Coming back to the Leica M7

[Richard G]

Out to a Lunch noted the pure mechanical brigade. Not bad the 1/60s and 1/125s sans battery in an electronic camera. Early complaints were the dodgy DX reader. I’m again tempted to get an M7. My M9-P is 14 years old. Not tempted to upgrade to the M10 yet. No bricking in sight.

 

[Roastchestnuts]

Another thought. During the late 1980s and 1990s, the M6 had become a staple for certain photojournalists, who often carried one alongside their Nikon F4/F5 or Canon EOS-1N or whatever. The 2002 introduction of the M7 coincided with the beginning of the widespread adoption of digital cameras. And the internet hate that the M7 (and the prior 1999 Hexar RF) received from many Leica fans (who had spent the prior 15 years fantasizing about their list of dream features for the next M) was pretty intense, mainly because of the electronic shutter and battery dependence (although the M7 has several manual backup speeds). Because most pros were going digital anyway, there was no need to upgrade their M6s to M7s. In fact, many pros ditched their M6s in droves during the first decade of the 2000s -- the era where you could find used non-TTL models for as low as $600. Because the M7 was never really put through its paces in a widespread manner as a professional platform, it probably never received the attention that it deserved.

And then many of the folks who had complained about the "electronically-controlled shutter" in the M7 had no problem several years later buying M8s, M9s, and M240s. 🙂.

I have owned at one point every camera in your response. Hated how loud all the eos 1 film cameras were. I just sold my eos 3 recently. anywys I really totally agree with you. I think the m7 was just a little bit too late when It came out for a film camera. if the m7 came out in the early 90s it would have been different I think. I love my m8 and its of the same era! its fantastic. I also rock a eos 1ds mk II sometimes and its from the same era and it can produce remarkable images. and the f5! love the f5. I could have bought another m6ttl too but I like the build feel of the m7 better. there is somthing to be said about the brass.

To be honest everyone is aware that the M8 & M9 had more than their share of problems...... = reasons why people wouldn't spend (originally) $5800- $7000 USD for a camera body that was unreliable.....& then wait months for repair....that's especially true for the pros.
Well before the 80s pros used a combo of Leica M & Nikon.
IMO the M6 ttl/ M7 weren't hated.....(historically, that dubious honour may go to the M5 as the Edsel of Leica M camera design). I think sales of the M6ttl & M7 (as good as they may be) dropped off when they ceased to be supported by Leica. Like the highly respected Nikon F/F2...... Leicas have been valued for their reliability.....as tools that don't stop working. If it can't be repaired it loses part of its ultimate value.

Very true. I have owned a m8,m8.2 and m9. I just got the m8 because I missed the rendering of the m8.2. (should not have sold my black paint m8.2 because Its value went over what I was willing to spend to buy another.) Its unique but its probably due to the ir sensitivity. the m9 was also good but of course corrosion was scary and I felt I liked the m8s rendering better. I know in editing you can pretty much get them to look the same, I would not spend 5000$ + equivalent back then thats for sure. But also nearly 10,000 for a m11 is way to much I dont think I will ever buy a leica new at this point either. But I am a big fan of these older digitals. the limitations make it fun sometimes. Plus after using one for a year you get really blown away after picking up a m10m. as for reliability I do think the m7 is one of those things where its super reliable till its not. Much like fuel injection vrs carburetor. and also I believe you can still get a m7 repaired from leica from what I was told from a leica store. and I know last year I asked DAG and he can do a cla on it. ( not electronic repair).

Out to a Lunch noted the pure mechanical brigade. Not bad the 1/60s and 1/125s sans battery in an electronic camera. Early complaints were the dodgy DX reader. I’m again tempted to get an M7. My M9-P is 14 years old. Not tempted to upgrade to the M10 yet. No bricking in sight.

Yeah In all honesty the 2 mechanical speeds is nice to have. the fe f3 and fe2 all have just 1 mechanical speed. I want to say its 1/90th. using it on the f3 is annoying though. I think how a camera lives its life is a huge factor in the brick factor too. This m7 seems used but in good shape. To the upgrading to the m10.... not worth it in my opinion. Maybe the m262. the only thing I feel thats nice with the m10 is the phone connectivity. The extra stop or two of ISO is good over the m240 series too. But I feel the m9/m8 feels better in the hand. Again opinion but I have allways felt the m8/9 always felt like film cameras trying to be digital vrs the m10 was a digital camera trying to be more like a film camera. (I know the m8/9 were always designed as digitals) I used to think the m8/9 were too loud and hated the winding shutter noise. but after owning a few m10 cameras I like the m8 sound better than the electrionic sound of the m10 series. I know alot of opinions here sorry. The frame line illuminator window fresnel thing is the thing I wish they had carried over in the next generations. I like it better.

 

[Roastchestnuts]

My m7 showed up yesterday before my film did. I did have a roll of pro image 100 to test it out with at least. The m7 really is denser than I remember. it feels like a tank compaired to other cameras. again Like leicas f3. I need to get some faster lenses. My nikkor 3.5 f1.8 and 2.5 are fun but the focus through is like a million miles. I am probably just going to go for a voigtlander of some sort. I love me some leica lenses but right now I cant justify the price of them anymore. plus like I said some place else in the forums, Voigtlander is making more interesting lenses than leica I feel these days! 28mm f1.5 for 1000$ the 28 apo lanthar!, the 35mm f3.5 color skopar is cool, the 50mm f1! they seem so fun these days. I have a buddy that is going to wheel and deal for my nikon s3. he has a 28mm color skopar f2.8 that I think I might try and make a deal on. It would give me similar images to the ricoh gr1s that I loved. he also has the new ultron 35mm that might more my speed too.

The camera is worth it for what I want to use it for I think. Like I said I did think about the m6ttl again but I really wanted somthing quicker for photos of friends and family and beach stuff. Stuff like the photo below before my ricoh gr1s bricked haha - now thats a fragil electronic camera.

 

[steveyork]

Off topic, but shocked how expensive used M6/7 are now. Even more shocked at the pricing of new M analog and digital. Makes dropping $1300-1500 on a M3/2/4 an absolute no brainer, bargain.

 

[Roastchestnuts]

Off topic, but shocked how expensive used M6/7 are now. Even more shocked at the pricing of new M analog and digital. Makes dropping $1300-1500 on a M3/2/4 an absolute no brainer, bargain.

too much. So in 2019 I spent 2000$ on the m7. last week I spent 3000 with tax. and 3k was a really good deal I feel like. the m6ttl is about the same. the m2 is the deal for sure right now. I already own a m3 though. It really is one of the best.

 

[Roastchestnuts]

To be honest everyone is aware that the M8 & M9 had more than their share of problems...... = reasons why people wouldn't spend (originally) $5800- $7000 USD for a camera body that was unreliable.....& then wait months for repair....that's especially true for the pros.
Well before the 80s pros used a combo of Leica M & Nikon.
IMO the M6 ttl/ M7 weren't hated.....(historically, that dubious honour may go to the M5 as the Edsel of Leica M camera design). I think sales of the M6ttl & M7 (as good as they may be) dropped off when they ceased to be supported by Leica. Like the highly respected Nikon F/F2...... Leicas have been valued for their reliability.....as tools that don't stop working. If it can't be repaired it loses part of its ultimate value.

the edsel of the leica m is so true. I know people that love them but gosh that camera is ugly.

Speaking on the merits of mechanical over elelctronic - this reminded me fun side note on the m5. I know from a buddy of mine that even though the m5 camera is a mechanical, leica used some plastic parts in the shutter design. if these plastic parts fail your camera is bricked. My buddy sent his for repair for a shutter issue to sherry and she said that it was very common to see the shutter failure in them because these bits brake and cant be replaced. she was very kind and offered to buy his camera from him for parts and he picked up a m4 after.

also my mechanical m4-2 was the most problem ridden camera I have ever owned. Lightleaks, 3 repairs in 6 months, and it would go out of adjustment quick. I sent it to yye 2 times and then DAG. then I sold that thing for a loss! I ended up with my m4 after that I think too. that era for leica was pretty cost cutting I think.

