vladik Posted January 8, 2016 Share #21 Posted January 8, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) God forbid! Brass is lovely, I can't wait for some brassing on mine. I would not mind to have a nicely anodised aluminium M body, lighter camera and more durable finish then paint. For those who like brassing it could be anodised gold and painted black a win win situation: brassing and lighter M body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 Hi vladik, Take a look here Why not the whole M body in aluminium?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mmx_2 Posted January 8, 2016 Share #22 Posted January 8, 2016 I belong to a much younger generation than most M-users, but I for one love the brass. Yes, everything can be made lighter, smaller and out of "smarter" materials but I just love the feeling of the brass in my hands (vs the magnesium alloy on my Nikon or aluminum). Heck, I even like the dull bottom plate just because it resembles to much of the old film Leicas. My first Leica was a Leicaflex SL (bought it when I was 14 and still have it even though it sees little usage today), it is built like a tank and from a mechanical point of view, an absolute dream! When I bought it the market was already then flooded with smart AF-cameras with thousands of automatic functions and programs. The Leicaflex does not even feature a hot shoe and has “only” a very narrow spot meter (although very accurate)! But, the feeling of it in my hands, the beautiful brassing and lovely sound of the mirror going up and down again! It's just addictive. If I wanted something lightweight, smart, packed with functions and for a fraction of the cost giving me the “same” IQ, I would of course buy something else, like a Sony or Fuji, but then I would lose the lovely feeling of having a Leica in my hands. Look at the old OUFRO for instance, made out of solid brass, then achromatized into a beautiful finish, it will for sure out last my life (and possible also my daughter’s) but it just feels so nice in my hands when I use it and like all my other Leica gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmx_2 Posted January 8, 2016 Share #23 Posted January 8, 2016 I've never really thought about what the body shell is made from - if its an 'alloy' casting I assume that means an aluminium alloy? More likely Magnesium alloy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted January 8, 2016 Share #24 Posted January 8, 2016 If the presently parts made from brass were to be replaced by aluminium it would make it lighter as aluminium is lighter then brass. Specific weight of 1m3 Aluminium is 2560 to 2640 kg against 8400 to 8700 kg for brass. Aluminium alloy is even lighter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 8, 2016 Share #25 Posted January 8, 2016 Yes - the top has been replaced by aluminium on the 262. Difference 100 grams. The brass top weighs 130 grams. The bottom plate is not very heavy, the difference would be minor. The rest is a lightweight alloy on all cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 8, 2016 Share #26 Posted January 8, 2016 More likely Magnesium alloy Yes, I think so. Certainly the M8/9 class of cameras uses some kind of magnesium alloy (which partly explains the infamous brittleness of the baseplate fixing point). The body shell of the film cameras is, I believe, made from aluminium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 8, 2016 Share #27 Posted January 8, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Magnesium since the 1950ies, before that aluminium. Edit - looked it up after posting: zinc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 8, 2016 Share #28 Posted January 8, 2016 Hmmmm. Interesting. I have a black chrome M4 which I need to pick up from MT. The body shell was damaged due to excessively heavy usage and I finally found a 'donor' MD2 which was completely trashed but had a good body shell and its now been swapped over. I never thought to ask what it was made of but it certainly wasn't steel or anything remotely similar. Magnesium sounds about right because it didn't seem like aluminium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 8, 2016 Share #29 Posted January 8, 2016 Magnesium since the 1950ies, before that aluminium. My understanding is that the body shell of the film bodies is made from a drawn aluminium tube with a die cast aluminium chassis. Leica made a big thing about using a magnesium alloy for the R9 top plate and, later of course, the M8 body shell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted January 8, 2016 Share #30 Posted January 8, 2016 The day an M weighs in at about 500g including battery, I'm all in for an upgrade. I understand that the digital M can never be as "thin" as the film M's due to the flange distance (there is no workaround), but if it could weigh the same, or ideally even less, that would be great! Also... If it could have a lower profile like the film M's that would be great too (the M240/M9 is a lot taller next to an MP, M6, etc). