ho_co Posted February 9, 2011 Share #1 Posted February 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Does anyone know? Or have any ideas? My guess would be cost containment. Of course, we now have engravings on the front of the top plate, so that may be a specious argument. Or maybe esthetics--once Leica stopped engraving the other items on top, the serial number might look funny sitting there all alone. Was this a brilliant pre-lunch breakthrough, e.g. „Wilhelms Vorschlag wird angenommen!“ (after the model of „Barnacks Kamera wird gebaut!“)? What’s the advantage to Leica of doing it this way? The flash shoe is very firmly attached to the top plate—see this entry in Mark Norton’s Anatomy thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/21331-anatomy-leica-m8.html#post224636. We’ve heard of a few top plates loosening up, but not flash shoes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Hi ho_co, Take a look here So why’s the serial number on the flash shoe anyway?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
menos I M6 Posted February 9, 2011 Share #2 Posted February 9, 2011 From a production perspective, it is quick and easy, to have a batch of flash shoe raw parts in a box, dumping them into an automatic sorting and placing machine, that feeds a small engraving machine, which is fed by a computer, instructing the sequences and engravings. The raw, engraved parts then could go into surface treatment (maybe a short tumbling for slight de burring - the Leica flash shoe is for aesthetic purpose very sharp edged, so not for half an hour, but 3-6 min). After de burring, the items go into final surface treatment (personal favorite, the black M8.2 hot shoe - no other hot shoe is as sexy as this one ;-) ) If the serial no. would be engraved into the top plate another manual rework/ check would be necessary. Also (maybe more importantly), when a small hot shoe raw part is messed up during engraving, it is a very, very inexpensive loss. If a top plate would be lost, it costs more money. One could argue, Leica could stamp/ print the serial no. into the cameras innards (under the bottom plate) with a less costly procedure (stamping/ printing), but the visible, high quality engraved serial no. is indeed a sign of quality. I like it, the way, it is, but I wish, black models would have the beautiful M8.2 hot shoe surface treatment (from a surface quality perspective, it is actually less nice, than the current process, but I find it looks more beautiful on a black paint camera). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 9, 2011 Share #3 Posted February 9, 2011 Hi Cause the topplate went to zinc, and needed better finishing to inhibit corrossion. The brass shoe was easy to serialise, in place of top plate. Nowdays the top plate is CNC milled from (i.e. back to) brass, and they could serialise if they wanted again, they could even do it (the CNC milling) from a precision casting, if they wanted, if it shaved a Euro. Canon in '57 anti reflection coated the VI's rangefinder optics, it took Leica more then forty years to get around to that... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 9, 2011 Share #4 Posted February 9, 2011 (personal favorite, the black M8.2 hot shoe - no other hot shoe is as sexy as this one ;-) ) I will add that one to my short list of known sexual deviations. Noel, do you mean that Leica didn't start coating their finder optics until 1997? My M4-P from 1983 does definitely have coated windows, and while I have no M3 at hand, I suspect that at least the interior is coated – the design does actually cry for it. The old man from the Un-Coated Age (oh well, we had Tweed and Loden coatings ...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share #5 Posted February 9, 2011 ... (personal favorite, the black M8.2 hot shoe ...) ... Gee, Dirk, I need to look into that. EDIT: Oh, drat! Lars, why did you have to go and spoil it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 9, 2011 Share #6 Posted February 9, 2011 I will add that one to my short list of known sexual deviations. Noel, do you mean that Leica didn't start coating their finder optics until 1997? My M4-P from 1983 does definitely have coated windows, and while I have no M3 at hand, I suspect that at least the interior is coated – the design does actually cry for it. The old man from the Un-Coated Age (oh well, we had Tweed and Loden coatings ...) Hi Lars My appreciation was that my M6 242xxxx was/is not coated, (it is not to hand) none of my older ones are either. I thought it was the M7 run that introduced it when they put the condenser lens back. If your M4-P is coated did you have it upgraded, for the flare patch, or have you had it from new? Leica FAQ — RF patch flare Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scsambrook Posted February 9, 2011 Share #7 Posted February 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) . . . Canon in '57 anti reflection coated the VI's rangefinder optics, it took Leica more then forty years to get around to that...Noel I've just been looking at, and peering into, the viewfinder of my M2. The reflections of room lights (it's dark outside)seem to have a very, very pale 'straw' tint, but it is indeed pale and I won't swear it's actually there. However, when I look into the 'big' window from the front, I can see very clearly inside it - which strongly suggests it is actually coated. I've never previously thought of the range/viewfinder as being anything other than coated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubice Posted February 10, 2011 Share #8 Posted February 10, 2011 Production cost considerations sound like a plausible reason for re-locating the serial number. There can be another explanation - replacing the top plate of a damaged camera. In the past, this involved sending the whole camera to Wetzlar, where the top was changed for a new one, bearing an identical serial number; this whole process took close to 6 - 8 months. Many times though, the top plate was seriously damaged but the camera kept on working. I remember that the Canadian distributor at the time (Walter A. Carveth), used to mill out the serial number from the damaged top plate and send the camera back to its owner, with the milled-out hole taped over. The milled-out serial number was sent to Wetzlar and a new top plate with an identical serial number was shipped back. The owner thus had full use of the