 

[Formerly presspass]

I had four of them and shot them professionally for several years but never bonded with them. When I began to downsize two years ago, they were among the first to go. I do still have one M mount auto exposure - a ZI - which I enjoy more than my M7s. It has a brighter finder, better framelines, and AE that never seems to be fooled by challenging light. The only downside is it doesn't have framelines for 135, but that's easily cured with an old auxiliary finder. Three of my M7s had the early DX registering system and they were always off; sometimes, they could be made to operate by tightening the rewind, but even when I would set the ISO manually, they would give me error indicators. They were good cameras for their day, but I never bonded with them and don't miss them at all.

 

[Roastchestnuts]

I had four of them and shot them professionally for several years but never bonded with them. When I began to downsize two years ago, they were among the first to go. I do still have one M mount auto exposure - a ZI - which I enjoy more than my M7s. It has a brighter finder, better framelines, and AE that never seems to be fooled by challenging light. The only downside is it doesn't have framelines for 135, but that's easily cured with an old auxiliary finder. Three of my M7s had the early DX registering system and they were always off; sometimes, they could be made to operate by tightening the rewind, but even when I would set the ISO manually, they would give me error indicators. They were good cameras for their day, but I never bonded with them and don't miss them at all.

I really liked the r2a I used briefly. It reminded me of a rangfinder fm2 or somthing with the feel of the camera. The r2a is the only other auto exposure film rangfinder I have tried. Id think the ziess ikon would be in the same boat on repairability as the leica though. still from what I have read its a really good camera. This m7 has the earlier DX reader. I dont see any issues right now. The m7 might have been a better camera in my opinion with out the DX feature all together. But I am not using this camera professionally if I was Id probibly carry my m3 along side it. However Not alot of professionals shooting film these days. some are true. My wedding photographer shot our wedding in 2023 on an electronic contax 645 and a rolleiflex 2.8f.

 

[chuckroast]

IMO the M6 ttl/ M7 weren't hated.....(historically, that dubious honour may go to the M5 as the Edsel of Leica M camera design).

Is THAT nice? You're very hurtful to we M5 faithful. I feel triggered and sad 😢

I think the actual design of M5 was superb and it still holds up even today as a masterclass in camera innovation.

But there was a larger context in play at the time that doomed the M5 to economic failure:

• The invasion of the Nikon F and its family, in some large way because of the Vietnam vets bringing them back on their way home. You simply couldn't ignore the price point and lens/accessory options. The Hong Kong prices were ridiculously low at the time. The F Apollo was my first 35mm SLR purchase and I own one to this day (not my original) with way too many lenses.
  
  
• The early 70s release of the Canon F1 doubled down on this proposition.
  
  
• The nearly simultaneous release of the Leica CL which gave you many of the M5 innovations at smaller cost and similarly smaller physical footprint.
  
  
• Leica's natural customer base - existing Leica users - had gotten used to the ergonomics, size, and weight of what an M should be. The relatively bulkier M5 was an offense to their purist souls, so they stayed away in droves. It's interesting to note that even though the Nikon FtN was bigger and heavier than the M5, it was never an issue for Nikon buyers. What's really eyebrow raising is that Leica's departure from the "correct" M dimensions in the M240 had nowhere near the same blowback.

Some years ago, I found relatively good deals on an M2, M4, and M5, so I have a decent comparison point. For me at least (this is not a law of nature), I find:

• The M2 appeals to the artist in me. It gets out of the way of the process and lets me just work towards my pix without thinking too much about the hardware. When mated with the 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH, it may be the perfect camera.
  
  
• The M5 appeals to the engineer in me. It's a constant reminder of what precise design and flawless build quality is possible and the risks inherent in even incremental innovation. For those of us with large hands (no comments!), the M5 fits just fine. The spot metering system is sheer genius well ahead of its time. I am surprised that Nikon didn't do something similar with the later F3.
  
