Coming back to the Leica M7

[38Deardorff]

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...

Chuck "sizzle" .....that's entirely your personal opinion.....not your engineer's perspective. My first M was an M2 (chrome of course) and i'm sure it's clicking away somewhere. For me chrome doesn't do it, more "sizzle" for me would be a black M2 like the one i sold.....but do i really want to wander around using a camera body that sells for 18,000 € / 20,000 USD ? Essentially the M2/M3/M4 are different only in a few details (which may or may not be important to any individual user).....they're all bench assembled cameras. So to use your analogy.... the M1 through M4 are all BMW class (but requiring less maintenance 😛).

 

[chuckroast]

Chuck "sizzle" .....that's entirely your personal opinion.....not your engineer's perspective. My first M was an M2 (chrome of course) and i'm sure it's clicking away somewhere. For me more "sizzle" for me would be a black M2 like the one i sold.....but do i really want to wander around using a camera body that sells for 18,000 € / 20,000 USD ? Essentially the M2/M3/M4 are different only in a few details (which may or may not be important to any individual user).....they're all bench assembled cameras. So to use your analogy.... the M1 through M4 are all BMW class (but requiring less maintenance 😛).

Does that make DAG Alpina?

 

[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). Analogously, 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 ...a

Back for more. By the time the Leica M5 came out, the Nikon F had established itself as the pro camera. I bought my first Nikkormat when i was a teenager and had just started university...& within a month i had traded it in for an F.....trading for a Leica M2 wasn't far behind.

It's worth mentioning that yours is a uniquely american perspective. The vietnam war vets bringing back nikons....didn't happen in the entire rest of the world....

To concentrate on the Leica and the rejection of the M5. It's very easy to pick and choose 50 yrs after the fact when these cameras are going for a song, and most of the cameras we're talking about aren't being used professionally...so a few hundred $$ separates many of them.
My personal perspective comes from buying these when they were new in-production cameras. Ask yourself which would you buy at current M-11 prices? It would require careful consideration. For the M5 size was a consideration..... you step out of a sports car into a pickup truck. The M5 is big and squared off. The original 2 lugs were awkward. Yes the match needle meter is cool (i'd much prefer it to the lights on an M6/MP). I used an M4 and M5 concurrently. I didn't buy mine new but it was pre-bought & unused. I flat out didn't like the way it handled....and re-sold it within months.

To your comment about the CL.... it was aimed at an entirely different segment of the market.....& the Leica CL/Leitz Minolta CL and the subsequent Minolta CLE sold over 85,000.
I still use Leicas & for the sake of nostalgia have a Nikon F

M4 made 58,000
M3 25,000
M2 circa 82,000
M5 circa 33,000

 

[chuckroast]

Back for more. By the time the Leica M5 came out, the Nikon F had established itself as the pro camera. I bought my first Nikkormat when i was a teenager and had just started university...& within a month i had traded it in for an F.....trading for a Leica M2 wasn't far behind.

It's worth mentioning that yours is a uniquely american perspective. The vietnam war vets bringing back nikons....didn't happen in the entire rest of the world....

Well ... sort of. The US was joined by Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, and the Philippines with active troop involvement. Japan and Taiwan supported the war with logistical support and hosting military bases. I think it's fair to say it was an Asian & US experience, but not a European one which is not "the rest of the world" no matter what the Europeans think 😉

But people transiting through Asia to the West during that era - for whatever reasons - definitely brought the F to us. Moreover, everyone pretty much watched the news and a whole bunch of reporters were carrying Fs in the jungles of SE Asia.

To concentrate on the Leica and the rejection of the M5. It's very easy to pick and choose 50 yrs after the fact when these cameras are going for a song, and most of the cameras we're talking about aren't being used professionally...so a few hundred $$ separates many of them.

In my experience, clean M5s are now selling for more than, say, an M2 and about what I paid for an M4. But this is highly variable and depends on the mood of the used market.

