Cheapen Leicas

[Red Robin]

When did they start to start with the lowered standards during the prewar and post war cameras? Was it only chrome, or are there other things to watch for?

 

[msbarnes]

I believe it was the M4-2 because of poor sales of the M5.

http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm

I can't really speak from experience because i have only an M2 and an M3 and the construction for those two is generally the same (the M2 is simpler but by no means of lesser quality IMO).

I don't think that the prewar Leica's were deliberately cheapened.

 

[Bingley]

I would not say that the later M film cameras were cheapened. The early run of the M4-2 had vf problems but these were corrected. The change to the use of steel gears may have saved some costs, but also enabled the M4-2 and later models to use a motor drive. (The M6 uses steel gears too). Leica cut costs on the M4-2 also by eliminating certain features like a self-timer. But the M4-2 is a robust and excellent user if you avoid samples from the early run.

Edit: I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but when I read about all the problems that owners of the M8 and M9 have had with their cameras, I'd say it was the change to digital that cheapened Leica cameras [donning flame-proof suit and ducking].

 

[Dez]

Since this is in the LTM forum, I expect the OP is talking about something a bit earlier than the M4-2.

I have heard it said that the LTM camera quality peaked with the just-prewar IIIB. I have one of these, and its design seems to combine the best of the small-body and large-body Barnacks, but I don't know that quality suffered after. The IIIC and later cameras, with their more modular design, were probably easier to manufacture, but ease of manufacture does not equate to reduced quality.






I have seen many examples of wartime and just postwar LTM cameras that seemed to have poorer chrome than the earlier or later ones; I presume this was because of materials shortages during and after the war. This would have been over by 1950 or so, and I certainly don't detect any reduction in quality in the 50's IIIC and IIIF's.

I'l leave the ongoing argument about the M4-2 and M4-P cameras to others. Being Canadian, I am probably a bit biased.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[xayraa33]

Since this is in the LTM forum, I expect the OP is talking about something a bit earlier than the M4-2.

I have heard it said that the LTM camera quality peaked with the just-prewar IIIB. I have one of these, and its design seems to combine the best of the small-body and large-body Barnacks, but I don't know that quality suffered after. The IIIC and later cameras, with their more modular design, were probably easier to manufacture, but ease of manufacture does not equate to reduced quality.






I have seen many examples of wartime and just postwar LTM cameras that seemed to have poorer chrome than the earlier or later ones; I presume this was because of materials shortages during and after the war. This would have been over by 1950 or so, and I certainly don't detect any reduction in quality in the 50's IIIC and IIIF's.

I'l leave the ongoing argument about the M4-2 and M4-P cameras to others. Being Canadian, I am probably a bit biased.

Cheers,
Dez

Some of the post war IIIc cameras had that notorious chrome plate peeling problem till 1948/49 or so.

 

[xayraa33]

I would not say that the later M film cameras were cheapened. The early run of the M4-2 had vf problems but these were corrected. The change to the use of steel gears may have saved some costs, but also enabled the M4-2 and later models to use a motor drive. (The M6 uses steel gears too). Leica cut costs on the M4-2 also by eliminating certain features like a self-timer. But the M4-2 is a robust and excellent user if you avoid samples from the early run.

Edit: I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but when I read about all the problems that owners of the M8 and M9 have had with their cameras, I'd say it was the change to digital that cheapened Leica cameras [donning flame-proof suit and ducking].

I still own and use two Leica M4-2 cameras, I bought both new. One is an early M4-2 and the other is a later made M4-2.

The problem with the early M4-2 was shutter curtain bounce, the VF was better than the ones on the later M4-2. The curtain bounce on my new M4-2 was fixed under warranty after I developed my first film roll and never had a problem since.

The later Leica M4-2 production had that light condenser removed from the RF geometry and consequently the RF flared more than the earlier cameras.

The later M4-2 were also rougher feeling on the film winding that I sent mine back to Midland under warranty and it came back film winding smooth as silk.

Both are great cameras and I would not hesitate to buy an other one, even now.

 

[kdemas]

Edit: I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but when I read about all the problems that owners of the M8 and M9 have had with their cameras, I'd say it was the change to digital that cheapened Leica cameras [donning flame-proof suit and ducking].

