I buried the answer in an earlier thread that has become dormant. Maybe Tony can delete threads dormant for more than six months. I'm sure were used to the same topic being brought up time and time again, and politely replied to. This is one of the most controversial issues for M commenters (maybe prospective buyers "on a test ride"). I'll post MY answer tomorrow. So here goes:

Why do the M cameras load from the bottom, and why do Leica stubbornly refuse to keep up with the times and change to the "normal" swing-back solution?

For those who have seen my post, please let the others try, for fun.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 14, 2002

Answers

RIGIDITY, RIGIDITY, RIGIDITY.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 14, 2002.

Because Leica has so many vocal supporters coming up with excuses and apologies for all their quirks and QC failures that they almost don't need a PR department, let alone a redesign department. Because once you're 50 years out of date and you can sell double-priced models just by painting them a different color or engraving someone's name on it, you don't need to have a big R&D and retooling budget to stay in business. Because their market reacts to radical changes like an angry street mob.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 14, 2002.

Chris

The answer is that they have no need to change it. Their market still buys the camera as it was conceived 50 years ago. The bottom loading on the M was an improvement on the screw mount Leica which had no back flap. The bottom loading was there originally to ensure that the smaller r/f camera was very strong and rigid. Leica will only change it if is determined to be a factor in people not buying an M. This seems sensible to me. Would they get more buyers if they changed the loading? Maybe one or two more but not many more I am prepared to bet. I suspect Leica think that it is probably not a worthwhile risk to take bearing in mind the costs associated with making the change.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 14, 2002.

John's right--you can just about run an M body over with a car, and the film plane will still be in spec with the lens mount.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 14, 2002.

I didn't want to jump in first here as I am not sure what the punchline is!

As others have said the rigidity of the die-cast "squashed tube" body would be seriously compromised by a big flappy opening back - rather like when a nice tight handling coupe has it's roof chopped off and turns into a skittery roller skate.

Anyway, what is wrong with loading the M from the bottom? - it works fine, plain and simple.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 14, 2002.

Simple answer.From the seventies on Leica has not been in the camera business so much as the legend business.They are basicaly living off the name and in order to do that they must keep the Leica name in the public memory. Leica is in fact a optical instrument company,alwaye were and will continue to be. Leica geo systems, medical optics, high end optics for the secondary market.Who make botique cameras for the affluent.Don't get me wrong there is nothing bad about this in fact the up side of this is that they are in a constant process of improving there optics with little regard to the platform. The american counter part to this is Coors . How many people know Coors make more money off ceramics than beer.

-- Al Henry (J Henry@provide.net), January 14, 2002.

That is funny Andrew. I took John's answer to mean that Leica was "rigid"... unbending in their ability to accept new things.

John?

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 14, 2002.

Al (Henry)

Actually all the other Leica Microsystems (microscopes, biotech applications) and such like are now a totally separate company and have not been part of Leica camera for a good many years. So Leica (camera) is now solely a camera and camera optic company (includes binoculars, and projectors of course).

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 14, 2002.

Kudos to John for his outstanding double-entendre (and you too Al for picking up on it)!

Rigidity(1): More structural rigidity = less opportunity for the film- plane to go out of alignment with the lens-mount flange. This in turn leads to sharper images when critically examined -- especially at wide apertures.

Rigidity(2): Resistant to change, as in corporate snobbery. But in fairness to Leica, the present arrangement works very well per definition 1, so I feel they have little motivation to change per definition 2.

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 14, 2002.

As much as I knock the (modern) Leica company for it's spiraling downhill quality control and build standards I have to say Al Henry is talking absolute rubbish.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 14, 2002.

It was both.

Ph. D candidates aren't just overworked, underpaid non-citizens...

Membership has its privileges ;-)

-- John. (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 14, 2002.

Actually, you can't run a Leica over with a car and have it be in working order. Everything in the body binds up. It will ,however, still look pretty good.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), January 14, 2002.

It would be nice to see Leica re-introduce the "no flap" back of the screwmounts but re-designed to accept the short leader films. Just bevel the film guide rails and it could be close to a "drop and load" concept while maintaining maximum rigidity and integrity against the elements. They would probably have to design a mechanism coupled to the front rewind lever or bottom lid that would relax the spring tension on the pressure plate enough to allow easy loading of short leader films.

I bet that would spark a stampede to the local Leica dealer if they were to pull it off successfully.

Thoughts?

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 14, 2002.

I thought this was a myth until I saw it done one time. In the early days of Leica M (M2/3) Leica salesman would occasionally demo the camera by putting the body on the floor and standing on it. Cheers.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), January 14, 2002.

In the early days of Leica M (M2/3) Leica salesman would occasionally demo the camera by putting the body on the floor and standing on it. Cheers.

Actually, recently I've seen a salesman at Tamarkin do this. I've never done it myself, but I guess if I ever need a slight boost...

-- Richard Le (rvle@yahoo.com), January 14, 2002.

"Why do the M cameras load from the bottom....."

Barnack wanted it that way? Original (1920's) bodies were made out of squashed metal tubing? More light-tight? Rigidity? To allow the bottom latch to open and close bulk casettes (which were the ONLY way to put film in a Leica for the first few years - manufacturers having never heard of 35mm film except on movie camera reels). Ease of manufacture? (just slide the clockwork in from the top (or bottom). I dunno.

"....and why do Leica stubbornly refuse to keep up with the times and change to the "normal" swing-back solution?"

Because the Leica system is easier to load than any MANUAL-LOAD camera with a swing-open back - and therefore there is no logical reason to design a new system that would require more different parts to warehouse.

"if it ain't broke, don't fix it - and save money by doing so."

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 14, 2002.

"Why do the M cameras load from the bottom?"

Because it was too difficult to load them from the top ... although I daresay Rollei would have done that with the Rollei 35, if they'd thought about it - about the only strange thing they didn't do with that weird little camera ;-)

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 15, 2002.

They did keep up, and here's your answer.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@home.com), January 15, 2002.

RIGIDITY is Leica's answer. 5 micron tolerance between film rails and lens flange dimension and parallelness. The CL is also a very rigid box-frame.

However, the back flap doesn't seem very rigid; slop taken up by the pressure plate?

Hasselblad users (another box frame): check the fit of your backs; some wobble more than others.

Just grab one of the point and shoots, set to maximum zoom length, grab the lens - surprizing amount of slop. No matter how many pixels, the plastic lenses they put on these plastic things are pretty weak. You'll get high resolution of BLUR ($5000 D1, et al excepted). GIGO, garbage in - garbage out.

Think cars: convertibles are much less rigid than coupes. The M is a coupe with a sun-roof, the M6 is electrified 8^).

I think with an M it is possible to makea swing back, except:

1. Not that big of a deal currently; after all what's a few extra SECONDS

2. Cost/benefit

3. Eventual size of the body with additional structural elements

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 15, 2002.