What is is the best USED film Leica M camera for the money?

[splitimageview]

No issues with M5 servicing, DAG worked on mine that I acquired on this site. It needed speeds adjusted and he adjusted the meter circuitry for 1.5v. Apparently keh works on them in house, as all sales have a six month warranty. Pretty sure Gus Lazzari works on them too.

There is a recent post here about CLE service by a former Minolta tech.

 

[Slumgullion]

Same with my M5. Jadon at Red Dot Repair did great work on mine. Also, Sherry Krauter is arguably the best in the world on the M5. Granted, these are US based options, so if you love globally, not as ideal. But, yes, it is worth noting that some repair people don’t like working with them.

 

[splitimageview]

A previous M5 I had was serviced by cameraworks-uk.com, they even installed titanium shutter curtains from a donor F2 that I provided. So there is a uk service option.

 

[jsrockit]

Seems like the double stroke M3 is the cheapest and it is still a great camera. The M4 is a level up price wise, but a great camera. With a meter? That's when things get crazy and you are better off taking a chance on a Konica Hexar RF, Voigtlander Bessa or even the Minolta CLE.

 

[Saganich]

Yea, '57 DS M3 is the best bargain.

 

[Bingley]

I voted for the M4-P in terms of overall value for money, though I’ve never owned one. I did have an M4-2 which was nice but in the end sold it. But if you need a meter or if you need to focus fast lenses, then the value for money answer shifts. Personally, I think the M3 is still a great value for money, particularly for its fine focusing capability.

 

[steveyork]

Having used virtually every film M over the last many years, I've gravitated to the M2 and 35mm focal length. The fact the M2 is one of the less expensive models is just a plus. If more of a 50mm guy, probably the M3 would be the one for me. Something intoxicating about those big magnification viewfinders. Not a fan of the many of the modern M's because of frame line accuracy at the distances I typically shoot. They're all capable though.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Having used virtually every film M over the last many years, I've gravitated to the M2 and 35mm focal length. The fact the M2 is one of the less expensive models is just a plus. If more of a 50mm guy, probably the M3 would be the one for me. Something intoxicating about those big magnification viewfinders. Not a fan of the many of the modern M's because of frame line accuracy at the distances I typically shoot. They're all capable though.

Likewise.... I sold my M6s and MP because i preferred less distraction in the viewfinder. If i could replace my original black paint M2 i would have (being a black paint fan) ....I settled on a black paint M4.... 35mm is also my most used lens

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Although I voted for the M5 as being the "bargain" in the group, the M2 (for mostly intangible reasons) is most definitely my favorite Leica M. But I don't see it selling for significantly less than a comparitively conditioned M3 these days.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

*I also have to admit that with the generic M film body in good condition pushing $1500USD.... the Leica CL is a lot of camera for $400-500 / body or $800 w lens. DAG's opinion is that they're more reliable than people give them credit for...& he has parts and continues to repair them.

 

[lukx]

I say M2 if you want a meterless camera. The M3 is a bit tricky because many of them have issues with the viewfinder prism cement and rangefinder contrast, moreso than M2, M4 and up. That is my perception at least.

If you want a meter, buy either an MP or go for the Zeiss Ikon ZM. The former is "only" $1000 up from the M6 but with much newer tech and better repairability (and it's prettier). The latter is a recent camera that sells for M6 money, maybe less. It's supposed to be very nice in use, especially the large viewfinder (caveat: electronic shutter – don't get it wet).

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I say M2 if you want a meterless camera. The M3 is a bit tricky because many of them have issues with the viewfinder prism cement and rangefinder contrast, moreso than M2, M4 and up. That is my perception at least.

If you want a meter, buy either an MP or go for the Zeiss Ikon ZM. The former is "only" $1000 up from the M6 but with much newer tech and better repairability (and it's prettier). The latter is a recent camera that sells for M6 money, maybe less. It's supposed to be very nice in use, especially the large viewfinder (caveat: electronic shutter – don't get it wet).

In terms of meters, there still the option of an MR4 meter, Keks, TT Artisan, or Voigtlander VC meter.... for less than the $1k upcharge for a built-in meter.

 

[SWB]

I've had all of them except the M5 and still own a few but the best value and most useful in the equation for me is the M4-P. Quick loading, all the framelines, an M6 without a meter so easy to have serviced, robust, and 'cheap'. And it even has it's own little niche for collectible versions so not as boring as an otherwise practical do-everything black-chrome Leica M might seem.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I've had all of them except the M5 and still own a few but the best value and most useful in the equation for me is the M4-P. Quick loading, all the framelines, an M6 without a meter so easy to have serviced, robust, and 'cheap'. And it even has it's own little niche for collectible versions so not as boring as an otherwise practical do-everything black-chrome Leica M might seem.

