M5 & CL . . . Coincidence?

[Huck Finn]

Was the simultaneous production of the M5, the largest of Leica M-mount cameras, & the Leica CL, the smallest of Leica M-mount cameras, just a coincidence?

The M5 was introduced in 1971. A major criticism is that it was too large. Within two years, Leica had introduced the CL almost as if in direct response to this. In 1975, Leica ended production of the M5 after having resumed production of the M4 in 1974. Within a year after discontinuing the M5, Leica ended the 3-year run of the CL as well despite what were reported to be good sales & began working on the successor to the M4, the M4-2, a return to the more modest proportions of earlier M-mount cameras & a move away from the almost SLR size of the M5.

So, I ask again if the birth & death of the CL in relation to the life of the M5 is just a coincidence.

Huck

 

[Flinor]

There is a school of thought that holds that the M5 didn't have to be the failure that it was and the the CL's crime was being too successful. The CL sold well enough at it's lower price to jeopardise the full price M line and without the lower priced competition from the CL, and despite the moaning of the Leica faithful the M5 would have sold well. Stephen Gandy's excellent site has more info along with some sales and serial number info that's quite interesting. It's been a long time since I read it but it's worth taking a look at.

The other little myth concerns the noncompatability between the CL and standard M lenses. No one I know has ever had any problem using M lenses on a CL and for years my pocket rig was a CL with a collapsible Elmar. I know, that's not supposed to work either.

 

[George S.]

Leica was having a real identity crisis back then. They were stumbling and fumbling much as they've done since then, and the photo public was scratching their heads wondering just where the heck Leica was headed. They thought they were doing the right thing by introducing new technology and they also thought they were advancing the M line with the introduction of the M5. Well, people didn't accept it for several reasons, the main one being that it was too different from the M line, and the fact that it was not just larger, but very different (ugly!) and was a break from the all important Leica "tradition".

The CL, in my opinion was also an attempt to introduce technology (built-in metering) but it was so much smaller, its difference from the 'regular Ms' were highlighted rather than ignored as with the M5. Also, there was no way you could call the svelt CL "ugly". It was touted as "affordable", "compact", "handy". "The Leica was the first modern miniature camera... What made Leica great in 1924 makes it great today." [1974 brochure] Leica played up its small size, and its speed in handling. They also showed many ads of the kit being carried in its combination case 'over the shoulder' of a well-dressed woman, and many of the sample pictures in the CL's ads were of children at play, all an obvious marketing ploy to get women into the Leica fold, what with their smaller hands and their need for a fast camera to capture their children.

The CL was a success, as people did embrace Leica's marketing hype that it was the new and continuing progression of the Leica line, and bought them in very good numbers. From the outset though, the production costs were higher than Leica liked, and the profit margin was small and getting smaller each year as the costs went higher. The smaller profit of the CL, and the simultaneous rejection of the M5, forced Leica to bring back the M4 and forget about progress and introducing new technology for another 10 years.

 

[George S.]

The other little myth concerns the noncompatability between the CL and standard M lenses. No one I know has ever had any problem using M lenses on a CL and for years my pocket rig was a CL with a collapsible Elmar. I know, that's not supposed to work either.

I also have no problem using lenses between the Cl and other M bodies, but Leica themselves was the source of the "myth" as they've said all along that you couldn't use collapsible lenses, and their CL brochure of the day went so far as to state, with reference to BOTH the 40/2 and 90/4 CL lenses that they were "Not intended for use on the Leica M models." Strange, very strange.

 

[former member]

I still have some of the original ads for the M5. From my Modern Photography subscription.

Leica seemed to advertise how their cameras retained re-sell value and that the M5 was on allotment to the US. They did not boast about picture taking ability in Low-Light, or about the 50/1.2 Ashperical Noctilux.

FrankG: Someone will perfect the Silicon Filmworks concept of a digital imager in a 35mm sized cassette before film is dead. So much for the hopes of a cheap M4.

 

[paulh]

Perhaps one day when film is dead, and I'm still alive, I shall have my pristine, silver, Canadian made Leica M4-P! Until then, ta-ta. 😀

I meant this to be humorous and serious because pristine silver Leica M4-P's do go for a pretty penny, and my pennies aren't pretty. 😀

So will it be for my silver canadian made M4-2 😀

 

[Ben Z]

Leica acted as if they knew the market better than the market knew itself. They believed the rangefinder was king and casually blew off the SLR with the half-thought-out Leicaflex, followed by the catch-up SL (which never caught up in terms of market share) followed by the once-again outdated SL2 (by 1976 electronic shutters and autoexposure were already in vogue) followed by the catch-up string of R bodies which they had to get Minolta to help them with. Meantime they put a lot of money into getting a meter behind the lens of an M, disregarding that the biggest share of their customers were no longer working journalists but fans who had turned Leica into a cult object (the LHSA was founded in 1968). It was that group who rallied behind Leica and gave them a reprieve, demanding only that they bring back the M4. Had it not been for that, Leica would have gone out of business 30 years ago. The M5 was and is a fine camera with many useful innovations over the M4, but it was a case of a company selling one thing and their customers wanting something else. The last thing Leica needed at the time was one oversized M and one undersized M, they should have stuck with the M4 until they could get a meter into it. But that's all 20/20 hindsight, just as we can't say for certain if a 10MP 1.3-crop digital M for $5000 in a time of 12MP full-frame $2800 Canon 5D won't be the M5 all over again.

 

[John Camp]

But that's all 20/20 hindsight, just as we can't say for certain if a 10MP 1.3-crop digital M for $5000 in a time of 12MP full-frame $2800 Canon 5D won't be the M5 all over again.

I have the feeling that it won't be, though -- there's almost a *hunger* for this camera. In some car magazine recently, there was an article that discussed how marketing (the selling of features, needed or not), pricing and technology were creating what were essentially anonymous and interchangable cars, and when something even a little odd came along, people often loved them despite obvious inefficiences -- the Mini Cooper, the Prowler, etc. I think the same thing happened with SLRs -- now that the megapixel wars seem to be winding down, they're fighting it out with ugly heavy interchangable machines that differentiate based on the location of buttons and how automatic they are. So something like the Epson comes along, and has apparently sold 5,000 copies or so, at $3,000 each, and that's from a company with no rangefinder history or cult behind it. I am pulling this number out of my nether regions, but I think Leica could sell 20,000 Digital Ms for $5,000, if the files are good enough, just like Apple sells a jazzed up MP3 player for four times as much as other, better, MP3 players, based on what, aesthetics?

Hmm. Maybe no morre caffeine tonight.

JC