Jump to content

What is the black stuff


Jim123456

Recommended Posts

they are numbers its there so strap ring won't scratch that part of the top plate :D pretty useless. look at old Ms they are all beautifully scratched.

 

I have never seen a classic car beautifully scratched or with paint worn off the corners.

 

Maybe a hammer looks good in that state.

 

Or did I miss a joke?

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are numbers its there so strap ring won't scratch that part of the top plate :D pretty useless. look at old Ms they are all beautifully scratched.

 

I think that with very few exceptions, a visibly worn Leica owned by someone who does not shoot for a living is either a testament to poor design and materials, some kind of user abuse, or an affectation by people who don't get their hands dirty in their everyday jobs.

 

For chrome cameras, I think this because I have my father's chrome Autoreflex T from 1970, which has shot 30,000+ slides and negatives (I have all of them) over 18 years, in 40+ countries - and has nary a bit of wear to the chrome. In fact, the only signs of age are that some of the red engraving paint has faded to pink and there are a couple of chips in the enamel of the back door. If you take care of equipment, it will look good basically forever. Chrome is an incredibly tough finish, and if you are seeing wear on it, it's careless handling or bad design (such as the Leica strap lugs/connector placement that promotes damage). No other manufacturer on earth uses black plastic pads like that - but witness my chrome M typ 240, which does. Leica could just as easily have provided a hard-chromed connector that could take the ribbon of a strap directly. But instead, we get "tradition" and the nasty-looking M7 pads that were the workaround to it.

 

Black cameras are a different story, but the way black paint is done at Leica produces an intentionally fragile surface so as to feed a wear and tear fetish (this is the same on the Fuji G 6x9 and 6x7 models, which appear to be unprimed brass sprayed with lacquer). Black chrome and epoxy paint are much more utilitarian and tough.

 

Dante

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I sort of understood the scratch protectors in the days of film Leicas where a body could be expected to retain high value decades in the future if kept in beautiful shape. But that's not going to happen with these M digitals. An M9 in mint shape now sells for 50% of its initial cost, so what, a few light scratches fromf the strap and it'll sell for 45%? Big deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I am glad the bumpers are there. My first M6 did not have them. Most folks just put black tape over the area where there are now bumpers. Not long after my M6 was delivered Leica started putting the "bumpers" on and mine was retrofitted for free. I only had to ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting Bill, I thought the M6 always had bumpers, so you learn something new all the time. My M4-P has them so I guess there was more of an overlap in production than I thought.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're drawing a false dichotomy - since I was discussing cameras that didn't belong to pros - and for most people, little cosmetic wear necessarily occurs as a result of actually taking pictures.

 

But Winogrand's M4 proves the point even more forcefully - since by the time it was featured on CQ (and this was what, in the late 1990s?), it had been used professionally for 30 years and hundreds of thousands of exposures. And to look at it, all you really see is (1) skin oil eating at the edges of the chrome; (2) some strap marks (poor design or choice of strap connectors); and (3) paint and vulcanite wear and tear that is pretty much unavoidable with age. Note the absence of hard scratching and dents (he apparently never even dropped the baseplate). Pretty remarkable under the circumstances.

 

Dante

 

And if you don't baby your camera (but use it as necessary) it can take good looking photographs, basically forever. Which is better?

 

Leica M4 Garry Winogrand

 

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're drawing a false dichotomy - since I was discussing cameras that didn't belong to pros - and for most people, little cosmetic wear necessarily occurs as a result of actually taking pictures.

 

The difference between amateur and professional is that one gets paid and the other doesn't. I reject the idea that an amateur automatically has to be a lesser photographer, whose only ambition is to look after their camera over and above using it in whatever way is necessary to get great pictures.

 

Clearly there are the idiots who get out the sandpaper, and these cameras are so obvious they are laughable. And there are people who find a half-case more important than missing a photograph by being able to change film or a battery quickly. And then there are the people in between, who I say should be happy in their amateur status, but they shouldn't be led to assume they can't think like a professional, behave with the same work ethic, or produce just as good results. And telling them they are careless because of the odd scratch on their camera is an insult to the work they put in. :)

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting Bill, I thought the M6 always had bumpers, so you learn something new all the time. My M4-P has them so I guess there was more of an overlap in production than I thought.

 

Steve

I am not sure how early my M6 was but Leica was still making the M4 as I remember. Mine was purchased in 1984 or 1985. Not sure exactly but according to the Leica Wiki, the M4 was made till 1987

Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip>

 

Clearly there are the idiots who get out the sandpaper, and these cameras are so obvious they are laughable. <snip>

 

Steve

I wonder if these idiots drill worm holes in the wooden grips on their Hasselblad Lunars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

M already has 2 dents and full of scratches on bottom plate and sides (yes i remove the plastic) a camera is made to produce $$$ and Pleasure, babysitting a camera is a waste of time and attention while working. some may find pleasure in babysitting cameras thats a different story i.e. collectors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...