Best M type camera ?

Best M type camera ?

  • M1

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • M2

    Votes: 227 13.3%

  • M3

    Votes: 248 14.5%

  • M4

    Votes: 153 8.9%

  • M5

    Votes: 72 4.2%

  • M6

    Votes: 268 15.7%

  • M6TTL

    Votes: 157 9.2%

  • M7

    Votes: 155 9.1%

  • MP (new)

    Votes: 384 22.4%

  • MP (old)

    Votes: 11 0.6%

  • MD's

    Votes: 5 0.3%

  • Barnacks ( screwtype )

    Votes: 30 1.8%
  • Total voters
    1,711
The M5-syndrom

The M5-syndrom

One thing I don´t understand, for now I will call it the "M5-syndrom:

explanation for this special syndrom:
When this camera came out most people didn´t buy it (bigger, uglier etc.). Now, more than 30 years after production stopped, some people scream: "It´s the best M with the best build-in meter etc. etc. AND it has the best old Wetzlar quality..."

Please be objective with your statements!

No one will doupt that the M5 is a great camera (as every other M before and after) with some great improvements (seen through the eyes of the seventies).
BUT
it was a financial and commercial desaster for Leica and this has to be analysed very carefully.

Why do I write this in such a poll?

Because this poll shows the situation of the M-models very well through the eyes of today. And you see, the M5 has (again) no chance against her ancestors and her younger sisters. Why?

Do you have the answer?

I would like to hear some answers to this "silly question".

Bully
 
Bully said:
One thing I don´t understand, for now I will call it the "M5-syndrom:

explanation for this special syndrom:
When this camera came out most people didn´t buy it (bigger, uglier etc.). Now, more than 30 years after production stopped, some people scream: "It´s the best M with the best build-in meter etc. etc. AND it has the best old Wetzlar quality..."

Please be objective with your statements!

No one will doupt that the M5 is a great camera (as every other M before and after) with some great improvements (seen through the eyes of the seventies).
BUT
it was a financial and commercial desaster for Leica and this has to be analysed very carefully.

Why do I write this in such a poll?

Because this poll shows the situation of the M-models very well through the eyes of today. And you see, the M5 has (again) no chance against her ancestors and her younger sisters. Why?

Do you have the answer?

I would like to hear some answers to this "silly question".

Bully
Click to expand...

This isn't a 'silly question', part of this forums direction and the interest of Leica-RF users is camera talk and feelings/thoughts about using them. A part of history of the Leica camera is the M5 and its impact.

One of the misconceptions of the M5 is that it single handily almost doomed the company. As is well known, by the mid 60s the RF concept was in fast decline and the SLR camera was 'king' of 35mm photography. With the resurgence of the RF camera over the past 10 or so years we forget this fact. Most RF camera manufactures had either given up their RF line or as the case with Leica production was far below what it was from the years when the RF was for the most part the 35mm users only advanced/pro choice.

The M5 idea had been in the works for many years before production started in the early 70s. The original idea for the M4 both in style design (looking like an M5) and with built in meter was the 'M5' as proto-types made in the mid/later 60s show. But it was not ready for production as technology was still catching up. As is known the M4 was a more or less a combination of the M3/M2 with a few innovations: quick load system, fold out rewind crank and the ergonomically designed 'plastic' advance lever (which may not look as nice as a solid metal advance but I still find more comfortable and works well). The M4 itself can be thought of as a stop-gap, a way for Leica to try and save some production costs by combining their two cameras. It was and is a great camera but the M5 was the ultimate goal that needed a bit more time.

Leica put all their know how into the M5, it was made to be the best M-series ever with the major innovation of a behind the lens built in meter. Leica in their promotion pointed out that it was about the same size as an M4 with the MR meter (same volume with 'clean lines') so size didn't really seem a factor to them, but with everything and more in a new M-series package the idea was to make the more advanced and high quality RF. Something that would 'kick start' Leica RF production.

Again, I think it had to do just as much with the SLR, the M5s high cost, the fact that pro's already had their couple M-Series for use (when they weren't using for the most part their Nikon/Canon), and advanced hobby photographers were into the popular idea of a 'real view' finder, than the 'ugly duckling' Leica made. The folks I knew that tried the camera out liked it, but just didn't see the need to spend very close to a $1,000 on one. AND there were plenty of older M-series out there to use, in 1971 a used M3 was still not that far in the past and cost was a $200-300 hundred dollars, a new M4 was about half the price.

When Leica restarted production of the M4 with M5 sales not taking off (and the M4 was a much cheaper camera to make), it didn't 'save' the Leica camera either, and Leica M-series camera were stopped being made with no plans to make them again. The introduction of the M4-2 going on 2 years later was more a token thought with few sales in mind and small profit with cost saving production in Canada.