My personal perspective comes from buying these when they were new in-production cameras. Ask yourself which would you buy at current M-11 prices? It would require careful consideration. For the M5 size was a consideration..... you step out of a sports car into a pickup truck. The M5 is big and squared off. The original 2 lugs were awkward. Yes the match needle meter is cool (i'd much prefer it to the lights on an M6/MP). I used an M4 and M5 concurrently. I didn't buy mine new but it was pre-bought & unused. I flat out didn't like the way it handled....and re-sold it within months.

A fair point, to be sure. In the early 1970s, if both the M4 and M5 had been available to me at a price I could have swallowed, it would have been a tough call. But that meter was a real attraction. Not only was it needle match (as God command man to do in the Garden Of Eden), it was also a spot meter.

I think the size and weight difference of the traditional M and the M5 is often overstated in its implication in practice. I use both fairly regularly and don't have to go through all that much cognitive shift when switching.

But "handling" is very much a personal thing and once people have built a particular kind of muscle memory, it's hard to switch gears, I concede.

To your comment about the CL.... it was aimed at an entirely different segment of the market.....& the Leica CL/Leitz Minolta CL and the subsequent Minolta CLE sold over 85,000.
I still use Leicas & for the sake of nostalgia have a Nikon F

M4 made 58,000
M3 25,000
M2 circa 82,000
M5 circa 33,000

My only point there was that the CL give you a lot of M5 features for less money. It is widely accepted that it ate into M5 sales, irrespective of the initial target audience.

 

[38Deardorff]

CR "But people transiting through Asia to the West during that era - for whatever reasons - definitely brought the F to us. Moreover, everyone pretty much watched the news and a whole bunch of reporters were carrying Fs in the jungles of SE Asia."

If you talk about the Korean war & David Douglas Duncan...sure (Nikon Lenses).
By the height of the Vietnam war 1969-73, all the Japanese SLRs were widely distributed in the world. They were advertised and reviewed in magazines like Pop Photo.
To the north of you here in Canada you could buy them in any small town photo shop, as I did, couple of years before Woodstock.

"In March 1959, the public got their first glance of the F in a Japan-wide press tour, then in a US trade show in Philadelphia later that month. The early reaction was enthusiastic, especially in Japan. An Osaka department store demo in particular attracted 130,000 admirers over six days. The press was similarly enthused, with Asahi Camera declaring that the camera had basically solved every one of the SLR format’s major failings. By the time the camera reached Photokina in 1960, it had already made a name for itself. Orders through camera sellers and wholesalers were piling up by the thousands, and pressrooms everywhere quickly adopted the new machine."
(Nikon F - The Camera That Changed Everything)

 

[Richard G]

We amateurs don’t have jobs to do. I got an M5 as it was the first Leica I used as a teenager and years later RFF persuaded me of its virtues. I bought it from DAG when I was 50. Loved it. You appreciate its lines and lineage much more in silver chrome. Maybe I’m the sort of guy who could go out with a woman taller than him. I once did. The M5 was an unnecessary acquisition, as would be an M7. But I might still get that M7. There’s a 0.85 finder M7 nearby for sale. But I’m on the verge of reducing my inventory, so far by way of not increasing it. My next expense will likely be getting my 500CM, 80 Planar and two backs serviced. There’s another big camera I love. Well I can’t collect cars.

 

[Keith]

I can still remember the gentle 'klop' of my M7's shutter. 🙂

 

[Out to Lunch]

This Canadian photographer sure loves his M7:

 

[38Deardorff]

This Canadian photographer sure loves his M7:

Every review is biased. Clearly Rob S loves the M7. As he mentions in the video referring to a former teacher....great photos can be made w any camera.
Choose one, buy one.....love it or change horses. No need to struggle with a poor fit. There are lots of choices...

 

[Out to Lunch]

Ah, good, I thought you might know him. He is a gifted story teller.