Leica M5 thoughts

[anaanda]

I just saw the Leica M5 come up in the classifieds. I am thinking of buying it. What are some of your thoughts? Compared to an M3 and M6? Is it sort of the black sheep of M cameras. Owners chime in and praise the merits or demerits of this camera?
Thanks

 

[czamagni]

great viewfinder with shutter speeds, great spot meter, unfortunately is not so elegant as the other M cameras.
Regards

 

[splitimageview]

I had a very nice M5 some years ago, but I found I prefered the feel of an M3 or M6.

 

[cpborello]

That looks to be a nice late model. If I didn't already have one, I'd have bought it.

As onboard meters go, I don't think you can do any better. The same goes for the ability to change shutter speeds easily while looking through the viewfinder. For me it was between the M5 and M6, as I wanted a meter on board (I had considered an M2, but didn't feel comfortable without a meter or with using an external one). I came down on the side of the M5 as I found it to be more user friendly. Regarding the difference in size/look to traditional Ms, it was of no concern to me, but does bother others.

 

[rxmd]

I like mine. I've got big hands, so the ergonomics are right for me; the shutter speed wheel is very convenient to use, having shutter speeds in the finder is nice, and the meter is quite intuitive with its analog readout. Somebody put a lot of brainpower into designing that camera, and it shows IMHO. I would probably even prefer an M5 with a dead meter over other Ms.

 

[waileong]

BUFF works well as a description for the B-52 bomber, and for the M5 as well.

 

[awilder]

One interesting thing not mentioned is the lack of vibration to the M5 shutter. Although only slightly quieter than the current MP to my ear, vibration is noticably less especially with the mid to high shutter speeds. I could feel the difference with my finger placed on the camera back compared to my MP. When I looked in the old issues of Popular Photography they confirmed it with their testing equipment. For example, vibration of the M4 at 1/60 measured 0.14 volts while the M5 measured only 0.07 volts.

 

[Keith]

At that price and the fact that it's been through Sherry Krauter's hands makes it an easy descision ... go for it.

You won't be dissapointed ... I already miss mine!

But Frank seems to like it! 😛

 

[JNewell]

BUFF works well as a description for the B-52 bomber, and for the M5 as well.

Yes, so true...but the B52 is still flying missions...😀

 

[FrankS]

Yes, so true...but the B52 is still flying missions...😀

And M5's are still taking pictures. 🙂

 

[waileong]

xx

xx

Yes, so true...but the B52 is still flying missions...😀

Only because the country can't afford to replace them completely. And also the Cold War ended.

 

[rxmd]

Only because the country can't afford to replace them completely. And also the Cold War ended.

And (here we're getting off-topic) because there is really no reason to replace them completely, since they are doing an excellent job at what they're for (carrying lots of stuff near or over territory with weak air defenses). Their replacement, the B2, is looking increasingly bad from a marginal utility point of view, since the usefulness of stealth in large aircraft is on the decline; and since aircraft today are really more about the avionics than anything else anyway, the B52 should still be fine for the next thirty or so years, just like an M5 is fine as long as you load it with good film 🙂

 

[waileong]

Xxx

Xxx

I disagree; but this is really getting off-topic. I think we'll find that there'll be less and less enemies with "weak" air defenses.

And (here we're getting off-topic) because there is really no reason to replace them completely, since they are doing an excellent job at what they're for (carrying lots of stuff near or over territory with weak air defenses). Their replacement, the B2, is looking increasingly bad from a marginal utility point of view, since the usefulness of stealth in large aircraft is on the decline; and since aircraft today are really more about the avionics than anything else anyway, the B52 should still be fine for the next thirty or so years, just like an M5 is fine as long as you load it with good film 🙂

 

[Vincenzo Maielli]

The design of the Leica M5 is different in respect to the classic M design of the M3, M2 and M4 but the functionality is the same. The M5 is a silky smooth operating camera, the viewfinder is clear, with the plus of the shutter speed indicator, the rangefinder patch is simply superb. The camera is absolutely realiable, with a precise TTL spot metering. The build quality is excellent and the particular metering system is very resistance and secure, about the functionality. To replace the long term outlawed PX625 mercury battery, you can choose the Weincell MRB625 zync air 1,35 volt battery or the MR-9 adapter (my preferred option for my mutch loved M5). The MR-9 adapter employ a built in micro electronical circuit that automatically reduce the 1,55 voltage of the 386 silver oxide battery to 1,35 voltage of the original PX625 mercury oxide battery.
The M3 have a better viewfinder than M5 but lack the 35 mm frameline in the viewfinder and is a meterless camera. The M6 have a silicon blue cell meter (the M5 emply a CDS cell) but the build quality level is slightly better in the M3 and M5 models.
Ciao.
Vincenzo

 

[varjag]

And (here we're getting off-topic) because there is really no reason to replace them completely, since they are doing an excellent job at what they're for (carrying lots of stuff near or over territory with weak air defenses).