  
• I bought the M4 because it has just been CLAed by Sherry Krauter and the price was just right. I know its iconic. I know that some of the greatest shooters at NatGeo and other journalism sites were hardcore M4 users. Krauter once told me she thought the M4 was the best camera Leica ever made. But ... I don't know what to think of it. After using the M2 and the M5, the M4 seems .... soulless to me. I hasn't got the personality that makes me want to pick it up and use it (though I do). Analagously, the M2 is a BMW 2002 Alpina, the M5 is Schumacher's F1 winning Ferrari, and the M4 is a well appointed Honda Accord. It's so good, it's boring.

Then there's the IIIf ...

 

[38Deardorff]

Is THAT nice? You're very hurtful to we M5 faithful. I feel triggered and sad 😢

I think the actual design of M5 was superb and it still holds up even today as a masterclass in camera innovation.

But there was a larger context in play at the time that doomed the M5 to economic failure:

• The invasion of the Nikon F and its family, in some large way because of the Vietnam vets bringing them back on their way home. You simply couldn't ignore the price point and lens/accessory options. The Hong Kong prices were ridiculously low at the time. The F Apollo was my first 35mm SLR purchase and I own one to this day (not my original) with way too many lenses.
  
  
• The early 70s release of the Canon F1 doubled down on this proposition.
  
  
• The nearly simultaneous release of the Leica CL which gave you many of the M5 innovations at smaller cost and similarly smaller physical footprint.
  
  
• Leica's natural customer base - existing Leica users - had gotten used to the ergonomics, size, and weight of what an M should be. The relatively bulkier M5 was an offense to their purist souls, so they stayed away in droves. It's interesting to note that even though the Nikon FtN was bigger and heavier than the M5, it was never an issue for Nikon buyers. What's really eyebrow raising is that Leica's departure from the "correct" M dimensions in the M240 had nowhere near the same blowback.

Some years ago, I found relatively good deals on an M2, M4, and M5, so I have a decent comparison point. For me at least (this is not a law of nature), I find:

• The M2 appeals to the artist in me. It gets out of the way of the process and lets me just work towards my pix without thinking too much about the hardware. When mated with the 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH, it may be the perfect camera.
  
  
• The M5 appeals to the engineer in me. It's a constant reminder of what precise design and flawless build quality is possible and the risks inherent in even incremental innovation. For those of us with large hands (no comments!), the M5 fits just fine. The spot metering system is sheer genius well ahead of its time. I am surprised that Nikon didn't do something similar with the later F3.
  
  
• I bought the M4 because it has just been CLAed by Sherry Krauter and the price was just right. I know its iconic. I know that some of the greatest shooters at NatGeo and other journalism sites were hardcore M4 users. Krauter once told me she thought the M4 was the best camera Leica ever made. But ... I don't know what to think of it. After using the M2 and the M5, the M4 seems .... soulless to me. I hasn't got the personality that makes me want to pick it up and use it (though I do). Analagously, the M2 is a BMW 2002 Alpina, the M5 is Schumacher's F1 winning Ferrari, and the M4 is a well appointed Honda Accord. It's so good, it's boring.

Then there's the IIIf ...

I'll respond later CR.... just on my way out
but for the record the M4 ain't no Honda Accord.

 

[Roastchestnuts]

Is THAT nice? You're very hurtful to we M5 faithful. I feel triggered and sad 😢

I think the actual design of M5 was superb and it still holds up even today as a masterclass in camera innovation.

But there was a larger context in play at the time that doomed the M5 to economic failure:

• The invasion of the Nikon F and its family, in some large way because of the Vietnam vets bringing them back on their way home. You simply couldn't ignore the price point and lens/accessory options. The Hong Kong prices were ridiculously low at the time. The F Apollo was my first 35mm SLR purchase and I own one to this day (not my original) with way too many lenses.
  
  
• The early 70s release of the Canon F1 doubled down on this proposition.
  
