Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
The only difference is the addition of 28mm and 75mm frame lines in the M4-P.
Cheers
Dez
IIIg or M4-2
- Thread starter lxmike
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 56
- Views 840
The only difference is the addition of 28mm and 75mm frame lines in the M4-P.
Cheers
Dez
x-ray
Veteran
No question the M4-2. I've owned both the IIIG and M4-2 and even a couple of Summitars and Elmars. Throw in some M4's, M2's, M3's, M4-P's and MPs as well. The M4-2 was just as durable as my other M's and I used them professionally.
The argument against the M4-2 was the early ones had a plastic component in the frame counter. It would strip out and no longer count frames but still advanced film. Most likely over the decades most if not all have been updated and are no problem. Leica went to a more modular design with less adjustments internally. Their philosophy switched from adjust to fix a problem to replace a module to repair a problem. I understand this design continue through the M4-P and M6 with no problems.
Basically the M4-2 is an M4-P without the 28 & 75 frames and the same as an M6 without those two frames and minus the meter. It's just as fine a camera as the M6. Also in the M4-2 and later models the transport gears were made of steel vs brass in earlier models. The steel gears were more durable to take the stress of a motor drive and Leicavit.
As to RF flare, I never had a problem and I shot under terrible lighting.
Currently I have an M2 I've shot for decades, MP I've had for almost 10 years and an M4-P I picked up last year. It was 99% new and picked it up for $799. I would have bought an M4-2 but they were more expensive and not as clean.
I've owned several Barnacks and while they're fun for a while they're agrivating to load, not as good RF and VF and fewer lenses available. In every case I kept it for a while and sold it because it just was too awkward and slow to use. I've never regretted selling my Barnacks. To me they were toys not working tools.
Good luck with your decision.
The argument against the M4-2 was the early ones had a plastic component in the frame counter. It would strip out and no longer count frames but still advanced film. Most likely over the decades most if not all have been updated and are no problem. Leica went to a more modular design with less adjustments internally. Their philosophy switched from adjust to fix a problem to replace a module to repair a problem. I understand this design continue through the M4-P and M6 with no problems.
Basically the M4-2 is an M4-P without the 28 & 75 frames and the same as an M6 without those two frames and minus the meter. It's just as fine a camera as the M6. Also in the M4-2 and later models the transport gears were made of steel vs brass in earlier models. The steel gears were more durable to take the stress of a motor drive and Leicavit.
As to RF flare, I never had a problem and I shot under terrible lighting.
Currently I have an M2 I've shot for decades, MP I've had for almost 10 years and an M4-P I picked up last year. It was 99% new and picked it up for $799. I would have bought an M4-2 but they were more expensive and not as clean.
I've owned several Barnacks and while they're fun for a while they're agrivating to load, not as good RF and VF and fewer lenses available. In every case I kept it for a while and sold it because it just was too awkward and slow to use. I've never regretted selling my Barnacks. To me they were toys not working tools.
Good luck with your decision.
richard_l
Well-known
The LTMs are beautiful, and they are fashionable (almost a cult item); but for taking pictures (which is what I assume you are planning to do) there should be no argument that the M4-2 is superior and vastly more convenient to use. Otherwise, Leica would not have shifted production to the M design. Of course, if you don't really need a new camera for taking pictures, go ahead and get an LTM and discover for yourself that its popularity is more for its mystique (which it admittedly has) than for its practical value as a camera.
Scrambler
Well-known
Unlike some here I have bought with slimmer margins in mind, so I don't have a IIIg or M4-2 to compare, but I do have a Minolta CLE, a Konica Hexar RF and a Leica IIIc to compare. And I use each of them (and full digital others).
The role that a Leica IIIc plays is, as has been said, a specific use camera. It gets used when the other cameras would be over the top, when I wish to use the Leica approach to meter-less photography (with a separate meter).
In my case that is 50mm photography, or 35mm (with a Jupiter-12 35/2.8), or sometimes a Zeiss 85/2. The Leica 50/2 Summitar usually, though I have non-Leica lenses as well.
The key thing is to understand whether you wish for a multiple-lens camera, or whether you are more interested in a single or perhaps double lens camera (the IIIg has 50 and 90mm frames).
For me I wanted meters, hence the Minolta and Konica bodies though there are others. I wanted one camera without metering, and the Leica IIIc does that very nicely, including flash with an adapter.
Looking at your choice, you need to decide if you want more than your Canon (in a Leica body) or less (again in a Leica body).
The role that a Leica IIIc plays is, as has been said, a specific use camera. It gets used when the other cameras would be over the top, when I wish to use the Leica approach to meter-less photography (with a separate meter).
In my case that is 50mm photography, or 35mm (with a Jupiter-12 35/2.8), or sometimes a Zeiss 85/2. The Leica 50/2 Summitar usually, though I have non-Leica lenses as well.
The key thing is to understand whether you wish for a multiple-lens camera, or whether you are more interested in a single or perhaps double lens camera (the IIIg has 50 and 90mm frames).
For me I wanted meters, hence the Minolta and Konica bodies though there are others. I wanted one camera without metering, and the Leica IIIc does that very nicely, including flash with an adapter.
