Vickko
Veteran
Oh, look at what I found:
http://www.elcan.com/Our_Company/History.php
http://www.elcan.com/Our_Company/History.php
A bit on the history of Midland/Leica
- Thread starter Bassism
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 26
- Views 10K
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
The real reason is briefly mentioned by "NikonBob": Leica factory (leitz family) was afraid that the cold war would escalate. That would have meant that Central Europe was in danger. To make sure something would remain of the possible atomic bomb explosion, a new factory was set up as far as possible from strategic areas. The other reason was that US Military was important customer for Leica products. If those were made in canada, it would mean substantial price advantage. After these two reasons stopped to be significant, the reason for a canadian factory didn`t have much sense anymore.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Not a good characterization of the manufacturing difference between the M4 and the M4-2. The M4 was manufactured the old way that all cameras from the high end manufacturers had done from the 1920s to the 1950s, which was very labor, skills, and materials intensive, translating to lots of cost and lack of profitability in the post-WWII era in the face of more efficient manufacturing processes, innovated by the Japanese manufacturers. The M4-2 was re-designed to be manufactured with more modern production techniques, where many assemblies were simplified and made easier to fit and tune to finish specifications, less redundant bits have to be kept in stock to aid adjustment and fitting, and fewer hours per unit need to be expended to complete the assembly.
This does not mean "cheaper materials and less exacting methods of construction." It means better process, better control of process variance (aka: *more* exacting methods of construction) which require less labor and hand adjustment of individual components. It also means more serviceable and maintainable cameras.
The first of the M4-2 bodies (there were three production runs) had some issues ... but the issues have little to do with the materials and how 'exacting' the method of construction were, they have to do with the usual issues of bringing up a new production line along with the usual issues of laying out a whole new production process, in a new plant, with new personnel. After these usual early production issues were solved, there is nothing less good about an M4-2 compared to an M4, although they are different. For instance, the replacement of brass gears with steel gears in the M4-2 film transport made the transport more durable but it does not have quite the "silky smooth" feel of the M4 until well worn in; a trade off. On the other hand, the M4-2 is less likely to need periodic adjustments and service than the M4 as there are fewer and more robust components in the usual areas of wear (the rangefinder coupling, the film transport, etc.).
Aside from this, the article is an interesting personal perspective on the Leitz Midlands production facility. I would like to see it correlated and corroborated with factual documentarian and historical research.
G
Richard G
Veteran
Nice post, thanks. I agree with Godfrey. There is nothing inferior about the M4-2. I traded mine for an M6 but I still have the Canadian tabbed Summicron, and I am more than happy to keep it. One small thing if you are blogging: there is one 'an' that got switched to 'and'. Happens to me all the time.
mszargar
Established
As far as I know, M4-2 was produced upon the insistance of the supervisor of Canada operations, and it was not an obvious move for the German counterparts who already saw the future in Leicaflex. Turns out the Rs are long gone now...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I wish the post didn't end with M4-2, I'd like to read stories about the one I have, the M4-P.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't have any insight into who pushed the re-introduction of the M4. However, the M4-2 saved the company, even if the R series was where Leica was putting the majority of their development energy and money at the time. The Rs, for all their superb lenses, just never sold at the level that ensured profitability far as I can tell ... the darn lenses were always just too expensive. They were terrific, but in the highly competitive SLR field the *vast* majority of buyers always voted with their wallet for Nikon, Canon, Olympus, et al, as being good enough. (There was a point when I wanted to update my equipment and I considered Leica R, Contax, Nikon and Canon systems. One body, same four lenses for each. The difference in price on the lenses was a factor of 3 to 4 times as much money. Stellar though they might be, there was just no way I could justify that price premium over the best of Zeiss, Nikon and Canon L lenses.)
RFs by this time were well into high-end niche space, market-wise, and it's a lot easier to manage a profitable boutique business with a unique expensive product. The M5 died in the marketplace — it was too radical a departure. The CL sold well but netted very little profit. The SLRs chugged along but weren't very profitable. Bringing back the M4 line was a practical necessity to survival, as the M4 was still very popular and sought after.
G
Similar threads
