Any love for the Leica M-A (Typ 127)?

[chuckroast]

Well we are on one of those places here....

I'm not strange, you're strange...

 

[38Deardorff]

I'm not strange, you're strange...

I, we, you.... all somewhat strange camera nerd types.

 

[Godfrey]

of course G, that's obvious..... but often getting into the game with the brand....leads to those new sales...

I tend to disagree. If you convince people that the old models are just as good as the new model at "bargain" pricing, you predispose those persons to want to afford the new models.

But this is a debate for an evening over scotch... 😉

To get back to the question of "why so little love for the MA?" ... I don't really see why every model in the line much have a fan base singing its praises. The MA (or M-A) is simply a fine, classic meterless Leica M made on the latest chassis with the latest bits.

Regards

I wouldn’t trade an M2 that worked well for a new or little used M-A, simply because of the rangefinder flare in the newer rangefinder without the condenser lens

my understanding is that the viewfinder flare problem that came in with the M4-P/M6 models was corrected in M production across all models somewhere around year 2000. Is this not the case? I don't recall any of my digital Ms having this problem.

G

 

[38Deardorff]

I tend to disagree. If you convince people that the old models are just as good as the new model at "bargain" pricing, you predispose those persons to want to afford the new models.

But this is a debate for an evening over scotch... 😉

To get back to the question of "why so little love for the MA?" ... I don't really see why every model in the line much have a fan base singing its praises. The MA (or M-A) is simply a fine, classic meterless Leica M made on the latest chassis with the latest bits.

Regards

my understanding is that the viewfinder flare problem that came in with the M4-P/M6 models was corrected in M production across all models somewhere around year 2000. Is this not the case? I don't recall any of my digital Ms having this problem.

G

I have no idea.... you could ask the person who mentioned the flare...

 

[Freakscene]

my understanding is that the viewfinder flare problem that came in with the M4-P/M6 models was corrected in M production across all models somewhere around year 2000. Is this not the case? I don't recall any of my digital Ms having this problem.

Leica coated the internal surfaces and front window in the early 2000s but the rangefinder still does not have the condenser lens. These viewfinders still flare, just a lot less. The 0.85 viewfinders flare more than the 0.72 which flare more than the 0.58. My M7 0.85 was terrible when I got it but much improved after the upgrade.

The digital M viewfinders were better in the M8 and M9 because of lower magnification and different geometry due to the increased body depth. For the type 240 the rangefinder was largely redesigned. It and subsequent Ms flare vastly less than the last film Ms, but still more than an M3.

I shoot bands under spotlights a lot. It is the perfect condition for flare.

 

[Richard G]

I never saw my M6 RF patch flare till I read about it on RFF.

I love my M2, but a brand new crystal clear film M viewfinder might well be worth having.

Anyone brave/perverse/special/dedicated/pure/clever/singular/devoted enough to buy an MA, or a digital M-nD model, surely has to tell someone they have done this.

 

[Freakscene]

I never saw my M6 RF patch flare till I read about it on RFF.

I love my M2, but a brand new crystal clear film M viewfinder might well be worth having.

Anyone brave/perverse/special/dedicated/pure/clever/singular/devoted enough to buy an MA, or a digital M-nD model, surely has to tell someone they have done this.

I know at least four people who own an M-A who don’t really use the internet at all . . .

 

[chuckroast]

I know at least four people who own an M-A who don’t really use the internet at all . . .

The internet is a passing fad. It will never take hold at scale ...

 

[Godfrey]

Leica coated the internal surfaces and front window in the early 2000s but the rangefinder still does not have the condenser lens. These viewfinders still flare, just a lot less. The 0.85 viewfinders flare more than the 0.72 which flare more than the 0.58. My M7 0.85 was terrible when I got it but much improved after the upgrade.

The digital M viewfinders were better in the M8 and M9 because of lower magnification and different geometry due to the increased body depth. For the type 240 the rangefinder was largely redesigned. It and subsequent Ms flare vastly less than the last film Ms, but still more than an M3.

I shoot bands under spotlights a lot. It is the perfect condition for flare.