As opposed to the endless CLAs some older Leica's need Steve 😉

 

[mdarnton]

Wasn't the IIIc an improvement over the previous versions, rather than a downgrade? The whole point of the new body style was to take the weight of the larger, faster lenses, and the new unibody was designed to be stronger and not flex. Yes, it took less handwork, but does that make it "worse" if the result is a better, sturdier camera???? Also, it had ball bearings rather than sleeve, and was a finer machine, overall. That doesn't sound like a downgrade to me.

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135237

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135237

I have used older Leica and never really seen any "cheapening"
OK the chrome flake ,yes. Sort of like the M6 nickel, bubbling.
The cameras would never have lasted this long.
As for the digitals.. well that's another ball game.
Non Leica shutter, modular electronics from who knows where..
Film cameras were meant to last a lifetime or more.
Digital is out of date within a year or at most two.
Leica is not immune to this. All those "users" who praised. 1st the M8, later major change of opinion with M9 and once again, with introduction of "better and newer models".
Personally if major parts were still available for M8, would not hesitate to own one..
Actually would be very happy with any Barnack.

 

[splitimageview]

The chrome. I wouldn't say it's a 'lowered standard' however. The war had all sorts of effects on raw material availability.

So many of these cameras are still working today! I have a wartime 3c and it's still going strong 73 years later.

 

[xayraa33]

The chrome. I wouldn't say it's a 'lowered standard' however. The war had all sorts of effects on raw material availability.

So many of these cameras are still working today! I have a wartime 3c and it's still going strong 73 years later.

The chrome on the war time Leicas was fine, the chrome peeling problem was a one off thing and only for a few years after the war. No one is saying that the Leica mechanics got poorer or the re-design was bad or the workmanship of parts or assembly got bad in quality. In fact the fit and finish of first M3 cameras of 1954 were second to none and prove how high quality a Leica product was and still is.

 

[Bingley]

As opposed to the endless CLAs some older Leica's need Steve 😉

Ha! My film Leicas have not needed endless CLAs, Kent, just one good CLA each.

With regard to Barnacks, all I can say is that the chrome on my IIIc is in great shape, which kind of supports the point in the thread above about chrome issues being related to wartime and postwar shortages. My IIIc is from 1949.

 

[kdemas]

Ha! My film Leicas have not needed endless CLAs, Kent, just one good CLA each.

With regard to Barnacks, all I can say is that the chrome on my IIIc is in great shape, which kind of supports the point in the thread above about chrome issues being related to wartime and postwar shortages. My IIIc is from 1949.

Just playing with you Steve 🙂

 

[Tom A]

The peeling chrome was simply a change in the composition of the brass underneath, During the war chrome was a strategic product (cylinder bores for aircraft engines etc) - hence the "civilian" grey paint war time cameras. The IIIc had a cast chassie - much sturdier than the "assembled" chassie of the previous models. Leica continued to improve the screw-mounts all the way up to the IIIf/IIIg's. Like anything that is assembled from parts - there are sample variations, but these cameras are 60 years+ and still work.
The only "true" cheapening I know off is the removal of the collimating lens on the late M4-2 and the substituting of a steel spring with a plastic one for the exposure counter dial on some M6's in the late 80's and early 90's. I had a couple of the titanium nitrated ones - and both lost the automatic return of the film-counter within weeks.
The reason for the removal of the self-timer on the M4-2/M4-P and later was not "penny pinching". If you used the motor with a self timer it could damage the shutter. The shutter bounce on the early M4-2 was a design flaw - the shutter brake was faulty. However, by now most of these M4-2's have had the brake replaced or adjusted.
As for the apex of machining and assembly - my vote goes to the IIIf Red Dial. Nothing like that knurling ever again and once set up properly (and used - nothing gums them up like inactivity) they will go forever. Occasionally shutter curtains needs to be replaced - but that is about all.

 

[Red Robin]

Thanks to all. Was not trying to raise any hackles I still don't own a Leica but just want to start looking(again) into it and didn't want to buy a basket case. Thanks all and I was asking about Barnacks.

 

[splitimageview]

It's rare that I acquire a Barnack that doesn't need a CLA. If you buy from someone here who actually uses one, that's another matter. 🙂

 

[johannielscom]

IIRC the brass didn't so much change during WWII but the chrome plating baths got contaminated at the end of the war.

On the website of CRR Luton is a link to an article that contains the results of a British inspection of the Leitz factories after WWII where this is mentioned.