The M5 is still the most advanced M-series for feature set, is very solid and dependable. No its not the same shape as the classic style M, but part of the idea in design change was to make something new and deferent (and fit the new technology into). The style is mid/late 60s look and if you can get past the - what an M-series is suppose to look like, like the LTM camera users did when the M-series came out - it has an attractive look, in its own un-M way.

Personally I wish it was possible to be a more compact M too, the style itself doesn't bother me - I like it; but because of its great 'limited area' meter, more sure and comfortable loading and rewind, shutter speed dial. speeds in the finder, meter area in the finder, and even the 2-lug vertical strap lugs option, I find what the advantages out weigh the sentimentality and for the most part the size in practical use.

What it come down to is what YOU feel comfortable using. If you like/love your camera you probable will use it more and maybe with better results. I'll always love to use my M4 and the M2/M3 (and may do the MP thing at some point), but I sure am glad Leica went out on a limb and did the M5 - something different, works different, but still an M-series in many ways.
 
My MP is the only Leica I have owned. So I could be a little biased....
 
p372042854-4.jpg
 
Dreamsandart:

Thank you for your very informative answer.

I fully agree that the M5 is "another" way, apart from the "good old" M-way...

The decade of the seventies is perhaps one of the most interesting not only for the history of the m but also for Leica itself.

Bully
 
cmogi10:

What a great picture of the beautiful MP...!

I like it a lot (the picture AND the MP...).

Bully
 
I tried out a new MP today for the first time, not wanting to like it.

.... better call my banker... because in silver it was very, very hard to pass up.
 
I used to think the new MP was the best M ever. I was wrong. IMHO the M4 should hold that title. For me the better finder (the framelines show slightly more of what's actually going to appear on film) and better rewind mechanism make the difference. Don't underestimate the M4's fantastic finder. It is as flare free as my MP's and the slightly recessed finder and rangefinder windows attract far fewer smudges that obviously muddle up the image. Oh, and they're is nothing like the grip and look of real vulcanite.
 
What Ron said. . . The M4 represents the apex of the mechanical M-series cameras. . . sans meters, batteries, and a host of features/tweaks which have not represented any substantial evolutionary improvement over the M4.

That's the fact of it.

Paul
 
Love the M4, but love the M2, M3, M6, MP equally the same, just different tools for different purpose! In my opinion I wouldn't refuse if I were given a Leica MP3 now! But in 15 years time, when you no longer know if someone can affordably service the electronics in your metered M, I would for sure always choose and trust a pure mechanical M4!
 
M3/M2/M6/50mm 35mm,90mm

M3/M2/M6/50mm 35mm,90mm

Well, I really like the M3 with the 50mm lens because it is the lens I use 40% of the time, and the M3 for 50 mm is just about the best, because its VF is bright, big and very accurate for framing, What you see is what you get, not like the 50mm on the m6ttl.
But I like the 35mm lens on the M2 again because it is the only frame line showing in the viewfinder and i really like the single frame lines much less distractring, simple and clean.
And on my M6ttl I really like the the 90mm lens for the same reason the single 90mm frame line, of course I have the .85 finder which only brings up the 90 line. I purchased the M6ttl just for that reason the single 90mm frame line that shows in the VF when the 90 is mounted. Also i like the ability to use an internal meter when shooting 90mm for landscape work, works more like a spot meter.
There is something very liberating shooting with only one frame line in you VF. So you may have guessed which M I like best, M3 /50mm ,M2/35mm, and M6ttl/90mm.So I could not vote only for one , and since I am not stranded on a desert Island, I vote for all three. Thanks dennis.
 
Last edited:
edodo said:
Love the M4, but love the M2, M3, M6, MP equally the same, just different tools for different purpose! In my opinion I wouldn't refuse if I were given a Leica MP3 now! But in 15 years time, when you no longer know if someone can affordably service the electronics in your metered M, I would for sure always choose and trust a pure mechanical M4!
Click to expand...

I agree. The MP3 is the best M type camera, because it also plays music.
 
I have 2 M6ttl's (0.58 and 0.85) in a silver chrome finish and love them both. Glad to see a few others appreciate them as well. :)
 
Hi! Why did I invest in a new Leica after all those years? Because I finally got what I was looking for the last 30 plus years! An MP "Classic" , black paint, 28 frames, brand new, immaculate finish, no worries (hopefully?) about performance, Leicavit, no frills, electronics, etc. , wonderful "feel" to it, this decision mirrors the poll, 1rst the MP then the M3, can`t beat that combination! I will go for an M3 sooner or later. I had one years ago!
Best regards Wolfhard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom