foolproof
Established
Thanks! What do you mean by wider exit pupil?
Also, you mention the optical change only came in for the second batch. How would you know 1st from 2nd batch M4-2's
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I might not be using the correct term, but I mean the area from which you can see the entire projected image formed by the viewfinder is larger.
You can tell which production batch a particular Leica was made in by looking up the serial number in a table. CameraQuest.com has a lot of these tables, but they are available from other sites as well.
You can tell which production batch a particular Leica was made in by looking up the serial number in a table. CameraQuest.com has a lot of these tables, but they are available from other sites as well.
foolproof
Established
So you can see more of / around the 35mm framelines on say the M4 compared to later models?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The M4 has .72x magnification finder, 35mm frame lines in the M4 will image at about the same relationship to total viewfinder coverage as all the later viewfinders with .72x magnification (M4-2, M4-P, M6, M6TTL .72x, etc).
The M9 viewfinder is .68x magnification, so 35mm frame lines appear a little smaller in the total viewfinder field of view, that is, you can see a little more around them at the edges.
foolproof
Established
If the mag of the viewfinder is the same then I still don't quite understand your original sentences on the matter -
''...more eye relief. ...I mean the area from which you can see the entire projected image formed by the viewfinder is larger'' etc
Sorry to be a pain I just don't quite get it
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I've not read the entire thread but short eye relief means you eye has to be up close to the rear lens of the VF. And long means it can be some way back and still work. Glasses, obviously (?), mean you can't get so near the VF and so longer eye relief if needed.
The expression is usually used when talking about binoculars.
Regards, David
I've not read the entire thread but short eye relief means you eye has to be up close to the rear lens of the VF. And long means it can be some way back and still work. Glasses, obviously (?), mean you can't get so near the VF and so longer eye relief if needed.
The expression is usually used when talking about binoculars.
Regards, David
Godfrey
somewhat colored
David has it right. The older viewfinder design allows me to view more comfortably because it has more eye relief (my eye doesn't need to be so close to the ocular) and larger 'exit pupil' (there's more leeway for my eye to be slightly off the optical center of the viewfinder's optical path and still see the scene and the frame lines clearly). Both of these things work together to make the M4-2 viewfinder more comfortable to work with since I wear glasses.
Magnification and the apparent size of the framelines in the viewfinder field of view are unaffected by these two characteristics of the viewfinder optics, although the eye position does impact the viewfinder field of view somewhat ... as your eye becomes closer to the ocular, you can see closer to the limits of the optics' edge more easily. With glasses, there's a limit to how close I can comfortably jam my eye up to the ocular.
foolproof
Established
steveyork
Well-known
I was underwhelmed with the M4 I had for a year or so. Nice camera, but after all the hoopla I've read over the years, I expected more. Even after a CLA the rangefinder didn't come close to the clarity of a modern M.
I really liked the more accurate framelines. Why can't we get this in a modern M? It prompted me to compare an M7 50mm and 35mm lines to a Leicaflex SL with that focal length of lens attached (93% coverage) and I was startled at the discrepancy. And it's not because of slide film! What does Leica think, we're idiots? Addicts yes, idiots no.
The M4 was a smooth camera. Similar to the several Leicaflex I have from that era.
I really liked the more accurate framelines. Why can't we get this in a modern M? It prompted me to compare an M7 50mm and 35mm lines to a Leicaflex SL with that focal length of lens attached (93% coverage) and I was startled at the discrepancy. And it's not because of slide film! What does Leica think, we're idiots? Addicts yes, idiots no.
The M4 was a smooth camera. Similar to the several Leicaflex I have from that era.
StillKicking
Established
Personally I'd go for a M3 DS or SS or if you want 35mm frame lines the M2.. The M4 is simply overpriced in comparison. Its a great camera and all that but not better than the M3.
Bingley
Veteran
A few years ago, I borrowed an M4 for an afternoon, and was underwhelmed. The vf was no better than Canon 7 I had at the time. So I shrugged off the M4. Last year, I had an opportunity to buy an M4-2 in glorious shape, and I went for it. No regrets. As smooth as my M2, but a shade lighter in weight. A perfect travel camera. I understand that one should avoid the early serial numbered M4-2s, but otherwise they're great shooters.
S.H.
Picture taker
I did bring my M8 and my M4 side by side in a mountain trip : the frames in the M8 kept flaring/disappearing in the strong light, not the case with the M4 (I wear glasses). I does not bother me that much because I am used to it, I know where the frames should be.
Older style viewfinders are slightly better as it was already said here: better eye relief and one does not need to align perfectly the eye and the rf patch. But any M still take pictures, and better a good M4-2/P than a trashed M3/M4.
Here is mine:
Older style viewfinders are slightly better as it was already said here: better eye relief and one does not need to align perfectly the eye and the rf patch. But any M still take pictures, and better a good M4-2/P than a trashed M3/M4.
Here is mine
:
heliographer
Member
I have a nice M4, but I prefer my older, more beat-up M2. I don't know why, exactly.
matt335
Well-known
Thanks Tom, I always hang out for Tom's wise words. I have an M4 coupled with a summaron 35mm. It is a beautiful easy to load/shoot camera.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hi Tom! Been a long time since we spoke, probably since my LUG days a decade ago!