Looking at your choice, you need to decide if you want more than your Canon (in a Leica body) or less (again in a Leica body).
The IIIg is more elegant,
the M4-2 a better shooter and more versatile.
the M4-2 a better shooter and more versatile.
mkvrnn
Established
Personally I can't see the attraction of any post-M3 Leica because from the early sixties onwards they were outclassed by most of the better SLR rivals and became increasingly irrelevant. So out of those two, I'd choose the iiig every time. But if you're of an age where you lusted after an M4-2 as a child and are now in a position to buy one, then go ahead. It really doesn't matter what other people think.
If you want a great classic camera which is a pleasure to use , why not go for a 60s or early 70s Pentax or Olympus SLR which can still be bought for next to nothing. Or for something different capable of better technical quality than 35mm can deliver, try a Rolleiflex or other medium format.
If you want a great classic camera which is a pleasure to use , why not go for a 60s or early 70s Pentax or Olympus SLR which can still be bought for next to nothing. Or for something different capable of better technical quality than 35mm can deliver, try a Rolleiflex or other medium format.
lxmike
M2 fan.
thanks ladies and gents for all the thought provoking replies looks like l am on the look out M4-2😀
Bill Clark
Veteran
I did luck out and thought my experience might help you when looking for a used M 4-2. The one I bought had a previous owner who had Leica change the rangefinder to a M 4-P. So it has the frame lines for 28 wide angle lens. Perhaps, if a wide angle of this size interests you maybe something to look for when searching out a camera.
In another thread someone mentioned that the last M 4-2 cameras had the frame lines like the M 4-P. Maybe so, my camera is serial number 1469584 which I believe was msde in 1978.
Thought I'd pass on to you to help.
In another thread someone mentioned that the last M 4-2 cameras had the frame lines like the M 4-P. Maybe so, my camera is serial number 1469584 which I believe was msde in 1978.
Thought I'd pass on to you to help.
lxmike
M2 fan.
It been quite a week, a dream was snatched away from me when an ebay deal collapsed, at the last moment, paid in full by me, the seller then pulled the plug and decided not to sell the M5, then l got a call from a friend who owns a camera clinic, regarding a IIIG he has in. At the same time there was a nice M4-2 on ebay hence my original posting. Now you may ask, 'Mick do you have cash burning a hole in your pocket'? the answer in a way is yes! and sort of no, l turned 50 last year and want to mark that occasion by owning a classic camera off my must have 'camera and glass bucket list'....................so last night and for most of the day l had my funds marked down for a M4-2, after receiving so much advice, support and encouragement from you all. Now this is where it gets embarrassing, l am still in the market, (future), for an m4-2 but today an offer was accepted on another camera off my all time wish list, a Hasselblad 500 on its way to me as l type; it is a camera that has been at the top of my list since l was 16, thank you for all your advice and wise words they have not fallen on stony ground but l got distracted by Victor😱😎
Attachments
Robert Lai
Well-known
No need to be ashamed. Medium format will give you better image quality than even the finest Leica glass can give you in 35mm.
Congratulations on the Hassy.
Congratulations on the Hassy.
lxmike
M2 fan.
mnay thanks for your kind words. l got my first camera in 1977 , a Kodak 126 format x177, cameras have come and gone through the doors over the decades, a Hasselblad was always a dream and now it feels strange that tat dream is nearly complete. Now l begin a new journey, getting to grips with the square perspective 😱
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I'm crossing my fingers for you and hoping it's not a 'tat' dream. ;-)
Regards, David
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Very interesting mechanical device, I also liked mirror focusing combination on it. It is also very very slow in use comparing to Leica.
lxmike
M2 fan.
lxmike
M2 fan.
Pioneer
Veteran
Kind of interesting in an odd sort of way. The Hassie is a terrific camera but much more akin to Leica IIIg than a Leica M4-2.
I have a very nice IIIg and love to work with it. But I am really a 50/90 kind of guy. I do occasionally use a 35 with it using a very nice Canon lens and viewfinder combo.
This is my own take. If you are really looking to fill your bucket list then any of them will work. If you intend to use it quite a bit and you prefer 35mm or wider, then certainly chose the M4-2.
For me, the IIIg is a perfect match for the 50/90 range. The separate rangefinder is far more accurate than even the M3, and the viewfinder perfectly complements the two focal lengths including a larger viewfinder with parallax correction.
As for speed, I never really looked at any M as a speed demon but with adequate practice and preparation, you won't even notice a difference.
Enjoy the Hassie, terrific camera.
I have a very nice IIIg and love to work with it. But I am really a 50/90 kind of guy. I do occasionally use a 35 with it using a very nice Canon lens and viewfinder combo.
This is my own take. If you are really looking to fill your bucket list then any of them will work. If you intend to use it quite a bit and you prefer 35mm or wider, then certainly chose the M4-2.
For me, the IIIg is a perfect match for the 50/90 range. The separate rangefinder is far more accurate than even the M3, and the viewfinder perfectly complements the two focal lengths including a larger viewfinder with parallax correction.
As for speed, I never really looked at any M as a speed demon but with adequate practice and preparation, you won't even notice a difference.
Enjoy the Hassie, terrific camera.
lxmike
M2 fan.
Similar threads