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted January 8, 2016 Share #31 Posted January 8, 2016 Yes - the top has been replaced by aluminium on the 262. Difference 100 grams. The brass top weighs 130 grams. The bottom plate is not very heavy, the difference would be minor. The rest is a lightweight alloy on all cameras. Jaap, is it really possible that an aluminum top plate weighs only 30/130 of a brass top plate in the M 240/262 configuration? In other words, aluminum has only 23% of the weight of brass? I am having a hard time with that simple of an explanation from Leica. I really wonder if the smaller menu and elimination of the other buttons has a large effect in reducing weight too? Great camera, by the way, and the embedded profile is more pleasant to me than its immediate siblings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bencoyote Posted January 8, 2016 Share #32 Posted January 8, 2016 I was thinking about it since this association came up and I wondered where I got this association other than growing up in an aviation family and racing bikes. (e.g. Compare: Shimano Dura Ace to Ultegra) I think that Colin Chapman the founder of Lotus really put it well, "Simplify, then add lightness". For years that was on my wall as I dreamed of getting one of their sports cars starting in my teen years. I think that Leica totally has gotten the simplify aspect down for a digital camera with the T, SL, and S. Compare that UI to a Sony, Olympus, or basically anything else. Brilliant! The M with its very classic operational controls also nails it wonderfully. They don't market the M as much with Das Wesentlisch but even with all 5!!! pages of menus (said with some level of hyperbolic sarcasm) on my 240 I can always quickly find everything within seconds. It is elegant simplicity incarnate. Maybe instead of releasing special editions like the (do I really care that it is green?) Safari, Leica could make upscale versions by using special aerospace materials. Oh wait they already did that with the M9 Titanium. ;-) Can we get one of those (with strap lugs please) made with the 240-P guts? Actually rather than an artistic special edition with its limited production run, what I would prefer is to be able to buy lightness. M classic - essentially the 262 but with a brass top for the people who love that sort of thing. The basic rangefinder. Not an economy model but one that really is just a rangefinder stills camera. M - essentially the 240 but with an Aluminum top. You buy up to get lightness. It is highly arguable that machined anodized Aluminum alloy is a lower quality material than brass. Brass is great in certain applications because it is self lubricating and because of its thermal expansion coefficient but I don't need to carry around a 100g ingot of it all day. M-P (or is it MP) - You take the 240 and render it even more rugged and lighter. Switch out gorilla glass for sapphire. (yeah adds weight damn it) Do the same swap out of Aluminum with Titanium. Machining Ti is a pain in the butt. It totally chews up machine tools at an amazing rate but if you want the pinnacle of perfection, the lightest camera without sacrificing any ruggedness (probably adding some actually) you pay for it and you get the M-P. The problem with this is actually constant dimensions and attachment points. While Al and Ti have a much higher strength to weight ratio, you have to design for them differently. A steel fitting will be smaller than one made out of Al but heavier. When designing with Al you have to make the fitting bigger to make it equally as strong but it comes out lighter. The same is true of Ti. I don't know much design flexibility they have in something like the top cap of the M. Obviously they have done it with the 262 and that suggests that they could achieve the same thing with a Ti Alloy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted January 8, 2016 Share #33 Posted January 8, 2016 Is funny how just a tad more weight makes it uncomfortable to hold. I am all for lighter weight. Whatever it takes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 8, 2016 Share #34 Posted January 8, 2016 My understanding is that the body shell of the film bodies is made from a drawn aluminium tube with a die cast aluminium chassis. Leica made a big thing about using a magnesium alloy for the R9 top plate and, later of course, the M8 body shell. I've just looked it up; Johnathan Eastland's compendium: all Leica M film bodies are made from diecast Zinc, From memory the Barnacks were from extruded Aluminium (IIRC). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 8, 2016 Share #35 Posted January 8, 2016 I've just looked it up; Johnathan Eastland's compendium: all Leica M film bodies are made from diecast Zinc, From memory the Barnacks were from extruded Aluminium (IIRC). The plot thickens. Actually I am aware that Aluminium can be tricky to paint as it usually requires an etch primer, and I suspect to glue things like coverings to is not as easy as it might sound - its far better anodised or with more complex coating like Eloxal (as have the underwater housings that I use and sell - Seacam Silver which is an extremely durable and very bright and immaculate silvery finish which tolerates salt water well, is surprisingly hard and wears well). I'd guess that zinc or an alloy of it will be fine for a 'hidden' application such as the body shell, and I'd further guess that it will take glues better. The downside of zinc is that if it cracks its difficult to repair - as per my post above its easier to replace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 