Most Maligned Leica M Model

Most Maligned Leica M Model

  • M3

    Votes: 11 1.8%

  • M2

    Votes: 3 0.5%

  • M4

    Votes: 3 0.5%

  • M4-2

    Votes: 65 10.5%

  • M4-P

    Votes: 15 2.4%

  • M5

    Votes: 303 48.9%

  • M6

    Votes: 7 1.1%

  • M6 TTL

    Votes: 12 1.9%

  • M7

    Votes: 20 3.2%

  • MP (new and original)

    Votes: 11 1.8%

  • M8

    Votes: 146 23.6%

  • M9

    Votes: 23 3.7%
  • Total voters
    619
I don't own an M5, but many consider it the red headed stepchild of the M family. I have a suspicion that if I had a chance to shoot with one for a day, I would like it in spite of its slightly overgrown size.

ALL Leica M cameras are wonky by SLR standards; some are more wonky than others; some of us know why these wonky cameras are loved by so many.

Either you get it or you don't...
 
I voted M8 because it´s the only Leica I didn´t like shooting with it. After years using Leica Ms the M8 is too big and fat and I cant stand that noisy shutter. On the other side it can deliver great results.
 
I've had several M-mount cameras not just Leicas. I sold them all other than M5 and RD1s - just cant seem to part with those. One I liked least was M6, funny enough.
 
As a 25 year old I bought the M5 and the CL. Hated the M5 and still have the CL. Wish I didn't sell off the M5, I think I could have grown old with it. Could have had it re-cell'd and serviced every ten years by Sherry Krauter.
 
I,m afraid it has to be the M6TTL, sold my cherished M4-2 to get it, couldn't get rid of it quick enough. Didn't like the 50mm framelines way too inaccurate. Now settled with another M4-2 best M ever, in my opinion!

Best.

normclarke.
 
M4-2
I had mine serviced twice and in the end the shutter failed completely. Both of my service technicians had little good to say about the camera.

M8
The inaccuracy of the frame lines alone was a deal breaker. IR sensitivity, CCD rot...
You've come a long way, Leica...
 
What a strange thread. Based on what I’ve read, I would vote for every single one of them. These cameras have all at times been knocked by owners and non-owners alike. Either they can’t do certain things to some people’s liking or they don’t appeal to another group’s needs. They’re all considered far too expensive by many. None of them are likely to be hailed as bargains by most. All of them strike me as beautiful examples of a very particular approach to design, engineering and manufacturing.

At the end of the day the best that you can hope for is that those who do hold these cameras in high regard are able to get their hands on whatever particular model it is that appeals to them. Conversely, hopefully those who don’t care for Leica M’s will end up with cameras from other manufacturers that they enjoy using to create photographs. That is what would seem to matter the most. At least that’s what I hope most everyone is shooting for. I have no illusions that I’ll reach some level of greatness in this hobby, but I am hoping to enjoy it along with the results that I get from my efforts (regardless of how badly my camera has been maligned, or not).
 
Guth said:
What a strange thread. Based on what I’ve read, I would vote for every single one of them. These cameras have all at times been knocked by owners and non-owners alike. Either they can’t do certain things to some people’s liking or they don’t appeal to another group’s needs. They’re all considered far too expensive by many. None of them are likely to be hailed as bargains by most. All of them strike me as beautiful examples of a very particular approach to design, engineering and manufacturing.

At the end of the day the best that you can hope for is that those who do hold these cameras in high regard are able to get their hands on whatever particular model it is that appeals to them. Conversely, hopefully those who don’t care for Leica M’s will end up with cameras from other manufacturers that they enjoy using to create photographs. That is what would seem to matter the most. At least that’s what I hope most everyone is shooting for. I have no illusions that I’ll reach some level of greatness in this hobby, but I am hoping to enjoy it along with the results that I get from my efforts (regardless of how badly my camera has been maligned, or not).
Click to expand...

Well, there are some legitimate technical issues with some of these cameras. The M4-2 has a less than stellar reputation for reliability and the M8 is a technical train wreck.

The problem with the M5 is that it was made by Leica and is always compared to the traditional M bodies, at which point it becomes a religious war.. If the M5 had a Nikon badge it would be considered 'the other greatest RF ever made'.
 
Funny, for the non-metered M cameras, I love the M4-2.
As with all of my cameras, mine has been serviced by DAG.
It is reliable, and just works great.



The synch ports were the primary weakness. They were originally made to fit on a plastic mounting that eventually broke. It is easy enough for a tech to give you a proper metal mount for your synch port.


Properly serviced, it is as reliable as any other Leica M. Yet, it costs the least of all of the mechanical film M cameras.
 
I see that I picked a popular model by voting for the M5. Well, it IS big! So big that when I bought one and took it out of the box, I played with it for about 5 minutes before sending it back. The only other camera I did this with was one of those huge Fuji 6x9 rangefinders. That one came out of the box, the wife and I burst out laughing (where's the red nose and floppy shoes?) and it went right back in the box and back to the seller.
 
Super curious what the reasoning was for the two people who voted for the M2? Of all the 'classic' M's, it's pretty inoffensive. Even the legendary M3 has the lack of 35mm framelines to get people offside...

Maybe the external counter is just a step to far?
 
As an M5 and M8 owner, I'm going to refrain from voting!

I'd lean toward the M8 though, as the M5, in a few publications, was lauded for its technical advances, at least among the waning MF. I wasn't around in the 1970s so I can't say for sure, but I'd guess its commercial failure was not from ergonomics and styling moving away from 'classic' Ms and offending the purists (were there Leica purists back then, or was that a later thing?) so much is it being too little, too late while SLRs were coming out with AE, motor drives, data backs, and other such things that made them truly all-purpose cameras.

The M8? I can remember, and go back into archives here, about the skepticism. Practically obsolete sensor when it came out. Building an heirloom-quality body with accompanying price for a basically disposable piece of electronics. Horrible low-light and weird shutter sounds and problems (tell me about it!). Abnormally thick body, which I agree with.

In their respective historical contexts, the M5 appears more ambitious, at least from Germany trying to keep a foothold in the market, while the M8 was a blatant appeal to whom our favorite Ken Rockwell calls the LEICAMAN.

Yet I still shoot one and sunk money into keeping it alive, all because I just absolutely can't stand EVFs.
 
Harry Lime said:
The problem with the M5 is that it was made by Leica and is always compared to the traditional M bodies, at which point it becomes a religious war..
Click to expand...

The problem with the M5, in my opinion, is that it doesn't look like the other Ms. Purely an aesthetic issue. To the style-conscious Leica collector in the 1970s, the M5 was tacky. It was new and different. It didn't cry out "old money" like the M3 and M4 did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom