M3 vs M6 (?) article....

[harry01562]

Several years ago I remember reading an article in one of the "big" photo mags (Pop Photo, Modern ??) that detailed differences in construction between the classic M3 and the latest model, probably the M6. It included under the hood shots showing differences in several areas, and explaining the rational behind the changes. Does anyone else remember, and did anyone save the article?

I probably have the darn thing, hidden in a box someplace around here. I would like to have a copy of it, either scanned or paper. Would make interesting reading for others here, I'm sure.

Harry

 

[Lear]

As far as I remember it was popular photography, around 94 (maybe), white background blue letters I think. (Had an entire collction, gave it away to a friend of mine years ago) Im not sure but think it was the issue where they tested a lot of zooms, red head girl on cover. OR the one where they tested a lot of flashed, with a lion head on cover.

It was of an M2 and M6, by a repair person who had both of them for service as far as I remember.

 

[Huck Finn]

Here is the article:

www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=354&page-number=1

The comparison with the M2 begins at the bottm of page 4 & continues for several paragraphs on page 5. Unfortunately they didn't electronically save the pictures, which graphically demonstrate the differences, but you can write to them for a copy of the article for a small fee. Or you can try to find a library that saves anything from a dozen years ago. Does anybody do that anymore?

Huck

 

[Ben Z]

I don't recall the article saying anything about the use of canada balsam in the M2's rangefinder prism vs UV-cure optical cement in the M6, which in terms of repair cost, offsets all the so-called "cheapenings" that befell the M6 and why my M3 is an occasional user while my M6s get the brunt of the action.

 

[Lear]

If someone could confirm me if I was right about the covers 🙂 I would aprecite it. What a memory 😛

 

[summilux]

thanks Huck.

 

[ray_g]

Thanks for the link, Huck. It was funny reading the 2nd to the last paragraph of the article, talking about the "ultimate" leica. I thought they were describing the Hexar RF. 😉

 

[Frank Granovski]

Opening sentence:

The Leica M6 is the sole surviving member of a once flourishing breed—the interchangeable-lens rangefinder 35.

Opening sentence rewritten:

The Zeiss Ikon and the Voigtlander Bessa R's are the sole surviving members of a once flourishing breed—the interchangeable-lens rangefinder 35.

 

[Huck Finn]

It was funny reading the 2nd to the last paragraph of the article, talking about the "ultimate" leica. I thought they were describing the Hexar RF. 😉

I re-read that paragraph with your thought in mind, Ray. Right on the money. I guess Konica read the article & Leica didn't. 😉 The Hexar RF is such a nice camera . . . & so frustrating.

I assume that they corrected whatever the problem was on their early samples that led to charges of lens incompatibility. Why not call future models "Hexar RF II" to make it eminently clear that the camera had been updated?

Why clutter the viewfinder with 135 framelines on a camera with 0.6 magnification? For that matter, why not offer models with higher magnification & 135 framelines since long lenses will benefit the most from the faster shutter speeds?

It's just too bad that they weren't more sensitive to marketing & service.

Huck

 

[aizan]

what went wrong with service? i had a great experience a month ago with my hrf.

 

[Huck Finn]

Aizan, there have been numerous reports on the internets over the past 5 years of Hexar RFs with misaligned rangefinders & then camera being returned to their owners with the problem not fixed after being sent back for repair. Of course, these experiences were specific to the Konica distributors in the countries of the report,s so I imagine that there was some variability in this regard around the world.

There have also been reports of difficulty getting parts. Recently, I have read several reports where cameras have sat with Greg Weber for 6 months or more & are still there due to lack of availability of parts.

Ultimately for me, the issues of marketing & service are really linked for this camera. With all the comments of lens incompatibility when the camera first came out, it seemed that there was something that needed to be fixed. If Konica was serious about competing with the Hexar RF, it seems to me that they should have offered free service for anyone who wanted an adjustment & should than have approached the marketing side probably with a "Hexar RF II" to communicate that they were into a new generation of the camera with a clean slate.

Just my 2 cents . . .

Huck

 

[aizan]

misaligned rangefinders coming back uncorrected is not unique. neither is making internal changes. availability of parts to independent repairmen might not be that much of a problem since you can just send it to konica nj. i doubt greg will ever get those design specs to the machinist unless even more people send their hexars in, so maybe it's best to still send them to him!