M4-2 or M4-P?

[thmk]

Dear all,

please help me choose by providing some experiences with these two cameras.
I can get a M4-2 in very good condition (A-B) but not serviced so far or a M4-P user (B-C) which was serviced last December. The M4-P costs 260 Euro more than the M4-2. I do not necessarily need the 28mm and 75mm frames because I mostly use the 35/50/90 combination. The M4-2 is in the 152xxxx range, so the bugs of the very early lots should not apply.

Cheers
Thomas-Michael

 

[FrankS]

Sounds like if you can get a CLA done on the M4-2 for 260 Euro or less, you'll end up with a camera more recently serviced and in better condition. If you avoid the early M4-2s, then the M4-P is not such a better or improved camera (besides the framelines you mentioned.) Seems like the M4-2 is the way to go between these 2 cameras. Have you looked at any M2's?

 

[thmk]

I already have an M2 🙂 But I want a black friend for it.

 

[leicasammlung]

You will be better off with the M4-P, for although neither camera is a "real Leica" the M4-p does have some interior refinements that the M4-2 does not have. I have been in the repair business for some years, and have found that the M4-p has some strengthened parts the M4-2 does not have.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Don't lock yourself out of using a 28mm sometime in your future! Who knows if you ever find a great Elmarit 28/f2.8 for an excellent price... and cannot use it well just because your camera has no framelines for its FOV?

Go for a CLA'd camera instead. Go for the M4-P. That's what I would do. And then, relax and enjoy it!

 

[Treb]

although neither camera is a "real Leica"

Please define real Leica.

 

[FrankS]

Many folks believe that the M4 was the last of the real, or classic Liecas. Subsequent Leica models were designed with cost cutting measures introduced which many believe resulted in lower build quality. Leica as much as acknowledges this with the introduction of the MP which is supposed to be built to their original higher standards. I still think the M4-2 and P are good cameras, but there is no denying that accountants played a greater roll in their design than in the earlier Leicas. The M2,3,4 Leicas are still unsurpassed in build quality, IMO.

 

[xayraa33]

I would get the M4-2, the very early ones used some parts from the black chrome Midland M4 . I have an M4-2 from this period, bought it brand new in 1978, and I have used this camera alot, I really like it, the lens mount and the release are the M4 type.The only problem I had was some shutter curtain bounce, which was corrected by Leitz in the first two weeks of its ownership. It has so far been a reliable fine camera.

 

[xayraa33]

this early M4-2 does not have that rf flare and fade out , found on the later M4-2 , M4-P, and later made Leicas also.

 

[Treb]

Many folks believe that the M4 was the last of the real, or classic Liecas. Subsequent Leica models were designed with cost cutting measures introduced which many believe resulted in lower build quality. Leica as much as acknowledges this with the introduction of the MP which is supposed to be built to their original higher standards. I still think the M4-2 and P are good cameras, but there is no denying that accountants played a greater roll in their design than in the earlier Leicas. The M2,3,4 Leicas are still unsurpassed in build quality, IMO.

Have read that so many times it almost becomes a case of if you read it often you actually start believing that your M6 is a piece of shit. Non Leica people would think that Leica is all about believing and a new religion. While I don't deny that Leica's of recent manufacture are different from the "holy three-unity", the question one must ask must be: does it really matter? The answer is no, IMO. The later M camera's are fine tools too. Anyone here would have a field day to actually wear out a typical M4-P or M6.

 

[FrankS]

In case you missed it: I still think the M4-2 and P are good cameras...

Even with cost cutting measures taken, they are still equal or superior in build quality to anything else in the RF world today. IMO

And I haven't just read it, I have owned an M4-2, as well as the M2,3, and 6 I still have, so it is first hand experience.

 

[Treb]

Have owned a very nice M4 and frankly can't see the why of the M4 hype at all, it's just a camera IMO. It would have been nice to still have it but I don't lose sleep over it, I don't regret selling it and never have. So I too have first hand experience.

Yes there's a clear difference in build quality but I think early M's are way over engineered. Nice to know that these early specimens can be adjusted to the Nth degree to bring them within specs. On the M6 Leica used parts that were within specs, so fewer adjustments were needed. That's cheaper, true but does that make it worse or less of a real Leica?

Leica makes the MP because there's demand for such a camera, not because they have "seen the light". Leica actually listens to its user base, they have to in order to stay alive.

 

[FrankS]

Treb, it sounds like we agree except whether it's worth owning an over-engineered early Leica M model. The pictures taken by early or late models won't be any different of course, but I do get a certain satisfaction of ownership of an item that was built as best as it could be, even going beyond reason, almost as a testiment to human capability.

Some people would find that "neat" too and agree with me, and others wouldn't give a hoot about that, and agree with you, so this is not an issue where one of us is right and the other wrong.

 

[Ben Z]

My experience: I bought an M4-P from a camera store which had had it overhauled by Sherry. I shoot slides and found that my exposures were way off from my M4, which I had had overhauled by DAG. I took it to a camera repair guy and he put it up on his fancy shutter checker and indeed the speeds were far off, some slow some faster than marked. Took the camera back to the store along with the printout, and the owner said he'd get it adjusted. Called me back to say that Sherry had told him the M4-P is (expletive deleted) and I was "lucky it worked as well as it did". Got my money back. Now, I don't know what the real deal was because it's all hearsay, but I do know I've got an early Wetzlar M6 which was made the same time as that M4-P and it's bang-on. So in your case, basing on my experience, I'd rather pay less for one that's not serviced and have it done by someone I've got confidence in.

 

[dadsm3]

It was my understanding that the latest MP's were introduced to ensure professionals had an all-mechanical alternative in their bag when their DSLR batteries died in exotic locations, or otherwise succumbed due to extreme weather conditions.
Seems like they're selling pretty well......

 

[agoglanian]

Well considering my current situation, It looks like im going to be purchasing an M4-P quite soon i hope. and, being my first leica ( not first RF ) i hope it lives up to the standards that so many have set for it. i'll let you know as my epic tale unfolds.

also i would certainly have to agree with dadsm3 right above me that when my DSLR batteries poop out on location, ill know that i have that leica in my bag that will never fail me.

 

[VictorM.]

I almost voted for the M4-2 because I have one and like it as much as my 'late' M2 (the one I stupidly sold). But then I noticed you already have an M2, so I would recommend the M4-P because it has framelines the M2 doesn't have. The build-quality discussions some are so fond of are pointless after 35 to 50 years, if they ever had any point for those who use their cameras often. I have a Nikon FE I bought new in 1983, used professionally, loaned to friends who also used it for work, and it still works perfectly. The only service it has needed has been seals and mirror foam. I replaced those myself, using Jon Goodman's kit. Compared to my M4-2, it's a piece of plastic crap.

 

[dll927]

I have an M4-2 I bought new in 1983. By then the M4-P was out, but I decided I didn't need the 28/75 frames.

I'm another one who is a little tired of these cameras being so downplayed. At the time, the Leitz Co. supposedly decided they were going to go with SLRs, but when that didn't pan out they came out with the M4-2. At least that is supposedly the story. The M4-2 has sometimes been called the camera that kept Leitz from going under.

I have 35-50-90 lenses and am quite happy with them. They and the camera have only been used moderately, but I'm not a Vietnam-era journalist who abused cameras.

If the M4-2 was what they were putting out at the time, that's what you got. So maybe they did cut a corner or two, but mine still works as well as the day I bought it. What's more, I paid $800 for it in 1983, and I've more than once seen ads for used ones at that price or more. So who's bitching??

 

[FrankS]

So who's bitching??

Excuse me?

 

[richard_l]

.....neither camera is a "real Leica".....

🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