M5

M

Magnus

Guest
I have been reading comments here over the past couple of weeks, and finally have become a member.
I read lots of threads about the M2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 but very few, if any about the M5. I realize the M5 was the odd one out in the M series but nevertheless a fantastic camera,. I traded my M3 years ago for an M5 and haven't regretted it since (I have recently bought a second body). What is it with the M5 that makes it so unpopular ?
 
I was actually just trying to do a search here today on M5.

I was wondering the same thing. I have been doing a bit of research on the internet and am strongly considering buying one.

I wanted to see if there was some negativity surrounding them because I haven't heard much about them.
 
I think it is because there were relatively few of them made so prices are high due to collectors. They are larger than your typical Leica, and to my eye, not the piece of sculptural art that the other models are. (Not that that has anything to do with taking pictures.)
 
I liked them a lot... precisely because they look so odd (including the downward pointing rewind crank in the bottom plate). But then, the prices were too high and the offers too low.

For a while they were maligned as almost guilty of driving Leica out of business... but then the purists forgave the camera. Some people say collectors find them hot, and they're driving prices through the roof.

Otherwise, a lot more people would own M5s.
 
I think they were initially poorly received because they were noticeably larger than any other M. They are also not as sleek. It is that simple. They may be a good camera, but part of what people like about M series cameras is that they are smaller than SLR's. The M5 is just plain big.
 
In January I watched a user M5 in fine technical condition go for 450 Euro on Ebay. I'm still looking for a second opportunity like that. It's the only option to own a full size Leica M-body with meter at such a low price. Even CL's usually don't sell for less and an M6, no matter how it looks, often goes for double that amount. I wouldn't mind the size or looks.

Wim
 
You mean the Leica that shared the "Function, Not Form" philosophy with the Canon 7? Somewhere I have the 1971 ad in a Pop photo that introduced it. Didn't they get some car designer to do it? I forget. I hated it when camera manufacturers let some car designer or fashion designer get any say with what a camera should look like.

It was big, and unlike any Leica before it. The customer base rebelled and Leica was forced to withdraw it and put the M4 back into production. The M4-2 was the cost-cutting rendition of the expensive to produce M4; among other things the M4-2 eliminated the condensor lens in the VF/RF system that and brought on the RF flare problem. Leica is finally correcting THAT mistake almost 30 years later.

http://www.cameraquest.com/m5.htm

http://www.cameraquest.com/canon7sz.htm

Of course Leica is not alone in this. The Nikon SP-2005 has been introduced to correct the error in coming out with the economy model, the S3-2000, as the companies RF revival. The S3 VF is subject to flare not seen in the SP.
 
If Ferdinand Porsche wants to park something in my driveway that he designed, that is fine with me. Even if it is a Leica.

Actually, I don't know if it was Ferdinand, but it was a Porsche.
 
Porsche also designed the VW Beetle and the German "MAUS" tank. I think they got the guy who designed the MAUS to do it. The two share a lot of the look and feel, but the M5 does not weigh 188 Tons.
 
Last edited:
Brian Sweeney said:
Porsche also designed the VW Beetle and the German "MAUS" tank. I think they got the guy who designed the MAUS to do it. The two share a lot of the look and feel, but the M5 does not weigh 188 Tons.
Click to expand...

They both lack machine-gun mounts, too.
 
I've got to admit that the size is what attracts me to the M5. One of the things I've learned since moving to rangefinders is that I really don't care for small cameras. I don't like the Canonet, for example, because it's just too small for me to use comfortably. The M5 interests me because it's the largest M body. Can anyone tell me how it compares with the Contax size wize?

Thanks,

William
 
Some people also didn't like the M5's swing-arm meter. It's one more moving part that may need servicing at some point. (And, unlike the M6, if the meter is out, isn't the swing-arm meter stuck in front of the shutter?) It may also add slightly to the shutter noise, and delay. (I may be wrong about this.)
 
the pricing of the M5 ... I don't know about the situation now, I think they were really cheap compared to other M's at some stage stage. Like I said I traded my first one fo a battered and used M3, the M5, chrome (not really nice and sleek looking I must say) was in good condition, both optically and mechanically. Later I bought a black M5 for 950€ which was in top condition and included original box and papers. The black looks better than the chrome M5, I do believe the chrome M5 has similarities with the before mention Maus. Anyway I grew attached to the M5, I like and use both, The chrome is always loaded with Velvia 50, and the black with HP-5. It is sizey compared to M4 and M3 but I have big hands....

.... I like Cybil .. :)
 
Brian Sweeney said:
You mean the Leica that shared the "Function, Not Form" philosophy with the Canon 7? Somewhere I have the 1971 ad in a Pop photo that introduced it. Didn't they get some car designer to do it? I forget. I hated it when camera manufacturers let some car designer or fashion designer get any say with what a camera should look like.
Click to expand...

It was Luigi Colani, he designed cars but nobody bought the designs. He was very succesfull with what we call "Sanitär Keramik", toilets, washbowls and such. I have a Colani beerglas which realy fits into my hand but is so small that I don't hold it very long and a ballpen.
http://www.colani.ch/

As far as I know the Contax RTS was designed by Porsche Design
 
One other thing that made the M-5 somewhat unpopular - certain wide-angle lenses could not be used on it because they extended too far back into the body and that "wig-wag' meter got in the way. If memory serves me, I think that only applied to the 21mm lens, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom