
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

4 Followers

Profile Information

  • Member Title
    Erfahrener Benutzer
  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Country
    United Kingdom

Converted

  • City
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It was a pretty big thing at the time and quite popular. You certainly could "pre-visualise" the camera – there was a perfectly good configurator which would take you through the options and mock-up the finished camera. I can't have been the only person who would waste a bit of time looking at various permutations and wondering whether I could justify another film body. (I was always quite tempted by a "M4-like" MP – black paint MP body with slanted rewind crank and custom 35-50-90 framelines – but was usually put off by what seemed at the time like a lot of money for what was really a glorified M6. How times have changed.)
  2. Yes, I think most people realise the M body is a solid piece of (presumably extruded) metal. It is aluminium as far as I know, not steel. It's obviously nice and rigid and a good platform for the important parts of the camera to be fixed to but I don't think other camera designs using a hinged-back have been shown to be unusually weak or less suitable. I have no idea what force a wheel of a Range Rover might exert (as a child, a friend's mother once reversed her car over my foot without causing any noticeable injury) but I highly doubt that a main battle tank, even taking into account how much the tracks will spread the weight, could be driven over a Leica M camera without crushing it. Of course, I'm assuming that the camera would be on a hard surface rather than soft mud. (I feel that I ought to be underlining various points for emphasis🤣).
  3. That's an interesting development and unexpected but the baby steps that Pentax are having to take to get back into manufacturing a film camera suggest that my point above about the loss of expertise and allied industries is not wide of the mark.
  4. I'm struggling to think of any takeover of a much liked company that benefited the original customer base. I can't imagine this will end well for loyal Affinity users.
  5. I sincerely doubt that Leica (or any other camera manufacturer) still has the design and manufacturing expertise to develop a brand new film camera in any meaningful way. The photographic industry has shifted so much in the last 20 years that the knowledge and experience which pushed film camera technology forward during the 1970s-1990s will have been lost as people have retired or moved on to other things. The allied industries and manufacturers that built camera related parts have also largely disappeared. Sure, there are plenty of bright people at Leica, and building cameras isn't like building a nuclear submarine, but almost any Leica employee in 2024 given the job of designing a new film camera would likely be working outside their comfort zone and experience.
  6. Nonetheless, most reasonable people would expect a camera to still work after being put away for a year (assuming stored at normal room temperature and humidity, etc.). (I don't visit the forum very often nowadays but I see it hasn't changed.)
  7. I'm not sure where to start in terms of why a digital module no longer makes any sense but digital in an M being generally a bit crap is probably a good place to begin. As for the Hasselblad not having any contacts that is not completely true. There are no electronic contacts on, say a 500 body, but there is both a flash sync port on the lens and a simple mechanical linkage between the body and the back (the little metal bar that protrudes when the shutter is depressed and is there to detect the presence of a dark slide). Both methods have been used to trigger digital backs on a Hasselblad. The Hasselblad V, being completely modular and using lenses with leaf shutters (flash sync at all speeds), is much more suited to Heath Robinson digital modules or backs than a Leica M.
  8. Can't you just buy a new MP and return it for a refund if found to have a "scratching" pressure plate? In being fully refunded, you will be no worse off than you were prior to buying it.
  9. I'm sorry but I couldn't help but laugh at the second one. I've tried to understand it as an oblique commentary on the social condition.
  10. Crikey, with the average age of Leica repairers and, to some extent, owners, it is not inconceivable that one of the parties (repairer or customer) could have died in that timescale.
  11. If you google the address shown it brings up a whole variety of online shops. Almost certainly some kind of scam.
  12. Time flies but I'm pretty sure it wasn't 25 years ago that you bought a Leica CM. Are you sure you don't mean a Leica Minilux, the predecessor camera, and notorious for the dreaded E02 failure? I don't remember the CM being similarly prone to failure but I think the advice to avoid one is probably wise – at least at the prices that people ask for these old luxury film compacts.
  13. You might like to think that but that's not what the graph shows. The vast majority of the results report the shutter still working. In any case, even if the survey was limited to only those who experienced a failed shutter, the survey would still tell you something about the number of clicks at which failed shutters might likely suffer a failure.
  14. Seems to be the way of the world nowadays (at least when it comes to online discourse). People seem to want to talk over each other. No nuance or actually reading the other person's point of view. I would have thought your point that a dodgy exposed negative is better than no negative at all is a self-evident truth but I guess this is the Leica forum.
×
×
  • Create New...