How did you get out of Leica?

[Deleted member 65559]

Ko.Fe. About the 4th repair, I'm entirely with you. Either your M4-2 was previously abused or a lemon. With the almost 100yr Leica reputation for reliability, I'd feel cheated.

When I bought my first Leica as a student, there were still people who bought them for their 'cult' status and quickly traded them in when they tired of the game or found they couldn't magically produce better photographs. You could always buy an almost unused one for a fraction of the new price.

I agree with Phil F NM:"What got me really turned off about Leica is the incredible pricing, the boutique fashion accessory camera, instead of a reliable professional tool. I tried to love them as a company but their lack of support due to my not spending upwards of $100,000 on lenses and cameras, left me out in the wind when I was needing a reliable camera for making money, not a camera out at a service center getting repaired. The film cameras work brilliantly but the digital cameras were awful for professional use, in my opinion. That's why I'm out."

As for DR paper & chemicals.... it is sad, but I suppose the law of supply and demand. I have boxes full of duplicate 16x20" prints. I used to use full sheets of 8x10 FB paper for proofing and throw it away like used Kleenex. Now I'm much more stingy w materials.

As for the $8000 film M....that's the price, but you have to have a lot of money for toys when you can still find an M2 or M3 for under $1k...that is a working photographic tool.

 

[Beemermark]

I don't see any practical reason to send M4-2 for fourth repair and pay for it next to its initial price for me.

Hah! I sold my M4-2 right after the 3rd repair. That was back in the early '80's. I think you (could have been someone else) posted about a V3(4) 50 Summicron being made in Canada with plastic parts. This was the low point of Leica construction I think. The company came close to bankruptcy when they dropped the M4 and brought out the M5 (which was very unpopular) so they shifted to Canada and cheapened the M4 and some lenses by using inferior materials. The plastic chosen was not the same plastic in use today. Leica replaced the M4-2 with the M4-P which is almost the same camera without the cheaper parts. You have to think why did Leica change the model designation?

In fairness, I've read on the net after the same, repeatable, failings of the M4-2, the problematic parts were replaced and the camera upgraded during it's run. And based on all the users happy with it today I assume only the improved, or repaired, models survived.

HUSS - With all this talk of the M6, I always thought of it as a low water mark for Leica.
It had the cheapest level construction, a dumbed down RF that flares badly, but with the addition of a very basic meter.
Zinc bubbles anyone?

I traded an M4 & lens for a new M6 body right after they came out. After 6 months I went back to the same dealer and traded the M6 for a Konica RF. I can;t believe the prices it sells for now. For the same price you can buy an M7 and have a far better camera. Or an M4 & MR-4 meter.

 

[Huss]

..

HUSS - With all this talk of the M6, I always thought of it as a low water mark for Leica.
It had the cheapest level construction, a dumbed down RF that flares badly, but with the addition of a very basic meter.
Zinc bubbles anyone?

I traded an M4 & lens for a new M6 body right after they came out. After 6 months I went back to the same dealer and traded the M6 for a Konica RF. I can;t believe the prices it sells for now. For the same price you can buy an M7 and have a far better camera. Or an M4 & MR-4 meter.

It's amazing the current pull the M6 has. A few days ago I was out shooting when a kid (ok, early 20s) came up to me and asked what Leica I was using. I then asked him about his camera (a Nikon F3), which he said he loved but was saving for an M6!

I think this is reflected in the steep increase in prices of the M6 - it seems to be the Leica that kids associate with for some reason.

 

[Huss]

Where are many who are keep on buying film cameras as well. Couple of new film M are same 8000 USD...

What new film Leica is $8000?

 

[JohnTF]

When you shoot less, you collect more? Careful, some of them are loaded-- ;-)

 

[Beemermark]

What new film Leica is $8000?

Ko.Fe is Canadian so I think $8000 Canadian, which is about the cost of an MP.

 

[Huss]

Ko.Fe is Canadian so I think $8000 Canadian, which is about the cost of an MP.

He wrote USD 8000

 

[css9450]

The company came close to bankruptcy when they dropped the M4 and brought out the M5 (which was very unpopular)....

That to me is the most telling thing about Leica. Why exactly was the M5 unpopular? Could it be possibly because it didn't look like the ones that came before it? Otherwise, it was an M with a lightmeter. How could that be a failure? I think in reality, the M5 was so immediately different looking, that it didn't convey the image of "old money" like its predecessors did. It was tacky. Show up at the yacht club in 1972 with an M5 and you're likely to be turned away. So ever since then, they have painstakingly made everything the exact same shape and size as the M4. In other words: Appearance is everything.

 

[Pál_K]

Kidding aside, I always thought more important "getting out" of various silly attitudes associated with Leica ownership than the camera system itself.

In 30+ years, the only place I've encountered attitudes towards cameras is on the internet - the Leica, Nikon, Canon rivalries, full frame vs m43 vs mirrorless , etc. Just internet forums and web pages have these discussions. Also in printed magazines trying to get sales.

In person, nobody - truly nobody - has ever spoken to me about a camera I was carrying, even if it's a Leica, a Rolleiflex, or Hasselblad. Wait - - - someone did notice I was using a Polaroid camera.

 

[Beemermark]

That to me is the most telling thing about Leica. Why exactly was the M5 unpopular? Could it be possibly because it didn't look like the ones that came before it? Otherwise, it was an M with a lightmeter. How could that be a failure? I think in reality, the M5 was so immediately different looking, that it didn't convey the image of "old money" like its predecessors did. It was tacky. Show up at the yacht club in 1972 with an M5 and you're likely to be turned away. So ever since then, they have painstakingly made everything the exact same shape and size as the M4. In other words: Appearance is everything.

When the M5 was introduced Leica was still considered a professional camera, rather than just an expensive toy. It was used extensively for fast shots of fleeting news worthy people. Probably 80% of the photographers were shooting B&W and never used a meter. Meters were needed for slide films and in professional photography pros used medium and large format for slide films to make color ads in magazines and brochures. If you look at old Life and Look magazines in 1970 and earlier you almost never see color except on the cover. So what did the M5 offer? A meter that one interested in, a bigger, bulkier body compared to the M4.

if you wanted a meter, and your shooting requirements ran in that direction, you bought a Nikon SLR. If you were going big, then go big.

Today's view on the M5 is far different from those in the '70's. I've had two M5's over the decades, sold them both and stuck with the M4 and M4-R meter when I needed it. And in my opinion I can meter and shoot faster with the MR-4 then I can with fiddling around the camera controls while trying to match needles in the VF. Probable another reason why the M5 didn't catch on.

 

[jsrockit]

He wrote USD 8000

With a lens, $8000 is easy... M-A or MP new with a Summicron would do it.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

"That to me is the most telling thing about Leica. Why exactly was the M5 unpopular? Could it be possibly because it didn't look like the ones that came before it? Otherwise, it was an M with a lightmeter."

CSS, Nowadays DSLRs are big cameras and the size of the M5 doesn't seem like a big deal. But in 1971 the M4 was just 5 years old, and the idea of a built in light meter was cool. I remember when the M5 was introduced. I was a university student at the time, could never afford a brand new Leica, but I was into photography and knew a bunch of salesman at a couple of shops. There was no online shopping, and there were often long camera store conversations.
The shape, size, & side-mounted strap lugs were completely different from the classic M2/3/4. It was not, as you said... "an M with a lightmeter," it was a completely new design in a parallel universe. (An M with a meter....that would eventually be the M6)
For people used to the handling of the classic M, the M5 was big and awkward. Yes, the spotmeter was accurate for transparency film, but that wasn't enough to overcome the other characteristics. From a design standpoint, it was the '58 Edsel of the Leica world.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

The rather strange thing is that hunting in the UK there are no M5s at all at dealers, M6s are there but the usual special editions bulking out the numbers. M2s and M3s are hens teeth rare, and some, but not many M4s. I had a quick hunt through a couple of German dealers and the same applies.

I think the M5 having a meter is now heavily in its favour.

 

[css9450]

When the M5 was introduced Leica was still considered a professional camera, rather than just an expensive toy. It was used extensively for fast shots of fleeting news worthy people.

True, definately, but the days when the majority of pros used rangefinders had long since peaked by the 1970s. The M5s which were purchased by pros did indeed see heavy professional use, but those cameras were just a drop in the bucket compared to all those Fs and F2s and Canon F-1s already in use.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

The rather strange thing is that hunting in the UK there are no M5s at all at dealers, M6s are there but the usual special editions bulking out the numbers. M2s and M3s are hens teeth rare, and some, but not many M4s. I had a quick hunt through a couple of German dealers and the same applies.

I think the M5 having a meter is now heavily in its favour.

Charles, I think the scarcity of M5 has to do with production numbers:
Leica M5 33,900
Leica M4 60,691
Leica M3 220,000
Leica M2 83,000
Leica M6 50,000

 

[Michael Markey]

The rather strange thing is that hunting in the UK there are no M5s at all at dealers, M6s are there but the usual special editions bulking out the numbers. M2s and M3s are hens teeth rare, and some, but not many M4s. I had a quick hunt through a couple of German dealers and the same applies.

I think the M5 having a meter is now heavily in its favour.

I`ve noticed that too.
Places like Red Dot and Aperture always had a good selection of the older M bodies but not now it seems .

It wasn`t long ago that an M7 would set you back £1.4K and now they`re asking two.
If you can find one .
M2 and M3 are similarly knocking on the £1k mark

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Thanks Ko.Fe. for starting an interesting topic that generated some discussion.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Charles, I think the scarcity of M5 has to do with production numbers:
Leica M5 33,900
Leica M4 60,691
Leica M3 220,000
Leica M2 83,000
Leica M6 50,000

Undoubtedly, but when I bought mine I had no difficulty in finding one, now none to be found for months (I have been looking out of idle curiosity).

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I`ve noticed that too.
Places like Red Dot and Aperture always had a good selection of the older M bodies but not now it seems .

It wasn`t long ago that an M7 would set you back £1.4K and now they`re asking two.
If you can find one .
M2 and M3 are similarly knocking on the £1k mark

The astonishing thing is that R stuff is being sold at a rate too. Fortunately, with the exception of long lenses I covet but don't need, I've got the stuff I want, and a hopefully temporary absence of the folding wedge, no means of acquiring it.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Charles and Michael, an interesting observation on availability. Websites for Leica in Paris also show few, while Leica in Vienna list 68 M film bodies, including 3 M5s.