Interesting, thanks. I remember the M4-P and M6 models I had exhibiting the worst RF flare (both 0.72x), the M6TTL 0.72x less. My M4-2 was from the first of that model's production run ... same viewfinder optics as the M4 ... virtually no flare. I haven't noticed any flare in the M6TTL 0.85x that I bought last year ...perhaps it's been upgraded, don't know. It was a Leica Refurbished unit.

The truth is, of course, that I only rarely shoot in circumstances like what you do, where conditions for the RF flare abound. Just lucky, I guess.

G

 

[Godfrey]

I know at least four people who own an M-A who don’t really use the internet at all . . .

Most of the Leica (and Hasselblad) owners I know from classes, groups, clubs, etc, have no presence ... or interest ... in the internet at all. I don't know how many of them might have an M-A since they never talk about their gear at all, but they do show lots of wonderful photographs at group meetings. 😀

G

 

[38Deardorff]

At the price I paid for my Leica M4-2, I could buy eight of them at the cost of a single new M-A.

But ... who cares? The M-A is a new camera, my M4-2 is nearly fifty years old. Big deal. New things cost more than old things, they always do. The two cameras are all but identical in use. Why do people spend the extra money? Because they can, because they want a new camera, not an old one. For whatever reason.

So before you go arguing that those people should buy the old cameras because they are much cheaper and work the same, remember: if no one buys the new cameras, there are no old cameras at lower prices to buy.

G

Leica gets almost no benefit at all from new aficionados buying old, used gear. Profit to the company comes almost exclusively from the sales of new gear, modulo the tiny amount of income from refurbished item sales.

G

G, I'm sure I'm not the only one who started with a used Leica and then became a pretty steady customer of new ones. But I never once thought I'll buy this to keep the company in business. There are lots of cameras in use made by companies that no longer exist. There is i'd bet, a large group of photographers who just buy the tool they need for the job and continue to use it as long as it serves their purpose.
As a film photographer I consider it cool that the MP & MA are still produced.....but if they went away there are thousands of M bodies out there for photographers to choose from.....just as there are Rolleiflex, Toyo, Deardorff, & others.

 

[Richard G]

In my photographic group no-one talks about gear. I know two have a Q. One has only an iPhone. There’s one Hasselblad ELM I know of - never seen square from him. One other only uses film regularly. A couple have never used film. So, yeah, I’ve been off the internet. It’s cool.

 

[Godfrey]

G, I'm sure I'm not the only one who started with a used Leica and then became a pretty steady customer of new ones. But I never once thought I'll buy this to keep the company in business. There are lots of cameras in use made by companies that no longer exist. There is i'd bet, a large group of photographers who just buy the tool they need for the job and continue to use it as long as it serves their purpose.
As a film photographer I consider it cool that the MP & MA are still produced.....but if they went away there are thousands of M bodies out there for photographers to choose from.....just as there are Rolleiflex, Toyo, Deardorff, & others.

I see nothing wrong with buying a used Leica or any other camera. I've owned and used perhaps two dozen or more Leica cameras over the past 50+ years, and I've only bought four or five of those cameras new. And many more other used cameras as well.

There's something wrong when if someone raises a query about the Leica M-A, the chorus chant of "Why buy that when I can get an Mxxx for a quarter the price?" is the response from greater than 50% of the supposed Leica fans and users on a Rangefinder Forum. That's what I find somewhat noxious. Of course you can buy an old M2 or M4-P for a quarter the price, but isn't there something more to discuss about the M-A than the fact that it's costly and does the same thing as any other camera in the Leica M family?

I could care less about the fact that the Leica M-A is expensive, or that it essentially is the same camera as my 1978 Leica M4-2. I'd be interested to know what Leica has improved on the M-A (and by extension, on the M-P and recent M6 re-introduction) compared to the older models. Given that practically NO parts interchange between any of the current versions of these cameras and the cameras of thirty years past, what Leica has done in the long development history of the Leica M is much much much more interesting to me than the fact that the M-A is expensive and effectively does the same job as my fifty year old M4-2, which cost me a lot less.