  
• The nearly simultaneous release of the Leica CL which gave you many of the M5 innovations at smaller cost and similarly smaller physical footprint.
  
  
• Leica's natural customer base - existing Leica users - had gotten used to the ergonomics, size, and weight of what an M should be. The relatively bulkier M5 was an offense to their purist souls, so they stayed away in droves. It's interesting to note that even though the Nikon FtN was bigger and heavier than the M5, it was never an issue for Nikon buyers. What's really eyebrow raising is thta Leica's departure from the "correct" M dimensions in the M240 had nowhere near the same blowback.

Some years ago, I found relatively good deals on an M2, M4, and M5, so I have a decent comparison point. For me at least (this is not a law of nature), I find:

• The M2 appeals to the artist in me. It gets out of the way of the process and lets me just work towards my pix without thinking too much about the hardware. When mated with the 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH, it may be the perfect camera.
  
  
• The M5 appeals to the engineer in me. It's a constant reminder of what precise design and flawless build quality is possible and the risks inherent in even incremental innovation. For those of us with large hands (no comments!), the M5 fits just fine. The spot metering system is sheer genius well ahead of its time. I am surprised that Nikon didn't do something similar with the later F3.
  
  
• I bought the M4 because it has just been CLAed by Sherry Krauter and the price was just right. I know its iconic. I know that some of the greatest shooters at NatGeo and other journalism sites were hardcore M4 users. Krauter once told me she thought the M4 was the best camera Leica ever made. But ... I don't know what to think of it. After using the M2 and the M5, the M4 seems .... soulless to me. I hasn't got the personality that makes me want to pick it up and use it (though I do). Analagously, the M2 is a BMW 2002 Alpina, the M5 is Schumacher's F1 winning Ferrari, and the M4 is a well appointed Honda Accord. It's so good, it's boring.

Then there's the IIIf ...

I can get behind your points on this. I should have stated it was my own opinion. I do like the design of the meter in the finder a-lot on the m5. I just dont really like the camera. and I really Really dont like the CL. The minolta cle seems like an interesting camera though but I have not tried it. Held one though. I have shot both the cl and M5 in the past. I own a f apollo too! I am really a big nikon SLR fan. The f2 in my opinion is the best camera ever made.

I will say the m240 still looks like an M over the M5. although I don't like it either. the electronic port on the back and the video function annoy me. I had a mp240.

The m4 in my opinion is the best all around M for Most people (film shooters) I regret selling mine but never bought another because my m3 fills that gap. you should try a good m3. I am one of the m3 is the best M camera guys. sure it only has 50mm frame lines but it feels soo smooth to use.

 

[Roastchestnuts]

I'll respond later CR.... just on my way out
but for the record the M4 ain't no Honda Accord.

The m4 is probably the best all around film M. they are really good. a modded one in black paint to have the leicavit (with the connector like the m6 mp and m7) and a mp finder with 28mm framelines would be my dream.

 

[38Deardorff]

The m4 is probably the best all around film M. they are really good. a modded one in black paint to have the leicavit (with the connector like the m6 mp and m7) and a mp finder with 28mm framelines would be my dream.

...modded by DAG (no 28mm framelines though... i use the acc. finder)
i sold my MP to get rid of all the various framelines..... to me the M2 has the best viewfinder....
(silly me, i sold my original black paint M2 in the years i only worked in large format...& disdained 35mm 🙁)

 

[Roastchestnuts]

...modded by DAG (no 28mm framelines though... i use the acc. finder)
i sold my MP to get rid of all the various framelines..... to me the M2 has the best viewfinder....
(silly me, i sold my original black paint M2 in the years i only worked in large format...& disdained 35mm 🙁)

Yeah thats the dream! haha. I like the depth of field tick marks on the patch you get on the m2 and m3. Thats a beauty! you can get the leicavit in black chrome now. I might pick one up at some point. they are usful in certain situations.

 

[chuckroast]

I'll respond later CR.... just on my way out
but for the record the M4 ain't no Honda Accord.

I didn't mean it as a negative. Honda Accords are known for being very well engineered, reliable, comfortable, and safe. They're objectively probably better cars than, say, a Mustang or Corvette, but lack that sizzle. An M4 is nearly perfect in every way but I don't feel the sizzle when I use it. Also, I like the M2 finder better, so neener neener...

 

[Roastchestnuts]

I didn't mean it as a negative. Honda Accords are known for being very well engineered, reliable, comfortable, and safe. They're objectively probably better cars than, say, a Mustang or Corvette, but lack that sizzle. An M4 is nearly perfect in every way but I don't feel the sizzle when I use it. Also, I like the M2 finder better, so neener neener...

I hear you on the sizzle. I get that for sure. its why I have sold so many cameras In the past. I get it especially with cars. The old toyota land cruisers are my vibe. I currently have a fj55 that I have been restoring. Welded in new rockers and floor pans last week.

 

[Archiver]

Off topic, but shocked how expensive used M6/7 are now. Even more shocked at the pricing of new M analog and digital. Makes dropping $1300-1500 on a M3/2/4 an absolute no brainer, bargain.

In 2010, I bought my near mint M7 for $3100 AUD, then sold it back to the same shop for $3200 14 years later. They sold it for about $5400, which seems to be the going rate for an excellent condition M7 over here.

An excellent condition digital SL2 in box is around $3500! A like new black paint MP is almost double that in Australia. M body prices are nuts these days, but it doesn't stop me drooling and thinking.

 

[38Deardorff]

I can get behind your points on this. I should have stated it was my own opinion. I do like the design of the meter in the finder a-lot on the m5. I just dont really like the camera. and I really Really dont like the CL. The minolta cle seems like an interesting camera though but I have not tried it. Held one though. I have shot both the cl and M5 in the past. I own a f apollo too! I am really a big nikon SLR fan. The f2 in my opinion is the best camera ever made.

I will say the m240 still looks like an M over the M5. although I don't like it either. the electronic port on the back and the video function annoy me. I had a mp240.

The m4 in my opinion is the best all around M for Most people (film shooters) I regret selling mine but never bought another because my m3 fills that gap. you should try a good m3. I am one of the m3 is the best M camera guys. sure it only has 50mm frame lines but it feels soo smooth to use.

We all have our preferences. Recently I've had 2 CLs, but more importantly I owned both CL & CLE when they were new (early 70s). It all depends what you compare them too. I always owned M cameras..... the CL is the same platform....but I used mine for mountain climbing....without issue on the S face of Denali & on Mt Foraker...as well as others.... Worked flawlessly. That's what they were meant to do. They seem small and cheap compared to an M.....but back in the day for a small camera the surpassed the Rollei 35 or the Japanese fixed lens rangefinders. DAG still has parts for them and opines that they're tougher than people give them credit for. That's been my experience. This one works well & hasn't been CLA'd ever....was dragged around climbs in the Alps and trekked into K2 base camp back in the day, before a good friend gave it to me. It's also a killer travel camera. It's proven to be a very good reliable tool.

 

[38Deardorff]

Yeah thats the dream! haha. I like the depth of field tick marks on the patch you get on the m2 and m3. Thats a beauty! you can get the leicavit in black chrome now. I might pick one up at some point. they are usful in certain situations.

I was lucky to find the black paint version with the script.....although they messed up and put the tripod socket in the wrong place

 

[38Deardorff]

Out to a Lunch noted the pure mechanical brigade. Not bad the 1/60s and 1/125s sans battery in an electronic camera. Early complaints were the dodgy DX reader. I’m again tempted to get an M7. My M9-P is 14 years old. Not tempted to upgrade to the M10 yet. No bricking in sight.

but it happens..... here's an M9 for $500 bricked...

For Sale - Leica M9 not working sensor _ for repair

As probably all Leica users know, the original Leica M9 CCD sensor was defective, so the camera can fail at any time. It was just that that happened with my Leica M9: the shot 22594 was the last one. The camera comes with its original Leica M9 charger, cable, two original Leica batteries, and...

www.photrio.com