camera and when the replacement top plate arrived from Wetzlar (usually in about 6 months), it only took a week to have the repair completed. The ‘serialized’ shoe is often unharmed when the top plate gets damaged and it becomes much simpler and cheaper to complete the top replacement. Best, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubice Posted February 10, 2011 Share #9 Posted February 10, 2011 As to coating of the M finders - all were internally coated. Only from the late M4-P and onwards did the external finder windows receive an antireflection coat too. This is where the confusion may come in - you can actually see the external coating; it is much more difficult to see the internal coated surfaces. As Lars mentioned above - the M finder, because of its complexity simply had to have internal coatings. Best, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 10, 2011 Share #10 Posted February 10, 2011 Production cost considerations sound like a plausible reason for re-locating the serial number. There can be another explanation - replacing the top plate of a damaged camera. In the past, this involved sending the whole camera to Wetzlar, where the top was changed for a new one, bearing an identical serial number; this whole process took close to 6 - 8 months. Many times though, the top plate was seriously damaged but the camera kept on working. I remember that the Canadian distributor at the time (Walter A. Carveth), used to mill out the serial number from the damaged top plate and send the camera back to its owner, with the milled-out hole taped over. The milled-out serial number was sent to Wetzlar and a new top plate with an identical serial number was shipped back. The owner thus had full use of the camera and when the replacement top plate arrived from Wetzlar (usually in about 6 months), it only took a week to have the repair completed. The ‘serialized’ shoe is often unharmed when the top plate gets damaged and it becomes much simpler and cheaper to complete the top replacement. True but the difference is Leica make less profit from the repair and mark up... As to coating of the M finders - all were internally coated. Only from the late M4-P and onwards did the external finder windows receive an antireflection coat too. This is where the confusion may come in - you can actually see the external coating; it is much more difficult to see the internal coated surfaces. As Lars mentioned above - the M finder, because of its complexity simply had to have internal coatings. I'll look the next time I have a lid off it is easy to miss such things and I'm willing to be surprised, missed it on my M6 as well to, may be I have M4-P optics. But Leica knowningly removed a condenser lens about the same time you say they hard coated cover glass, the removel degraded the utility of the rfdr, they took a whole lotta flack before they put it back... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 10, 2011 Share #11 Posted February 10, 2011 I think the top plate replacement is the most likely explanation. Cameras are much more likely to be sent in for a replacement top plate than a replacement hot shoe and if the top plate is being replaced, it's relatively easy to transfer the hot shoe given all the electronics has to come out anyway. They need to preserve the serial number, not least because it's coded in the flash ROM and needs to continue to match documentation for warranty and other purposes. I imagine that if the hot shoe has to be replaced for some reason that they will engrave the replacement with the required serial number, at a cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 10, 2011 Share #12 Posted February 10, 2011 Hi I think it is back on the top plate on MPs then, which would tend to confirm the zinc top plate finish problem. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted February 10, 2011 Share #13 Posted February 10, 2011 Hi I think it is back on the top plate on MPs then, which would tend to confirm the zinc top plate finish problem. Noel ...serial numbers, huh? One of my MPs had to go back in for rebuilding after crashing down 16 floors, bouncing off several surfaces on the way down (in full accordance with the laws of gravity). If memory serves me right, the rebuild took approximately three months (principally because the M specialist technician was working part-time), but I had to wait an additional one and a half months for the new top-plate to be readied. From the information I received from Leica, it would appear the serial number engraving for my replacement top-plate was not done in-house. The resultant engraving is, to my untrained eye, somewhat shallower than the "normal" Leica serial number engraving. Same font, same size, but nonetheless shallower. Works fine for me. For the pedants amongst you, the viewfinder of the MP was smashed to smithereens whilst the top- and base-plates both assumed new shapes hitherto unknown to science. Tellingly, the film transport mechanism did not fail and the shutter fired when cocked and released. One tough mutha, is the Leica MP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share #14 Posted February 10, 2011 Quite a camera, indeed, aesop, and quite a tale as well! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_M Posted February 11, 2011 Share #15 Posted February 11, 2011 Putting the serial number on the hot shoe is really not that new for Leica. The Leica CL has the serial number there. Yes, I know that some will say that it isn't a real Leica..... But it was their design. RM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdtrick Posted February 11, 2011 Share #16 Posted February 11, 2011 I think it is a great place to hide it... Look how many threads: "Where is the serial number?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted February 11, 2011 Share #17 Posted February 11, 2011 I think it is a great place to hide it...Look how many threads: "Where is the serial number?" Which just goes to prove that so very few ever read the manual. (Or even wonder what the number on the flash shoe is.) 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/143655-so-why%E2%80%99s-the-serial-number-on-the-flash-shoe-anyway/?do=findComment&comment=1585100'>More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 14, 2011 Share #18 Posted February 14, 2011 Hi Nicol So it is not the Zinc it is the Ztealth. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.