Sheesh,
G

 

[38Deardorff]

I see nothing wrong with buying a used Leica or any other camera. I've owned and used perhaps two dozen or more Leica cameras over the past 50+ years, and I've only bought four or five of those cameras new. And many more other used cameras as well.

There's something wrong when if someone raises a query about the Leica M-A, the chorus chant of "Why buy that when I can get an Mxxx for a quarter the price?" is the response from greater than 50% of the supposed Leica fans and users on a Rangefinder Forum. That's what I find somewhat noxious. Of course you can buy an old M2 or M4-P for a quarter the price, but isn't there something more to discuss about the M-A than the fact that it's costly and does the same thing as any other camera in the Leica M family?

I could care less about the fact that the Leica M-A is expensive, or that it essentially is the same camera as my 1978 Leica M4-2. I'd be interested to know what Leica has improved on the M-A (and by extension, on the M-P and recent M6 re-introduction) compared to the older models. Given that practically NO parts interchange between any of the current versions of these cameras and the cameras of thirty years past, what Leica has done in the long development history of the Leica M is much much much more interesting to me than the fact that the M-A is expensive and effectively does the same job as my fifty year old M4-2, which cost me a lot less.

Sheesh,
G

G, that may be your question as well as your opinion, but most of us were trying to address the OP's question ...which was "why don't i hear much about the MA?"

 

[chuckroast]

I see nothing wrong with buying a used Leica or any other camera. I've owned and used perhaps two dozen or more Leica cameras over the past 50+ years, and I've only bought four or five of those cameras new. And many more other used cameras as well.

There's something wrong when if someone raises a query about the Leica M-A, the chorus chant of "Why buy that when I can get an Mxxx for a quarter the price?" is the response from greater than 50% of the supposed Leica fans and users on a Rangefinder Forum. That's what I find somewhat noxious. Of course you can buy an old M2 or M4-P for a quarter the price, but isn't there something more to discuss about the M-A than the fact that it's costly and does the same thing as any other camera in the Leica M family?

I could care less about the fact that the Leica M-A is expensive, or that it essentially is the same camera as my 1978 Leica M4-2. I'd be interested to know what Leica has improved on the M-A (and by extension, on the M-P and recent M6 re-introduction) compared to the older models. Given that practically NO parts interchange between any of the current versions of these cameras and the cameras of thirty years past, what Leica has done in the long development history of the Leica M is much much much more interesting to me than the fact that the M-A is expensive and effectively does the same job as my fifty year old M4-2, which cost me a lot less.

Sheesh,
G

First of all, the original question was why we don't hear more about this camera, not whether it is good or bad. The short answer is that it is expensive relative to the alternatives which do pretty much the same thing. No one is suggesting the M-A is a bad machine.

Secondly, you question about "what is better or different now" is a different question but a very good one. I would love to know what's in the guts of an M-A or MP as compared to legacy Leica because if my M2 has already lasted over 65 years, can we expect the same from one of these newer bodies built more recently. For the post M5 cameras - M4-2, M4-P, M6 in its variants, and M7 - my sense is no, they will not last as well (but that's a guess). But the M-A/MP construction suggests they will be more "forever" cameras like the M2/3/4/5. So knowing the answer to your question would be super interesting, at least to me.

tk;dr This thread isn't hostile, it's inquisitive.

 

[Godfrey]

G, that may be your question as well as your opinion, but most of us were trying to address the OP's question ...which was "why don't i hear much about the MA?"

None of the subsequent posts have answered that question other than to say "it's expensive" or "same as some older M". Which we already knew.

I think the real answer is that the M-A is a traditional non-meter M that appeals to a lot of photographers who don't spend a lot of time yakking about it online. They just use it.

G

 

[Pioneer]

Watching this thread has been very interesting for me. Over the years I have owned several Leica M cameras. M3, M2, M6 and M7. My first Leica was an M6 and I enjoyed it as much as all the rest. Every single one was purchased used and every single one required service within 2 years of purchase, one sooner. Nothing wrong with that and I understood that could happen when I bought them. The other thing I will say is that I have NEVER considered a Leica to be an inexpensive purchase, used or new.

