In praise of the M4-2

[Huss]

I just received an M4-2 from Maitani, here on this site.
This camera has received a lot of grief from many as the low water mark in the traditional M film cameras. But how bad could it be? it's an M Leica!

Playing with it I am really surprised. It is, just like other Ms, so so sweet.
The VF I would argue is one of the best as it is not cluttered with frame line selections. 35/135 combo, 50 and 90 stand alone. Very bright finder (mine is in the 150XXX serial # range) with very contrasty rf patch. Film wind is smooth and solid. Maybe my M3s are smoother, it's hard to tell. But it feels the same as my M5 and M7.
The only place where I see a difference is the stamped and filled Leica logo on the top plate.

This is gonna be fun.

 

[geetist]

I wouldn't argue with the statement that it's a sweet camera. It is indeed. But I don't agree with the statement that it's "just like the other Ms". Actually I was speaking with Sherry Krauter on the phone last week and she mentioned specifically that "the only camera that doesn't deserve the Leitz label is the m4-2". As a leitz factory trained technician with 40+ years experience, I believe Sherry has her reasons.

But the bottom line is, we are camera users and the M4-2 is a camera that is good enough for us. Leica quality is usually an overkill anyway. A camera may fail to meet leica standards but still be a great camera.

Just my two cents. Congrats on the purchase!

 

[peterm1]

I had one and while I liked it I found that in some respects it was not quite as robust as (some?) other models. In my case the flash sync "jack" at the back of the camera broke away. On investigation I found this was not due to misuse or abuse on my part (and in any event I treat my cameras like babies) but rather a design flaw. The external connection point was screwed into a plastic internal mounting piece which was fragile and was prone to break after a few years of even gentle use. When I posted (possibly on this forum) about the issue I found others who had the same problem which seemed common. It seemed like a relatively shoddy way for such an expensive camera to be built. Never the less in most other respects I was happy with how it performed and if you are not bothered bother by such details (which is cosmetic if you do not use flash) I think you will be too. I did sell mine some years ago but kept my M3 until recently when I realized I no longer shoot film enough to justify it.

 

[benmacphoto]

The M4-2 is definitely a great M.
I've owned and used every film M, and the M4-2 is the only one I've kept.
It's a workhorse camera.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The only reason why I didn't purchased second M4-2 is because M4P also made in Canada!

 

[Huss]

What pushed me over the edge was this review:

http://nemeng.com/leica/016b.shtml

And I made sure to get a serial # past the early batch

"It thus appears that the entire M4-2 production run has become unfairly stigmatised by a poor reputation earned by the first few hundred cameras. Provided you steer well clear of these (serial #s: 1 468 001 - 1482 000), it makes little sense to dismiss the entire production run."

It's also interesting that the M4-2 was the last film M to use brass top and bottom plates until the M7 arrived.

 

[xayraa33]

How many times do we got to go over the "oh how I feel sorry for the M4-2 not being on par with the older models" commentary. I think we have covered this ground several times now in recent years.😛

 

[peterm1]

Here is an earlier post on the flash sync port issue. I mis-remembered the model of my camera which was an M4 P not an M4 2. But other posts on that thread confirm both share the same (potential) problem as they both have this design flaw. And it is a design flaw....a Leica M camera is supposed to be the epitome of good design and build - that's what you pay big bucks for. Never the less do not let me put you off. In most other respects I had little to complain about with my camera (remembering however it was an M4 P not an M4 2.)

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88296

 

[giganova]

This camera has received a lot of grief from many as the low water mark in the traditional M film cameras.

Yes, but this urban myth has been debunked by someone here on this board who compared the inner parts of the M4 (Wetzlar) with the M4-2 and established that they are identical 😀 Plus, it's the M that saved Leica!

 

[Bill Clark]

The used M4-2 camera I bought has the frame lines for 28 lens. Someone must of had it changed before me.

 

[Tom A]

What pushed me over the edge was this review:

http://nemeng.com/leica/016b.shtml


It's also interesting that the M4-2 was the last film M to use brass top and bottom plates until the M7 arrived.

