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.
peterm1
Veteran
One issue I found with my M4P (which I think it shared with the M4-2) was a very flimsy arrangement for the flash port located on the rear of the camera. From the outside the port looked perfectly normal (all metal) but the chassis of this assembly (located inside the top plate cover) was made from plastic. That plastic could become brittle with age and the flash plug could break off and fall away. I had this happen with mine although I was lucky enough not to lose the plug and re-glued it in place. Others I discussed this with were not so lucky. I did buy a spare assembly for this on eBay but never mounted it on my camera (which required the top cover plate to be removed). Someone offered me a good price for the camera so I sold it (I acknowledged the fault). I still have that darned thing which cost be $80. To me this was a kind of betrayal. Leica is supposed to make superb equipment. Cutting corners like this by using inferior parts is not what I expected given the price paid for the camera.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The needle of my M5 is 45 years old and still works perfectly.
Again, the M5 could easily have been the professional rangefinder alongside the professional Japanese SLR's of the 1970's when it's marketing would have been more clever. It has a quality level that is higher than that of the other M's.
Erik.
nobbylon
Veteran
The operative word in the above statement Erik is 'could'. The fact is it wasn't. Same story with the SL and SL2, too expensive and too complex to fix and therefore not adopted by the majority of pro users.
nobbylon
Veteran
The worst thing about the M5 Erik is that it wasn't made, atleast to my knowledge, in black paint. Had it been then I'd have probably been more inclined to have one 
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The worst thing about the M5 Erik is that it wasn't made, atleast to my knowledge, in black paint.
There are prototypes in black paint, see the first book by P.H. van Hasbroeck, page 180. Incredible beautiful.
My repairman says that the M5 is a pleasure to service, not at all like the Leicaflexes.
Erik.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Yes, well, um, there's optical sharpness and there's a business version...
Regards, David
micromoogman
Well-known
Ok, myth busting pt.2. "You know they changed gears to steel on the M4-2 so it could handle the power from the winder..." The truth is that all Leica M cameras have both steel and brass gears. Steel is paired to a brass gear or the other way around.
Highway 61
Revisited
What almost killed Leica at that time were the production costs, whatever they would have made at Wetzlar. Even if they had made something equivalent to the Nikon F or a rangefinder with a cell inside and still keeping the shape and size of the M4.
The company was salvaged thanks to the Canadian branch (by the way I went and saw the former Leitz Canada, now Elcan, plant in Midland, ON). Because the Canadian plant managers found a way to produce cameras and lenses of the same legendary quality, but at lower production costs.
If you push it a little bit further, you'll say that the Canadian branch had been launched by someone having quite an obscure past.
Following step : you'll reach the Godwin point.
What happened, happened. With that series of "if", you could have Leica become a large and wealthy company, producing zillions of thousands of M-240s in Portugal and selling them for what an entry-level Canon DSLR costs.
Bottom line : I am not a Leica-nut and I don't own my former Leica toys any longer. But I'm happy to see that the company still exists.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
This is new and related to the name of the thread!
I always struggled to understand how is adding strength to camera gears is bad thing.
micromoogman
Well-known
Guys, the bottom line is, after studying all analog M cameras (not M7) inside out, that there is NO DIFFERENCE between a M4 and a M4-2. They share pretty much the same internal components. The flash sync bridge is bad in the M4-2, correctly stated by someone earlier here, due to the choice of material, which was to serve as an insulator for the hot shoe. The drivetrain, curtains, drums, gears, etc. is the same as in a M3 or M2. Watch out for those nasty M6's instead...
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
Tack för informationen! This is helpful information and I will refer it when purchase in the future.
giganova
Well-known
micromoogman
Well-known
Go back to page one and the previous message with the comparing pics of the M6 and M4-2. Mainly there are two big faults. The rangefinder is lacking one prism and the simplified curtain roller tension mechanism. I need to check out some early M6's too.
giganova
Well-known
Why do you think the gears of the M4-2 in your picture are so worn out? I was always told that "you cannot wear out a Leica by simply making pictures."
The pic is not great. Looks more like grease and dirt to me.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Lol.
One is dry and missing ribbon and curtain.
One with greas, ribbon and curtain.
This is why I took M4-2.
One is dry and missing ribbon and curtain.
One with greas, ribbon and curtain.
This is why I took M4-2.
micromoogman
Well-known
It's grease. Actually they are all dry from factory, you just get them hyper smooth by adding some grease.
I got a bunch of spare Leica M cameras for taking parts from.
Most brass is used in Leica M3, which is more expensive and overall a better material than steel. I might post some pics from the top half as well if someone is interested...
I got a bunch of spare Leica M cameras for taking parts from.
Most brass is used in Leica M3, which is more expensive and overall a better material than steel. I might post some pics from the top half as well if someone is interested...
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I think you'll find a few have managed it but mostly what did the most damage was not taking the picture but handling or mishandling it with film in it.
Regards, David