I bought my M-A new, used it continually for nine years, and it never required service in that time period, not that I was worried that it would. I think Leica cameras like to be used a lot, not babied. I did just that.

I sold it in the end because I was using a Rolleiflex a lot, not because I didn't enjoy using the M-A. I just wasn't using the Leica very much and wasn't sure I would use it a lot in the future at that time. I got exactly what I wanted while I owned it and I sold it for a good price when I got rid of it.

It was a VERY reliable camera. I put more 35mm film through that single Leica M-A than ANY other 35mm camera I have ever used before or since. I cannot speak for anyone else but owning that M-A was a win-win for me and I am not at all sorry I bought it. Even though I did pay quite a bit up front the final cost of ownership was really pretty low as I got a good price when I sold it. I will say that it is probably a good thing that film cameras don't show the total number of shutter actuations. 😀

Is that enough love???

 

[38Deardorff]

Watching this thread has been very interesting for me. Over the years I have owned several Leica M cameras. M3, M2, M6 and M7. My first Leica was an M6 and I enjoyed it as much as all the rest. Every single one was purchased used and every single one required service within 2 years of purchase, one sooner. Nothing wrong with that and I understood that could happen when I bought them. The other thing I will say is that I have NEVER considered a Leica to be an inexpensive purchase, used or new.

I bought my M-A new, used it continually for nine years, and it never required service in that time period, not that I was worried that it would. I think Leica cameras like to be used a lot, not babied. I did just that.

I sold it in the end because I was using a Rolleiflex a lot, not because I didn't enjoy using the M-A. I just wasn't using the Leica very much and wasn't sure I would use it a lot in the future at that time. I got exactly what I wanted while I owned it and I sold it for a good price when I got rid of it.

It was a VERY reliable camera. I put more 35mm film through that single Leica M-A than ANY other 35mm camera I have ever used before or since. I cannot speak for anyone else but owning that M-A was a win-win for me and I am not at all sorry I bought it. Even though I did pay quite a bit up front the final cost of ownership was really pretty low as I got a good price when I sold it. I will say that it is probably a good thing that film cameras don't show the total number of shutter actuations. 😀

Is that enough love???

Sounds like you did well on it. I had an MP from that era. What were they $2700 USD give or take? I bought mine used & eventually sold it in 2017 or so for enough to replace it with my black paint M4. Over the years i bought a number of new and used Leicas. None ever required service and I was mostly shooting Kodachrome back then. The M4 was off when i got it so it got the DAG treatment & is still ticking along.

 

[maddoc]

I have my M-A for a little over a year now and after being serviced by Leica it works well now. I was under the impression that Leica introduced the condenser lens again with the MP in 2003 but not sure. My M-A had the typical problem that the RF was horizontally and vertically off, a well known problem with the M-A due to lack of quality control. Luckily, I don't have the overlapping frame issue that was reported by many new M-A owners. However, the frames are very narrow, if two frames in a series were taken with the Super-Angulon-M, the frames almost touch. Another problem are the soft strap lugs, Leica had (has ?) a problem with the supplier. I have to use brass key rings to avoid extensive wear of the strap lugs.

 

[Freakscene]

Leica coated the internal surfaces and front window in the early 2000s but the rangefinder still does not have the condenser lens. These viewfinders still flare, just a lot less. The 0.85 viewfinders flare more than the 0.72 which flare more than the 0.58. My M7 0.85 was terrible when I got it but much improved after the upgrade.

The digital M viewfinders were better in the M8 and M9 because of lower magnification and different geometry due to the increased body depth. For the type 240 the rangefinder was largely redesigned. It and subsequent Ms flare vastly less than the last film Ms, but still more than an M3.

I shoot bands under spotlights a lot. It is the perfect condition for flare.

As an update to this, as @maddoc mentions, there might be more than one version of the ‘fix’. My M7 had the mirror replaced and the glass exchanged for coated glass, but there are numerous mentions of replacing the mirror and putting a condenser lens in the rangefinder on the internet. I’ll have to take my MP 0.72 apart and check.