Of the dozen and some Leica Ms I've had over the years, the ones that felt best to me were an M4-P that Sherry Krauter had just done a full CLA on shortly before I bought it and my current M4-2, which was built in the first production batch (I had its viewfinder cleaned and adjusted shortly after I bought it). My M6TTL felt somehow a little crude, the M9 feels more like an appliance (I guess it's the loss of tactile feel from the film wind), the first M4-P I had was a bit rough, the M2 and M3s were nice but they always felt clumsy to me with the film loading, etc etc.
I don't think the M4-2 has ever had a shutter overhaul ... it does need one as when I had the viewfinder taken care of the tech measured the shutter speeds and found that 1/1000 and 1/500 were getting a bit off the mark. Not enough yet to warrant the cost to have the overhaul done for my needs.
In the end, they're just cameras and it's nice that each one has a little bit of a personality to it! They've all made great photographs for me.
enjoy
Godfrey
venchka
Veteran
I have lusted after an M4 since I saw the first photos of the camera in some long forgotten magazine. I was in Germany during 1969. Could have had an M4 body for $160. I was lured away by the "real" camera of the day-a pair of Nikon F bodies. Big mistake.
Fast forward.
I finally bought a Leica. An M5. I don't lust after the M4 near as much any longer.
Sure. It's about the glass. The M5 and it's fabulous meter get the most out of the lenses.
Wayne
Fast forward.
I finally bought a Leica. An M5. I don't lust after the M4 near as much any longer.
Sure. It's about the glass. The M5 and it's fabulous meter get the most out of the lenses.
Wayne
Godfrey
somewhat colored
glad you're happy with the M5. My uncle had one and I borrowed it for a time. It felt clumsy and huge to me at the time, compared to the IIF and IIC I was using, but perspectives are everything.
The only camera I ever really 'lusted' for was a Hasselblad Superwide. First saw one in 1971, I finally acquired one in 2002-a mint 903SWC. Loved it: used it for two and a half years. Sold it. I occasionally miss the fantasy, but in the end it was just another camera...
venchka
Veteran
It is all relative. After hoisting one of these,
...everything else is svelte and stealthy by comparison.
Wayne
...everything else is svelte and stealthy by comparison.
Wayne
Range-rover
Veteran
I had a M4 their beautiful camera's I think their made a little better than the M4-2's.
I was talking to Jim Lager one day* about it at Ken Hansen's And he agreed the early
M4-2's had problems till that got them straighten out, plus I felt the rangefinder was not as
clear, someone said above that the rangefinder patch flares out when you don't
have your eye centered in the M6,M4-2, but in the M3 and M4's which I had they where
really clear no flare if you eye moved from side to side and when you focus a lens
with a M4, M3 the pictures seem sharper to me their's more details there, when I
had the M6 sometimes I missed the sharp focus on some shots.
Range
* Years ago
I was talking to Jim Lager one day* about it at Ken Hansen's And he agreed the early
M4-2's had problems till that got them straighten out, plus I felt the rangefinder was not as
clear, someone said above that the rangefinder patch flares out when you don't
have your eye centered in the M6,M4-2, but in the M3 and M4's which I had they where
really clear no flare if you eye moved from side to side and when you focus a lens
with a M4, M3 the pictures seem sharper to me their's more details there, when I
had the M6 sometimes I missed the sharp focus on some shots.
Range
* Years ago
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The M4-2 is the camera that saved Leica from going out of business. The CL had cost them a bundle on warranty and rework (immensely popular, they sold like crazy, but Minolta's QA didn't meet Leica's spec very well). The M5 was a dismal failure on the market, and the R series at that point in time didn't generate enough revenue to keep the doors open. The Ms up to the M4 were manufactured a very old fashioned way, which was becoming increasingly too expensive and too inefficient to manufacture at a salable price.
So they took the M4 design and re-did it to be manufactured in a more modern production line manner. They made the M4-2s in three production runs. The early output from the first run were the ones that had most of the problems. It makes sense that they would because it was a) the first time Leica manufactured a camera on the new line, and b) a greatly redesigned camera with many different and simplified parts compared to the M4. They seemed to get the line sorted out by the middle of the first production run. Mine is from the end of the first production run.
The viewfinder optical assembly through the first run and into about half of the second was directly the original one out of the M4, so they're identical. An in-production change changed the optics as Leica was responding to customer requests that the framelines be brighter. They removed one element from the finder assembly, which had the effect of brightening the framelines at the expense of introducing a bit more flare and tightening up the position your eye had to be in to use it effectively. This later design of the viewfinder optics is what is in all the later models. Mine has the earlier, M4 optical design.
Some of the changes made to the M4-2 to simplify it and make it less costly to manufacture also lend it a bit more durability (like steel gears in the film transport rather than bronze or brass) and a rangefinder assembly that has fewer parts to fit and shim to tolerance. But the differences are all relatively minor. A well taken care of example of any of these cameras is a delight.