Leica M4-P serial number

[Wulfthari]

Dear Leicisti,
today I decided to finish 2013 with a big bang,I pulled the trigger and I came back home with a M4-P with a Mr-4 lightmeter (pretty useless, I know, but I got it for free), a Tele-Elmarit and a strap...all for 600 euros.

I couldn't say no of course, coming back home I checked out some information on the model and I found out a bug surprise: according to the official charts this P should be a M4-2...the serial number is 1532410 while the lens is 3066101, I know that's it's a trivial question but anybody know at which serial number Leitz Canada started to produce the 4-P?

 

[coelacanth]

I'm sure you've seen http://cameraquest.com/mtype.htm so I can't comment on more detailed or alternative info about the M4-P S/N, but according to that list, the first M4-P was 1543351 (All M4-Ps were made by Leitz Canada, except the last 1000 assembled in Wetzlar according to cameraquest article: http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm).

I found this old thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107854

Last comment there:

Leitz has closed the M4-2 series with 1533350. For the M4-P they did not start it with 1533351 but 1543351, so a new series with "154" was initiated...

Maybe M4-2 was "upgraded" to M4-P by someone? No idea if Leica offered such service, but they've done similar things from Barnack days, and they've done in modern days such as M9 to M9-P. Or maybe It was M4-P to begin with and the shoe was replaced at some point?

 

[ChrisLivsey]

M4-2
1978-1980
1468001-1525351-1533350

M4-P
1981-1987
1543351-1692950

But you are not alone: Camera 1532885 is a M4-P per L-Forum discussion

Ref:http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/M4-P

Lens dates to 1980 on my lists.
3065801--306680090mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M (ELC) 1980 Batch 1000

 

[Wulfthari]

I'm sure you've seen http://cameraquest.com/mtype.htm so I can't comment on more detailed or alternative info about the M4-P S/N, but according to that list, the first M4-P was 1543351 (All M4-Ps were made by Leitz Canada, except the last 1000 assembled in Wetzlar according to cameraquest article: http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm).

I found this old thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107854

Last comment there:


Maybe M4-2 was "upgraded" to M4-P by someone? No idea if Leica offered such service, but they've done similar things from Barnack days, and they've done in modern days such as M9 to M9-P. Or maybe It was M4-P to begin with and the shoe was replaced at some point?

mmm, the camera has the serial number on the left side of the hot shoe, and still has the sticker of the Leica distributor for the Italian market of the time, for "upgrading" a M4-2 to M4-P standard they should have changed the entire top plate (that looks as worm as the baseplate) and added the additional framelines...quite a lot of work for a "budget" model.

 

[Wulfthari]

M4-2
1978-1980
1468001-1525351-1533350

M4-P
1981-1987
1543351-1692950

But you are not alone: Camera 1532885 is a M4-P per L-Forum discussion

Ref:http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/M4-P

Lens dates to 1980 on my lists.
3065801--306680090mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M (ELC) 1980 Batch 1000

So do we have to assume that the production of the M4-P started with a small batch in 1980 while the M4-2 was still in production?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Is the wax L seal still intact with the embossed L? If so then it's possibly a factory camera, if not, the top plate could have easily been changed out by anyone with a few spanner wrenches.
Someone could have even changed out the hotshoe alone with an M4-2 number but an M4-P top plate.

Phil Forrest

 

[Tom A]

Leica Midland assigned an optimistic number sequence for the M4-2 (i have heard 15 000). The production was about 1/2 of that. Rather than leaving the block of numbers un-assigned - they just used them early on. The serial number of the M4-2 and M4-P was engraved on the "shoe" rather than on the top-plate as previous models. I have had M4P's with these early numbers and I suspect that at the time they simply took housings and made M4P's instead of M4-2's. Leica Midland was notorious for rather haphazard book keeping - and at the time, nobody cared as long as you got the features you wanted.

 

[Frankd]

I own both an M4-2 and an M4-P from near those transition serial numbers, although my M4-P starts with serial #154 so there is no question. However, I would not get too worried about which it is since the only real difference seems to be the extra framelines for 28mm and I think 135mm.

Basically both cameras function and feel the same. I like both of them and they work well for my style of photography. Good luck and shooting with yours.

 

[Wulfthari]

Thanks for the answers...I'm not worried, just curious.

