Bosk
Make photos, not war.
Hi there Tom,
Much has been written in these forums and elsewhere regarding the legendary build quality of Leica M cameras and I was hoping you might be able to lend us your views on how the various models compare with each other in this regard.
Specifically, would it be true to argue that the M3, M2 and M4 all share a higher level of quality construction than the cameras that followed them - and that the M3 stands alone as being even better built than the M2 or M4?
How do the currently produced MP's compare with the older models in this respect?
Lastly how do you rate the longevity of the M camera shutters compared with other cameras, including SLRs?
Thanks very much,
Bosk.
Much has been written in these forums and elsewhere regarding the legendary build quality of Leica M cameras and I was hoping you might be able to lend us your views on how the various models compare with each other in this regard.
Specifically, would it be true to argue that the M3, M2 and M4 all share a higher level of quality construction than the cameras that followed them - and that the M3 stands alone as being even better built than the M2 or M4?
How do the currently produced MP's compare with the older models in this respect?
Lastly how do you rate the longevity of the M camera shutters compared with other cameras, including SLRs?
Thanks very much,
Bosk.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
Wow, that's some set of questions. I'd also like to see the answers, coming from a truly unbiased source. I do think the M3 is the best built, especially the late ones (mine is a 1965 build).
Harry
Harry
Xmas
Veteran
Ribbons snap about every 25 years...
M4-2s and later were built using the statistical tolerance instead of the file and fit and file...
Noel
M4-2s and later were built using the statistical tolerance instead of the file and fit and file...
Noel
Ronald M
Veteran
Sounds bad but they are made on NC machines that hold much tighter tolerences than the originals.
M4-2 were iffy, but they are mostly fitted up better now. I never had a problem with my M4-2 M4 P. M6`s needed light shield replacement. Had trouble one time with RF washout. You can update this
M4P, M6 were better. MP and M7 do not have known problems with every camera.
M4-2 were iffy, but they are mostly fitted up better now. I never had a problem with my M4-2 M4 P. M6`s needed light shield replacement. Had trouble one time with RF washout. You can update this
M4P, M6 were better. MP and M7 do not have known problems with every camera.
Xmas
Veteran
Hey I did not say bad, and I've a early M4-2 it is ok camera.
I sent in a M4 for a snapped ribbon repair and the repaired camera came back with a viewfinder upgrade.
The Canons from '60 were built to statistical tolerances rather than file and fit, if you have a damaged front element you can swap them from the same production batch with pretty high probability you will have a good lens. This is good not bad.
I think Leitz went to statistical later then the Ja manufacturers?
Noel
I sent in a M4 for a snapped ribbon repair and the repaired camera came back with a viewfinder upgrade.
The Canons from '60 were built to statistical tolerances rather than file and fit, if you have a damaged front element you can swap them from the same production batch with pretty high probability you will have a good lens. This is good not bad.
I think Leitz went to statistical later then the Ja manufacturers?
Noel
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
Bosk said:
Since when did the M5 take a back seat to any camera in terms of build quality?
Xmas
Veteran
J J K...
Relax, M4-2 were after the M5...
Noel
Relax, M4-2 were after the M5...
Noel
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
Xmas said:
Whew! OK, I'm now concentrating on breathing deeply and evenly...
Xmas
Veteran
J.J.K.
ok - touche - I over reacted, I'll take of my asbestos suit
Noel
ok - touche - I over reacted, I'll take of my asbestos suit
Noel
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'm shooting M7's, an M5 and an M6 and find the M7's feel the most solid in the hand. My M5 is well tuned but it does have a different feel to it- I guess it's a lighter feeling in the hand for the size. Perhaps the top plate is less thick? That's the feeling I get from them. A denser camera in the M7.
Joop van Heijgen
Established
'Specifically, would it be true to argue that the M3, M2 and M4 all share a higher level of quality construction than the cameras that followed them - and that the M3 stands alone as being even better built than the M2 or M4?'
Yes indeed, with these camera types Leitz sets a standard for the quality of her products. The same you can say about the Leicaflex SL(2)!
Then you talking about the Wetzlar period! The cameras where mainly handmade by German workers. The quality of material used with the building of the camera, inside and outside was excellent!
Since 1977 the factory in Wetzlar had big problems to survive!
Cost cutting of the production and cooperation with Minolta were a sign of it!
Since that time the quality of the products of Leica were rather irregular!
Inside the M camera's; (specially the M4-2; M4-P and the M 6 since 1984) the factory used several cost cutting materials with building the camera.
Not long after 1984 the production of the M6 removed to Portugal.
The quality of the cameras is still good, but when you compare the actual models with those of the Wetzlar period, you can feel and see the difference!
Many years the M6 to serial nr. 19xxxx had all problems with the distance meter; moreover the focus metering was not very sharp!
Actually the finishing touch of the new cameras: MP, M7 and M8 gives still problems!
Yes indeed, with these camera types Leitz sets a standard for the quality of her products. The same you can say about the Leicaflex SL(2)!
Then you talking about the Wetzlar period! The cameras where mainly handmade by German workers. The quality of material used with the building of the camera, inside and outside was excellent!
Since 1977 the factory in Wetzlar had big problems to survive!
Cost cutting of the production and cooperation with Minolta were a sign of it!
Since that time the quality of the products of Leica were rather irregular!
Inside the M camera's; (specially the M4-2; M4-P and the M 6 since 1984) the factory used several cost cutting materials with building the camera.
Not long after 1984 the production of the M6 removed to Portugal.
The quality of the cameras is still good, but when you compare the actual models with those of the Wetzlar period, you can feel and see the difference!
Many years the M6 to serial nr. 19xxxx had all problems with the distance meter; moreover the focus metering was not very sharp!
Actually the finishing touch of the new cameras: MP, M7 and M8 gives still problems!
Last edited:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
It is difficult to narrow down issues like build quality. It depends on usage and care more than anything. Today we expect our DS M3"s to work perfectly after 50+ years!
My own experience of the various M's is as follows:
M3/ Early double stroke ones. The shutter brake tends to give up and you occasionally find them with either black rangefinder patches or severely faded "half" mirrors. It is still the M with the smoothest advance and the softest release of them all.
Later single stroke M3's are among the best built cameras ever. If it has been serviced regularly and not abused, they tend to work perfectly, even after 1000's of rolls. The weak spot is the finder. They can black out through de-lamination of the prism (usually through impact).
M2/ Because it is a simpler camera, there are less things to go wrong. The finder is robust and though it can dim through oxidization of the mirrors, it can still be fixed. The advance on some of the earlier M2's (button advance) could get rough with heavy use. If the shaft springs are worn, you can get overlap on the negatives when the shaft turns inside the take up spool.
M4/ leica put everything into this camera! It is very well built, but check for bent re-wind cranks and worn take up "tulips". The finder usually hold up well and has the advantage of having many parts in common with the M2 and later M4P's and M6's. It is usually easier to find a "mintish" M4 than M2/M3 as these earlier Leica were the only game in town for press photographers in the 50's. In the 60's the SLR came into play and the pro's switched, mainly because of the ease of using long lenses.
M5/ I have had several of these, but I never got along with it. Too big and a bit clumsy. Again, the mechanicals are very good, though the bottom rewind can act up and one of mine decided not to retract the meter arm. Interesting object cluttering up the sky on a whole roll!. The meter sensor can age badly (like most of us) and loose sensitivity and it does use the #625 style battery too.
M4-2/ The earliest of these had a problem with the shutter brake and the shutter speed regulator would go 'kabloonk" occasionally. Part of the problem was mis-communication between Wetzlar and Midland. The good news is that most of the M4-2's available now have been fixed. Leica started to add a lot of shims to the various shafts and locks and with time these springs shims get tired and you get misaligned locks on the base plate and interior drives. The film rewind was made from alloy and would bend or "buckle" if you hit it.
The M4-P/ This is a generally good camera and it can take a lot of film. The problems with the shutter was rectified. The film rewind is still alloy and occasionally you have to replace it(expensive) or simply bend it back and file off the flange at the bottom. I still have my 1981 M4P and it has had 10 000's of rolls through it. It was my bench tester for Rapidwinders and also primary camera for a lot of trips. The inter mediate drive (motor coupling) came apart once and was replaced and the gear in the advance wore out and was replaced. A couple of curtains got pin holded (not the cameras fault).
M6/ The first version of the M6 had problem with the meter "chip" and they frequently died or showed only one of the diodes. Leica replaced most of these under warranty in the mid 80's and after that the M6 is as good as even the earlier M2/M3/M4's. It is a very robust cameras, the alignment in the rangefinder can go out if you bang it hard, but this is rare. There have been problems with a 'grommet" that seals the meter information transfer wires and you could get light leaks. Some of the Titanium M6's had a film counter spring that failed and needed to be replaced.
M6TTL/ Initially these cameras had a problem with battery drain. There are a couple of contacts at the bottom of the battery well that would drain the batteries in a matter of hours. The solution is to push these contacts down, below the surface of the bottom. These are "test" connections for probes. Otherwise the TTL is a good camera and as most confirmed M-users prefer the old style shutter speed dial, a good deal too. On a couple I had problems with information transfer from the back door to the diodes (both after having been banged hard against unyielding car doors and door frames).
MP/ Early MP's had a faulty seal around the eye-piece and dust would seep in to finder. It was fixed and Lieca actually supplied new and improved seals to "do it yourselfers". Thre was a bit of a flare problem in the finder with the 0.85 and 0,72 versions that could cause problems. Other wise I think that the MP is one of the best built Leica M's ever. The top plate is brass as a Leica top should be, the gears are remarkably smooth (film advance on a MP rivals that of a Double Stroke M3} and the fact that you have a choice of finder magnification adds to the attraction.
M7/ I had one for a couple of years and apart from going through batteries at an alarming rate and a tendency to shut down suddenly, it held up well. The electronics worried me though and the magnetic controls of the shutter would be sensitive to a heavy Gauss field ( a large electric motor starting up). I never liked the release on the M7 - very "jagged" feel to it. I loved the 32 second long exposure count though.
general problems encountered with M4-2/M4-P and some R6's. The top was made from die-cast zinc alloy and if you got a scratch that penetrated the plating the top turned into a galvanic element and started to bubble the black chrome. More common on the R6, but I have seen some M4-2 and M4-P's with the same problem.
The shutter curtains on old M's can dry out and get brittle and the adhesive that holds the 'straps" for the curtains to the shutter drum will loose 'power" with age and can come loose. There is also a felt trap in the track of the M's (up to M4P) that can came loose and jam the shutter curtain. It is again adhesive that gos brittle with age. It is aiways a good idea to CLA any older M' on a regular basis anyway (every 5-7 years) and beware of M's that have sitting idle for a long time. Lubricants dry out and curtains loose flexibility if they are not used.
What is remarkable is not the problems that occasionally occur with older M's - it is how well they still work after 40 or 50 years! There are few products available today that can claim that. Even battered old M3's and M2's will produce great pictures after decades of use. So the shutter speeds might be a bit off, learn to compensate, the finder could be brighter - use hyper focal, the rewind squeels a bit - dont worry, it will wear it self in! AND there a few products that have compatibility going back 80 years. You can put your nickel Elmar from 1927 on your 2007 MP or even on the M8. That is foresight in design and, yes a bit of german stubborness too - but it all benefits us, the users.
My own experience of the various M's is as follows:
M3/ Early double stroke ones. The shutter brake tends to give up and you occasionally find them with either black rangefinder patches or severely faded "half" mirrors. It is still the M with the smoothest advance and the softest release of them all.
Later single stroke M3's are among the best built cameras ever. If it has been serviced regularly and not abused, they tend to work perfectly, even after 1000's of rolls. The weak spot is the finder. They can black out through de-lamination of the prism (usually through impact).
M2/ Because it is a simpler camera, there are less things to go wrong. The finder is robust and though it can dim through oxidization of the mirrors, it can still be fixed. The advance on some of the earlier M2's (button advance) could get rough with heavy use. If the shaft springs are worn, you can get overlap on the negatives when the shaft turns inside the take up spool.
M4/ leica put everything into this camera! It is very well built, but check for bent re-wind cranks and worn take up "tulips". The finder usually hold up well and has the advantage of having many parts in common with the M2 and later M4P's and M6's. It is usually easier to find a "mintish" M4 than M2/M3 as these earlier Leica were the only game in town for press photographers in the 50's. In the 60's the SLR came into play and the pro's switched, mainly because of the ease of using long lenses.
M5/ I have had several of these, but I never got along with it. Too big and a bit clumsy. Again, the mechanicals are very good, though the bottom rewind can act up and one of mine decided not to retract the meter arm. Interesting object cluttering up the sky on a whole roll!. The meter sensor can age badly (like most of us) and loose sensitivity and it does use the #625 style battery too.
M4-2/ The earliest of these had a problem with the shutter brake and the shutter speed regulator would go 'kabloonk" occasionally. Part of the problem was mis-communication between Wetzlar and Midland. The good news is that most of the M4-2's available now have been fixed. Leica started to add a lot of shims to the various shafts and locks and with time these springs shims get tired and you get misaligned locks on the base plate and interior drives. The film rewind was made from alloy and would bend or "buckle" if you hit it.
The M4-P/ This is a generally good camera and it can take a lot of film. The problems with the shutter was rectified. The film rewind is still alloy and occasionally you have to replace it(expensive) or simply bend it back and file off the flange at the bottom. I still have my 1981 M4P and it has had 10 000's of rolls through it. It was my bench tester for Rapidwinders and also primary camera for a lot of trips. The inter mediate drive (motor coupling) came apart once and was replaced and the gear in the advance wore out and was replaced. A couple of curtains got pin holded (not the cameras fault).
M6/ The first version of the M6 had problem with the meter "chip" and they frequently died or showed only one of the diodes. Leica replaced most of these under warranty in the mid 80's and after that the M6 is as good as even the earlier M2/M3/M4's. It is a very robust cameras, the alignment in the rangefinder can go out if you bang it hard, but this is rare. There have been problems with a 'grommet" that seals the meter information transfer wires and you could get light leaks. Some of the Titanium M6's had a film counter spring that failed and needed to be replaced.
M6TTL/ Initially these cameras had a problem with battery drain. There are a couple of contacts at the bottom of the battery well that would drain the batteries in a matter of hours. The solution is to push these contacts down, below the surface of the bottom. These are "test" connections for probes. Otherwise the TTL is a good camera and as most confirmed M-users prefer the old style shutter speed dial, a good deal too. On a couple I had problems with information transfer from the back door to the diodes (both after having been banged hard against unyielding car doors and door frames).
MP/ Early MP's had a faulty seal around the eye-piece and dust would seep in to finder. It was fixed and Lieca actually supplied new and improved seals to "do it yourselfers". Thre was a bit of a flare problem in the finder with the 0.85 and 0,72 versions that could cause problems. Other wise I think that the MP is one of the best built Leica M's ever. The top plate is brass as a Leica top should be, the gears are remarkably smooth (film advance on a MP rivals that of a Double Stroke M3} and the fact that you have a choice of finder magnification adds to the attraction.
M7/ I had one for a couple of years and apart from going through batteries at an alarming rate and a tendency to shut down suddenly, it held up well. The electronics worried me though and the magnetic controls of the shutter would be sensitive to a heavy Gauss field ( a large electric motor starting up). I never liked the release on the M7 - very "jagged" feel to it. I loved the 32 second long exposure count though.
general problems encountered with M4-2/M4-P and some R6's. The top was made from die-cast zinc alloy and if you got a scratch that penetrated the plating the top turned into a galvanic element and started to bubble the black chrome. More common on the R6, but I have seen some M4-2 and M4-P's with the same problem.
The shutter curtains on old M's can dry out and get brittle and the adhesive that holds the 'straps" for the curtains to the shutter drum will loose 'power" with age and can come loose. There is also a felt trap in the track of the M's (up to M4P) that can came loose and jam the shutter curtain. It is again adhesive that gos brittle with age. It is aiways a good idea to CLA any older M' on a regular basis anyway (every 5-7 years) and beware of M's that have sitting idle for a long time. Lubricants dry out and curtains loose flexibility if they are not used.
What is remarkable is not the problems that occasionally occur with older M's - it is how well they still work after 40 or 50 years! There are few products available today that can claim that. Even battered old M3's and M2's will produce great pictures after decades of use. So the shutter speeds might be a bit off, learn to compensate, the finder could be brighter - use hyper focal, the rewind squeels a bit - dont worry, it will wear it self in! AND there a few products that have compatibility going back 80 years. You can put your nickel Elmar from 1927 on your 2007 MP or even on the M8. That is foresight in design and, yes a bit of german stubborness too - but it all benefits us, the users.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Great info, Tom!
Regarding M3s - have you ever noticed a difference in reliability between early DS and late DS models?
Regarding M3s - have you ever noticed a difference in reliability between early DS and late DS models?
V
varjag
Guest
That must be the most information on M cameras I ever seen in a single post!
So THAT'S where that piece of felt in my M4 came from! Jammed the shutter after a heavy impact; had no idea where it belonged. Is there any harm for the camera to run without it? I'd hate to disassemble the thing again..
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Tom A said:
I have an early M7.58 with this problem- good to know there is a 'do it yourselfers' fix. I shall contact Leica on this one. Thanks Tom
Hey Moderators- this one might get a 'stickie' eh?
Last edited:
Xmas
Veteran
Leitz may still replace the M3 finders with later ones, but if you are a collector CRR Luton will rebuild like 'new'.
Noel
Noel
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
varjag said:
There is no real harm in running for a time without the felt trap, but there is a fair chance of light leaks. Worst problem is that the felt also provides a surface for the bar that holds the curtain to run against. If the bar "twists" it can jam and be ripped out of the curtain. Newer M's have a different set -up. The M6 uses a plastic bar instead. If one of your felt traps is failing, it is a good guess that the other will to. The material for the trap is difficult to find nowdays. It is a soft bristle type "matting" that is trimmed to size and if the bristles aare to long, use one of the electric things you use to trim beards with to shorten it.
V
varjag
Guest
Thanks a lot Tom!
Yes, the felt is exactly as you describe; I kept it fortunately. No light leaks on the roll since, but given the information you kindly shared, perhaps I'd rather send it off to Sherry for treatment. There are other things to fix along anyway.. Again thanks, very useful thread.
Yes, the felt is exactly as you describe; I kept it fortunately. No light leaks on the roll since, but given the information you kindly shared, perhaps I'd rather send it off to Sherry for treatment. There are other things to fix along anyway.. Again thanks, very useful thread.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Ken Ford said:
I havn't noticed much difference between the DS models. I think it has more to do with condition than the age. my earliest M3 was a 7003xx (cant remember the last two digits!) and it was mintish. It did cap the shutter above 1/100 when I got it, but I suspect it had had very little use before me.
The most interesting of the DS M3's I have owned was an original black paint one. It was part of 51 cameras supplied to the Swedish Press Photographers Union. They had the MP gears in them and where painted black, including the film counter dial and the locking key and disc on the baseplate. When I got it it was a good representative of a "Ugly-" condition camera and in my hands it soon aquired a second - sign to the condition. Vulcanite was peeling off and I replaced the pieces coming off with black gaffers tape and there were probably not even a grand total of a square inch of paint left on it. Even though it had the MP gears in it, they had worn down to a nice smooth movement. It was obviously a very collectible camera and some years later I traded it for a M6.a 50/2 and a 35/2, all brand new 1989 versions! Considering that I paid about $100 for it a couple of decades prior - not a bad deal!
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
That's a lot of information. Thanks for the question, Bosk; thanks for the answer Tom! RFF reached a higher level ...