Well, they were designed for bombing USSR, which at any point of its existence had more or less up-to-date air defense. It's just that realities of bombing campaigns changed quickly with developments of SAM systems, and made B-52 seem dated.

As about M5, how different the viewfinder is from what is there in "classic" 0.72 Ms?

 

[rxmd]

As about M5, how different the viewfinder is from what is there in "classic" 0.72 Ms?

Not really very different. The most obvious difference is that the bottom is a bit more cluttered, because of the meter readout and shutter speed display. That's about it. Other differences are four very thin marks to show the metering area with the 50mm lens, and the left and right edges of the rangefinder patch are slightly rounded to show the metering area with the 90mm lens.

Well, they were designed for bombing USSR, which at any point of its existence had more or less up-to-date air defense. It's just that realities of bombing campaigns changed quickly with developments of SAM systems, and made B-52 seem dated.

Here we're a bit off-topic again, but well, when they were designed in the late 1940s, heavy bombers were still the way to go, and probably even in the mid-1950s when they entered service. As a response to improvements in Soviet air defense, the B-52s were rebuilt for low-altitude operation (that must have been in the early 1960s). To put this into context, it took the VVS until 1960 to shoot down an U2 over Soviet territory (which is admittedly a high-altitude aircraft), and even in the 1980s it was possible to fly a Cessna into the heart of Russia and land on Red Square 😉

Otherwise you're completely correct, of course; nowadays it would be impractical to use them for a first strike. But then that's not what they're being used for; mostly they're used after air defenses have been destroyed. In this role they're quite successful, I don't think a significant number has been lost since the end of the Cold War, even over Kosovo - where the Serbian air force did have MiG-29s, and where the USAF did lose a F-117. So a heavy bomber can still be quite useful now (well to the extent that a warplane has any use at all, but here we're digressing even more). Also the B-52 is quite powerful as a symbol of the projection of US power. The Russians are keeping their Tu-95 for exactly the same reasons.

So if the M5 is the B-52 of Leicas, that doesn't say anything about its usefulness or lack thereof... maybe about its outward appearance, though 😉

Philipp

 

[venchka]

M5: Leica got everything right

M5: Leica got everything right

Think about this:

Leica introduces M3 to replace III-G.

Leica Die Hards blast the size of the M3 compared to previous LTM bodies. The goggled 35mm lens comes under fire also.

Sales of the new camera and 35mm lens suffer.

Leica hastily revises the M3 and introduces the M2 with built in 35mm framelins. The 35mm lens looses it's goggles. The Die Hards rejoice.

Leica ceases production of the ill fated M3 after only 79,000 units.

Fast forward: Leica dealers are reportedly trading brand new M8 bodies for KEH EX condition M3 bodies. EX+ to LN- M3 bodies are listed in the classified section of RFF for $10k and up.

Back to the M5: Leica only made 79,000 M5 bodies. Count your blessings that the Die Hards are still calling the M5 Huge, Ugly, Homely, BUFF, etc. Use an M5 for a roll of film. You too will see The Light! 🙂 😎

Thus ends the Lesson for today. May the M5 Force be with You!

 

[JNewell]

What's (modestly) interesting is that the reaction was much more muted when the M6TTL was introduced, although (1) it is noticeably taller (to me at least) than the M6 classic and (2) the shutter speed dial, while actually a big ergonomic improvement, goes the "wrong way" compared to almost 40 years of M design.

 

[venchka]

Judging from the Classifieds, another worthy M5 will be changing hands. New owner: Enjoy!

 

[Santafecino]

I already have one M5 and also 2 CLs. My quandary is whether to buy a second M5. I like it for all the reasons cited above--its great spot meter, easy shutter speed dial, and great finder. Another plus--now--is that we can buy a 1.25x finder magnifier for about $65 on eBay to make the finder .90, nearly as large as the M3. The CLs are very handy but the M5 is built like a tank. I can't think of any reason I truly need another M5 body, but I still have the urge . . .