Leica M5... good choice?

[BLKRCAT]

Leica M5, Zeiss ZM Biogon 35mm F2, Kodak Tri-X

 

[ktmrider]

Black M5 from Sherry just got married to a black 50f1.5 ASPH Nokton and it is a gorgeous combo. The Nokton is lighter then my chrome 50 Summicron. It is going to Mexico with me at the end of the week.

 

[michaelwj]

That Photomic Nikon is one ugly machine.

But you can always swap it out for the beautiful plain prism... 😀

 

[pepeguitarra]

Not anything against the M5, but to me it is the ugliest M Leica. 🙂

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I think the M5 is beautiful and exquisite.:angel:

 

[BLKRCAT]

Leica M5, Nokton 50mm 1.1, Fuji Superia 800

 

[mikyor1]

If anyone is looking for a M5, I have one for sale in the classifieds 🙂

 

[BLKRCAT]

Leica M5, Nokton 50mm 1.1, Fuji Superia 800

 

[BLKRCAT]

Leica M5, Nokton 50mm 1.1, Fuji Superia 800

 

[Erik van Straten]

Great pictures, BLKRCAT!

Erik.

 

[traveler_101]

No metering, no shutter speed in vf, no double exposure etc. M5 was the last M designed for actual photography. They would have never put form over function, M3 would have been way uglier if it would have been necessary. Improvements could not overcome the fact that SLR:s ruled because rangefinders were inferior cameras just like some species rule because others are inferior. I am so going to get banned..

M4.2 and later are designed to make old men with small dicks feel better about themselves and they seem to be very good at it. Carrying a rolex is not about knowing what time it is.

If I am reading you correctly, the M5 was an attempt by Leica to seize the initiative from the SLR manufacturers and regain the technological cutting edge. After the M5 flopped Leica went back to compensating for having lost the technical advantage by producing cameras that offered style and quaintness - right?

Two considerations then: If technological innovation is the measure of "actual photography" then the M3 should also be considered a 'real' camera because when it was first introduced it dramatically changed 35mm photography.

Second, if innovating technical aids to shooting is so important why bother old film cameras at all? You should be shooting the latest high tech digital cameras - seems to me.

Try a Nikon F with Photomic FTn meter head. Then pick up a Leica M5. Then you'll know what the M5 is about.

The M5 tried to put aside the Nikon F, not the M4.

Erik.

Was it better than the Nikon? It certainly failed to regain market share for Leica.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Was it better than the Nikon? It certainly failed to regain market share for Leica.

1. Yes, it was better, but it was also too expensive. The salary level in the affluent West-Germany was too high.

2. People wanted zoom lenses.

3. Leitz made a very stupid move with the Leica CL.

These were the main reasons that the M5 failed to regain a market share. Not the quality of the camera. The quality of the camera is outstanding.

Erik.

 

[oltimer]

1. Yes, it was better, but it was also too expensive. The salary level in the affluent West-Germany was too high.

2. People wanted zoom lenses.

3. Leitz made a very stupid move with the Leica CL.

These were the main reasons that the M5 failed to regain a market share. Not the quality of the camera. The quality of the camera is outstanding.

Erik.

Nicely and carefully worded reply Erik. I lived through all those ventures by Leitz, and by the way owned their equipment at that time, and still do; but you could not convince me on the M5 at that time. They tried to get at the Nikon F market in 1965 with the Leicaflex, and that went by the way side. Working in a large firm in Toronto at that time doing 4 color separations; the (2) cameras that dominated the transparencies coming in, was the Nikon F and the for ever great Hasselblad. The Nikon F had "all" the market.

 

[oltimer]

I also just noticed Erik you replying about the Meter readings. Yes, I agree with you on the 21 degree "spot reading" inside the M5 in (Horizontal mode only). Very well thought out; but that's why Gossen had made a couple of meters which I use all the time, with the 7.5 and 15 degree angle readings. I'm the type of person that always checks readings between the camera and hand held Gossen before I shoot. This meter system in the M5 is probably the only great talking point today, outside of having good collector value too due to the low quantity made.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Erm — are you blaming Leica because they were paying their workers decent wages? 😕

Yes, the wages were decent, but too decent for producing such a hand made camera.

Erik.

 

[BLKRCAT]

Leica M5, Nokton 50mm 1.1, Fuji Superia 800

 

[Erik van Straten]

Leica M5, Summilux 50mm f/1.4 pre asph v1, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

 

[giulio stucchi]

Love the last two uploads!

Great shots as usual BLKRCAT and Erik

Giulio

 

[Erik van Straten]

Love the last two uploads!

Great shots as usual BLKRCAT and Erik

Giulio

Thank you, Giulio.

I also like BLKRCAT's picture a lot.

Erik.

 

[mpaniagua]

....

3. Leitz made a very stupid move with the Leica CL.

....

Erik.

+1 to this one. It created an in house competitor for the M5. Pretty stupid move IMHO.

Regards.

 

[mpaniagua]

I wonder what forced Leitz to reshape the M5 at the time. What was wrong with the M4 really?

Here is an interesting M6 prototype before Leica came to their senses (about middle of the page) http://gmpphoto.blogspot.de/2014/10/the-fascinating-world-of-prototype.html

I suppose they reshape it to fit the TTL metering. M6 used a pretty different TTL metering approach that allowed them for a slimmer form. Lets remember that M5 was one of the first attempt at TTL on rangefinders.


Been using M5 lately and, even though I thought it will feel uncomfortable on hand, I find it pretty fun to use. It just fit the shooting experience, it makes the process so easy and fun. My thoughts are that it was designed for the shooting, not for the looks.


Regards.