nobbylon
Veteran
So from this Erik we can say that had Leica not made the M5 it would have been financially better off and not in the mess that it ended up in.
The CL sold well because it was relatively cheap and small and marketed well.
The M5 didn't because it was too expensive, too far a departure from the previous M line and thought of as being behind the times in an age of SLR domination by the Japanese.
I think of an M5 as being of the same build quality and feel to an SL or SL2 which are to me 2 of the best quality cameras ever put together so I'm sure it's a fine camera but what does it actually have apart from an ageing cds needle meter over and above what any other M has? it's perhaps easy to look back now and say the M5's a great camera but history has already shown that it was a mistake to make it as it didn't make money. whatever the reasons are of no consequence, too big, too ugly, CL, minolta, fact is that it was a mistake otherwise we'd be looking at m9's, m240's etc that looked like m5's and not what leica is selling profitably today.
The CL sold well because it was relatively cheap and small and marketed well.
The M5 didn't because it was too expensive, too far a departure from the previous M line and thought of as being behind the times in an age of SLR domination by the Japanese.
I think of an M5 as being of the same build quality and feel to an SL or SL2 which are to me 2 of the best quality cameras ever put together so I'm sure it's a fine camera but what does it actually have apart from an ageing cds needle meter over and above what any other M has? it's perhaps easy to look back now and say the M5's a great camera but history has already shown that it was a mistake to make it as it didn't make money. whatever the reasons are of no consequence, too big, too ugly, CL, minolta, fact is that it was a mistake otherwise we'd be looking at m9's, m240's etc that looked like m5's and not what leica is selling profitably today.