The 'cheap' train left long ago. They're listed at $1700 USD+ and KEH has one in 'excellent' condition for $2295.....I guess if you interpret the subject from a personal point of view over time....it's an entirely different question than if you consider buying an M camera today. My best personal values would have been my first M2 at $175 or the black paint M2 I bought in Paris in the late 90s for $700 Cdn!

 

[SWB]

The 'cheap' train left long ago. They're listed at $1700 USD+ and KEH has one in 'excellent' condition for $2295.....I guess if you interpret the subject from a personal point of view over time....it's an entirely different question than if you consider buying an M camera today. My best personal values would have been my first M2 at $175 or the black paint M2 I bought in Paris in the late 90s for $700 Cdn!

Well cheap is of course 'relative' compared with what you get, or is that too much to state? For an M4-P with six framelines compared with an M2 that has only only three framelines and a slow reload the prices aren't that much different. The difference is the same that people spout for an M3, 'the purest M camera' when it is now becoming the most unreliable M camera. And as for your black paint M2 you bought in the 1990's don't you think by now that has become a dream and despite a good story not really relevant to a 2023 discussion?

 

[ranger9]

I haven't really followed film Leica M prices for a long time -- got out of them after the Incident at the Opera and haven't looked back, much -- but I voted for the M4-P on the grounds of picture-taking bang-for-the-buck. No, it's not cheap, but it's cheaper than an M6. Meanwhile, it's more usable than the '50s Ms because it has a rewind crank, and it has a slight edge over the M4-2 because it has a frame line for 75mm, which is a focal length I personally like a lot. Plus, I really used to enjoy it when some old-timer would start gassing about how "there's nothing like German craftsmanship" and I'd show him the CANADA engraving








The Incident at the Opera: I was working for a newspaper and shooting a backstage photo layout about the local opera company's latest production when the lovely young guest-star soprano invited me into her dressing room to shoot a "beauty portrait." I was right at the end of a roll, and unfortunately it was winter and my camera bag had been in my car all afternoon, so all my film rolls were thoroughly cold-soaked... I struggled and struggled, feeling stupider and stupider, but I simply could NOT get ANY of them to catch in the M4-P's dratted quick-load-if-it-loads-at-all takeup spool! Fortunately I also had a Minolta CLE along...

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Well cheap is of course 'relative' compared with what you get, or is that too much to state? For an M4-P with six framelines compared with an M2 that has only only three framelines and a slow reload the prices aren't that much different. The difference is the same that people spout for an M3, 'the purest M camera' when it is now becoming the most unreliable M camera. And as for your black paint M2 you bought in the 1990's don't you think by now that has become a dream and despite a good story not really relevant to a 2023 discussion?

Perhaps it is a good story....but where i'm going with it is this. Are we talking about the best deal in the long run, or.... what would be the best deal buying today? I think it depends on your personal preferences. I've owned many including M4-P, M6, MP....and i don't like the cluttered framelines in the finder...so the M4 is the best deal for me. If you want many frame lines or a built-in meter.... your preferences will lead you to a different choice....
Also as mentioned, for someone who has the same M camera they bought decades ago, today's prices are irrelevant, because they aren't buying and they have a working camera. For them, the one they bought years ago has been the best value because they surely got their money's worth out of it.

 

[JeffS7444]

Back in olden times (early 2020) when they were selling in the 1200 USD range, I might have voted for a non-TTL M6, but at today’s prices, I think M2R or M4 would get my vote, late M3 SS in a pinch, though lack of 35 mm frame lines is a drawback, IMO.

Given that they are not particularly inexpensive, and apparently have issues with cracking plastic finder / hot shoe assemblies, I might give M4-2 and -P a pass. Too bad, because the former has some sentimental value to me, as my first M-camera was an M4-2.

Rather than a Leica-branded CL, a Leitz-Minolta CL might also interest, if opting for the latter makes for a substantial discount.

 

[das]

To me, it is not worth worrying too much about the average price of any film Leica. It is a relatively low risk investment if you don't break it. For the past several decades, you could always buy and sell a used film Leica for +/- 10% of its value. Compare this to digital Ms, whose depreciation is significant until it ultimately levels out to 20-30% of its original retail price, and that is if there is no catastrophic electronics failure and someone is still making a battery for it. So, you pay 2k for an M6, don't break it, and then sell it for 5-10% more than you paid for it in 5 or more years. Sounds like a good situation.

 

[splitimageview]

Yea that has always been my opinion with used Leicas, it’s not how much it costs, it’s whether one decides if it’s worth parking the funds in a camera. Many times I’ve decided it wasn’t worth parking the funds simply because I wasn’t shooting enough. Buy right and care for the gear and you’ll essentially rent the gear for very little, or nothing, worst case; and best case make a profit.

But then what? The $1000 M6 Classic bought in 2010, what is one going to replace it with, now that the same camera will demand $2500? 😀