8, 2016 Share #36 Posted January 8, 2016 Personally, I like the heft of the brass appointed M bodies. From a practical view, a bit heavier a body dampens normal human tremor. Everyone who has a heartbeat has a tremor to some degree. Even at my age I cannot fathom someone thinking a brass topped Leica M is too heavy. In fact, I add weight using a Rapidwinder (for film) and a grip and RRS base for the M9. Regarding the impression of weight as crudely made things - agreed. My impression is the same, but not for little things like a Leica M. I finally got a CF tripod and it is fantastic, a great relief. For fun and punishment I also have an old Detroit Welding bicycle. It is as heavy as its name suggests. I can hardly believe I grew up using it! When I last bought a CF bicycle, the sales fellow looked a bit surprised, walked to the back muttering "So Grandpa wants a racing bike." Hey, I'm not trying to trim my times. I'm old and just don't want a heavier bike!. But the brass appointed Leica is my friend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 8, 2016 Share #37 Posted January 8, 2016 Jaap, is it really possible that an aluminum top plate weighs only 30/130 of a brass top plate in the M 240/262 configuration? In other words, aluminum has only 23% of the weight of brass? I am having a hard time with that simple of an explanation from Leica. I really wonder if the smaller menu and elimination of the other buttons has a large effect in reducing weight too? Great camera, by the way, and the embedded profile is more pleasant to me than its immediate siblings. I just put an M9 top on the kitchen scales. It came to 144 grams including hot shoe, windows, shutter assembly, ocular etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share #38 Posted January 8, 2016 The plot thickens. Actually I am aware that Aluminium can be tricky to paint as it usually requires an etch primer, and I suspect to glue things like coverings to is not as easy as it might sound - its far better anodised or with more complex coating like Eloxal (as have the underwater housings that I use and sell - Seacam Silver which is an extremely durable and very bright and immaculate silvery finish which tolerates salt water well, is surprisingly hard and wears well). I'd guess that zinc or an alloy of it will be fine for a 'hidden' application such as the body shell, and I'd further guess that it will take glues better. The downside of zinc is that if it cracks its difficult to repair - as per my post above its easier to replace. We aren't going back to the Zinc topplate of the M6 I hope! I lost confidence in my M when I stepped over to the M6 coming from M4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 8, 2016 Share #39 Posted January 8, 2016 Personally, I like the heft of the brass appointed M bodies. From a practical view, a bit heavier a body dampens normal human tremor. Everyone who has a heartbeat has a tremor to some degree. Even at my age I cannot fathom someone thinking a brass topped Leica M is too heavy. In fact, I add weight using a Rapidwinder (for film) and a grip and RRS base for the M9. Regarding the impression of weight as crudely made things - agreed. My impression is the same, but not for little things like a Leica M. I finally got a CF tripod and it is fantastic, a great relief. For fun and punishment I also have an old Detroit Welding bicycle. It is as heavy as its name suggests. I can hardly believe I grew up using it! When I last bought a CF bicycle, the sales fellow looked a bit surprised, walked to the back muttering "So Grandpa wants a racing bike." Hey, I'm not trying to trim my times. I'm old and just don't want a heavier bike!. But the brass appointed Leica is my friend. Sometimes the virtue of old things/material comes back in modern design. I went back to a steel frame (modern design) bicycle that weighs just under 18lb - around 8Kg (it's a fixie with proper brakes front and rear) and the steel frame ride is so much better than CF on rough roads. My bicycle: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=280842481938692&l=d576108ac3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 8, 2016 Share #40 Posted January 8, 2016 "I really wonder if the smaller menu..." How would a smaller menu reduce weight..??? Buttons: Take the one on the top plate for example, need a hole for the button to go through... so what is brass in the 240 would be missing from that hole... and the button itself would weight a minuscule amount. Now the top plate is made of aluminium in the 262, there would be no hole and no button... so if there is any difference at all, it would be absolutely tiny. Certainly not close to the difference in weight that is being reported. So no, removal of buttons and the 'menu being smaller' (! ) would not have any significant bearing on the weight reduction. I would think the vast majority would have been the change in materials... Aluminium is around 2560 to 2640kg/cubic metre and brass is around 8400 to 8800kg/cubic metre. (Just move the decimal point around on both for sensible volumes...), but either way, brass is around three times the mass of aluminium... Thats quite significant... in other words, aluminium has 33% the weight of brass... or a third... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.