The M4P was brass top and bottom until about 1600 000 number.Later M4P's had the zinc die cast top and bottom (flush window) - brass had recessed windows. Very late M4P's also had a single flash synch socket.
The M4-2 is a good camera. The initial shutter problems are most likely fixed on the one that shows up today.
Interesting tidbit of trivia . The first 100 or so M42's had the Leica "rondel" on the front - and also just one slot in the bottom drive connection

 

[Huss]

Interesting tidbit of trivia . The first 100 or so M42's had the Leica "rondel" on the front - and also just one slot in the bottom drive connection

Do you mean the red Leica badge in the vulcanite i.e not on the front of the top plate?
Mine has that, but it is not a first 100 or so model as its serial number is in the 150K range.

 

[Huss]

How many times do we got to go over the "oh how I feel sorry for the M4-2 not being on par with the older models" commentary. I think we have covered this ground several times now in recent years.😛

First time for me! But I had read about it and now it is really interesting comparing it to my other Ms. Of course there are differences but they all are so sweet.

 

[Robert Lai]

I just got my M4-2 back from Don Goldberg. It was fine to start with, except that the shutter speed dial was stiff to turn. He lessened the tension on the detente. Also, in the course of the overhaul, he informed me that mine still had the M2-M4 condenser in the rangefinder pathway, which he calls the "flare free" finder. So, you really want a middle of the pack serial number M4-2, which avoids the early teething pains, but still retains that valuable M4 style rangefinder with condenser. Otherwise, it would be $160 extra for Don to install it.

The M4-2 has the same framelines as the M4, so it is uncluttered.

Being obsessive compulsive, I bought a new old stock top from RFF member Nobbylon. There was nothing really wrong with the old one, except that it has a slight ding on one edge. Dings really, really annoy me. Now I have a spare top for my parts drawer.

After a proper overhaul, the camera is as smooth and silky as my M2, M3, M5, and M7. Finding a nice black chrome MR-4 meter to go with it was harder, but I did find one, and Don overhauled the meter also. It now uses 1.5V silver oxide cells.

In terms of cost cutting, the M4-2 was the first of the M series to use modular components. All the subsequent M cameras are built this way (and all other camera manufacturers do this too). The old techniques such as the vulcanite covering, which Don says is very time and labor intensive, are still used on the M4-2. The cost cutting came at the end of the M4-P to M6, when the tops switched to zinc, and the vulcanite era ended for the current adhesive covering.

Finally, the Leica M was officially dead until the Canadian branch of Leica managed to convince Wetzlar to continue production as the M4-2. All subsequent M cameras owe their existence to this one camera model. It is even a fairly uncommon model, as only 16,000 were made.

 

[Rayt]

>Provided you steer well clear of these (serial #s: 1 468 001 - 1482 000)

There was another recent thread where someone said to go for the early versions due to them being same as M4 internally with the downside being unreliability. I checked and mine is around this range. I am sure the owners before me had fixed whatever needed to be fixed since it works perfectly.

 

[splitimageview]

The early ones being a potential problem was only a problem, well, in the early days. 🙂

We're 40 years down the road, it's more important how well (or not) the camera was cared for in the interim that matters. Nearly all Ms will have required service in that time period...

The M4-2 was the first Leica M I ever bought and I've always liked them, not that I dislike the others.

 

[Godfrey]

We've gone over this ground many times.

Of all the film Ms I've owned, the one I've kept is an early M4-2. I prefer its viewfinder, same as the M4. It's required nothing other than the viewfinder CLA when I first got it (due to years of sitting in dusty drawers most likely) and works very well.

Enjoy yours, Huss.

G

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I think every single model has been condemned as bad, even heresy, when it came out by owners of the previous model.

The truth is the models are all different but they take photo's with accurate shutter speeds and Leica lenses and that's the acid test. After a few years they may need a bit of attention and one or two mistakes have been made but corrected. That is all you need to know.

When all's said and done, the weak spot is the nut holding the camera and pushing the shutter...

Regards, David

 

[Hern]

Ah. Mine should be making its way from Austria in a few days from now, feeling the hype for my second ever M body.
As long as it mounts my lenses and has accurate shutter speeds, I think the only inferior part of the chain is an unmotivated me 😀

 

[nobbylon]

I've never noticed a difference between them and All the others. A great basic camera like the rest.