It seems to me a very costly operation to change top plate, viewfinder and hot shoe (it seems that the serial numbers were printed in a different position) just to "upgrade" a 4-2 to 4-P standard, I know very little of the history of this camera besides that I bought it from my trusty tech, today he finished to repair my Contax IIIA and my Zorki 6, I had eyed the M4-P some months ago and since I had the funds and I could buy a "poor man's M4" with a tele-elmarit and a MR-4 for little money I said why not?

He didn't want to sell it because he knew I already have an M3 and I'm expecting a M5, but I insisted and I came back with it. He told me he had it for at least 10 years, he bought from a professional who got it new in the "early 80s" but it broke down, so he repaired it (that's the reason why it doesn't have the L seal). His understanding was that the tele-elmarit was the lens the camera was bought with so I assume it was a 1980 combo and perhaps the production of this model started that year, at least in limited numbers.

Today I shot the first roll with the tele and with the M3's summicron, I'm curious too see the results on paper but these are my few observations in comparison to the M3:

1) The M4-P is much lighter than the M3
2) This model uses some plastic (the horror!) parts, such as the back plate, the lever and I suspect something inside, this might explain the weight loss
3) Unlike what I read on the net the top plate is engraved, although not as much as the M3: the script Leitz on the top, Leica and M4-P on the front are definitely engraved, while made by Leitz Canada and the flash letters are painted.
4) Shutter and shutter speed dial feel and sound the same.
5) The advance lever of the M4-P is not as buttery as the M3s and I suspect because it's shorter (so you have to apply more force) and the lever is bent...I had the same sensasion regarding the levers of the Kiev 17 (long and straight) and the Kiev 19 (shorter and bent).
6) The lens' disengagement button feels cheaper on the M4-Poor, as well as the cover which feels like some hard plastic, not the leatherette of the M3 for sure
7) I do like the black chrome finish, it has a dull finish that looks durable

In conclusion, I think it's the updated M3 but still a quality product.

 

[Vincent.G]

The M4-P is an extremely nice camera to use.

I used to have one with brass top plate. It wasn't as smooth as my M2 or M4 but it just works. I remembered the framelines were big and nice, different from the M2 and M4 I used to have. But I stupidly sold it away after it developed a hazy VF instead of sending it for cleaning.

Now I am patiently waiting for a nice brass top plate M4-P to show up.

Enjoy your M4-P !

 

[jwicaksana]

Congrats on your M4-P, sounds like a good deal, especially if you got it from your trusty tech. I too have an M4-P and mine doesn't even have serial number on the shoe, internal mods were done and shoe was replaced.
Mine is chrome, 70th Anniversary, and on my camera Made by Leitz Canada and flash M and X were engraved not painted.
Have fun! 🙂

 

[ChrisLivsey]

So do we have to assume that the production of the M4-P started with a small batch in 1980 while the M4-2 was still in production?

Yes, the dates would imply that. As Tom says it is most likely the last orders were being completed as the new model was being made.
If you see the video of M8/M9 production it shows a parts bin full of numbered hot shoes, the builder picks one at random and fits it.
This why Leica were unable to say which serials of M8 had been inadvertently fitted with a rear screen batch prone to failure. There was no tie up of the serials to the parts serials fitted.
I suppose this was even more the practice in the pure mechanical days. The production then was more of a cottage industry, you wanted something special, they made it. With that lens/body combination dating apparently from the same time and not being a "standard" combination and a pro order it may have been made specially to order with the serial almost random with what was available on the day.

 

[Wulfthari]

Yes, probably it's like you said, they were producing the M4-2 and the M4-P at the same, if the camera was a 1981 or a 1982 it would have been sheer luck to get a 1980 lens to match a reused 1980 serial number!

Here there are some pics of the camera, very crappy, taken with my 1999 cell phone but as you should have understood I don't spend much money in electronic gadget, this one sends pics to my mailbox so it's advanced enough for me:

This is the sticker of the Italian distributor, it reads "distributore Polyphoto S.P.A.":

 

[noisycheese]

You might give this Leica Serial Number Search web page a try - it is in French, but you can translate it:

http://www.summilux.net/numeros/

EDIT
I got curious and had to check. The database says both your body and lens were built in 1980. It also lists your body as an M4-2.

There may have been some record keeping issues along the line somewhere, or perhaps Leica had some overlap in serial numbers when changing from M4-2 production to M4-P production; those would be my guesses.

Whatever the case, I would not stew about it too much. The M4-P is an outstanding M camera, one of the finest ever made IMHO. Use it, enjoy it and count your blessings; you fortunate to have secured a great camera. 🙂

 

[Wulfthari]

Yes, I would assume that the camera was bought with that lens back in 1980, that can't be a coincidence.

My tech is a nice 80+ years old guy that inherited shop and profession by his father and is really a pit of knowledge about mechanical cameras of any era and type, he completely disassembled the Zorki 6 I got as "back cover" of a Jupiter 8 just to show me how it was made inside (he knows I'm a mechanical engineer and I like old cameras), he solved the shutter problem of my Contax in real time (I think it took him 15 minutes to open it, extract the shutter mechanicanism, clean it, checking the times on the machine, disassemble the lightmeter, checking the bobbin and the sadly declaring the selenium cell "dead for good")...of course he's a Leica pasdaran: anything with the red dot is better!

He gave me the MR4 for free saying it's ridicolous that people pay 200 euros for that because it's inherently inaccurate (he says it measures the light of anything in front of the camera at 180 degrees so it can't give a real lecture of what you are shooting), he said the quotation of the tele-elmarits are also hilarious and that the lens isn't worth more than 200 so in the end he made me 600: 400 for the camera and 200 for the lens, even if he didn't want to seel it because it he hasn't checked it and "he sells just 100% checked cameras in perfect working conditions." (his words).

This M4-P lacks the rugger on the backplate and he wanted to have the time to replace it (he has everything, from complete M6 lightmeters to the original Leica curtain cloth in large sheets) but I wanted to try the camera so we remained in term that the M4 is with me "for trials" and if there is anything wrong I must return and tell him what he has to do.

Talking about things to check, is it normal that you have to press the frame selector to have the correct framing if you are using a "neutral" adapter with a non M lens? Or should it snap at its place? It's not clear in the user's manual.

 

[Tom A]

The M4-2 was the first production M with power winder capability. Initially the M4-2 Winder - truly bad! It was made by Eumig for Leica and it would shake the camera violently when advancing. Later M-winders were better, but not much better!
To handle the extra torque of the winder the gears in the M4-2 and M4-P was case hardened steel, not brass. This makes the advance a bit rougher (just like the original MP). They will wear in - but it takes 1000's of rolls to do it! Overall though, the M4-2 and M4-P are among the most durable M's you can find. Very early M4-2's had a flawed shutter brake and developed a bounce at 1/125s and 1/250s. It was an easy fix though and it was really the only problem I ever had with them.
The very first 100 M4-2's had the red "rondel" on the front - and the winder pick-up in the body only had one slot for the drive - rather than the later 2 slot version. They are of course highly collectible etc. I had a couple - used them heavily and then got the 75f1.4 and swapped the bodies for M4-P's - two of which I still have and use.
The lens release button on the M4-2 can come loose (vibrations from helicopters and small bush planes will do it!). I once lost the buttons on three in a couple of days - had to resort to brute force with a screw-driver to change lenses. I replaced them - and LocTited them in place - just in case.

 

[rfaspen]

I think that was an absolute steal at 600euro for the whole combination!

I have been looking to get the tele-ele for a while now. Seems like a very usable lens. And a nice one probably sells for about the price of your entire combination.

The MR4 is a nice little light meter. Personally I like it. The angle of view is roughly that of the 90 so you have uniform metering with the tele-ele and a sort of center-weighted metering with a 50 or wide. I really get a lot of use out of the meter. Do try it out.

Congrats on a real lovely bargain.

 

[rfaspen]

I'm not in agreement with the tech regarding the light meter. I think he's thinking of the selenium-based meter (which I also have and use), The MR-4 has a tighter angle of view than 180degrees. I'm certain of that.

The tele-ele gets a bit of bad press from time to time. I think its a nice handling lens and the IQ seems darn good to me. There is a known issue with haze or separation on/in the rear elements, but I'm trying to avoid that when I get around to buying one (borrowed one to learn how much I like it).

I'm sure there's someone here who can tell us more about the MR4 and the tele-elmarit.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Acceptance angles:
MR & MR4 27 degrees
MC > 45 degrees
M < 45 degrees

from Leica M Osterloch 2011 edition

 

[rfaspen]

Ah, thanks Chris (?)

I really find the MR4 to be useful as a real meter. That's because of the 27degree angle and relatively good accuracy. I also use the MC at times, mostly as a calibration for my mental meter. That works well. Some would say it's an unnecessary bulge on the M2/3, but some days I'm off by quite a bit, or I'm using a film speed that isn't my usual.

About the only thing I dislike about the MR4 is the need for batteries. Actually, that's a very small dislike, and its more about the need to make sure batteries don't misbehave (by leaking or exhausting at critical moments). No different than for the M6 or the CL though 🙂