A few friends have told me they would never buy a new MP, not for cost reasons, but that the cameras coming from the factories today have cut corners and have less skilled technicians than 3xxx aged MP’s.
I always wonder how much of this stuff is based on reality versus perception and wives tales.
Or, they could be spot on.
I’m far from a Leica expert.
I have been using new and second hand Leica cameras since about 1970. That includes IIc, IIf, IIIf, IIIc, M3, M4, M2, M4-P, M4-P, M4-2, M6, M6TTL, M6TTL 0.85x, M9, M-P 240, M-D 262, M10 Monochrom, M10-R, Leicaflex SL, Leica R6, Leica CL (film x3), Leica CL (digital), Leica SL typ 601 ... and I think possibly one or two others, not counting the compacts. I"ve made hundreds of thousands of photographs with these cameras (and a few hundred thousands with the few dozen other cameras I've had alongside them).
In all this time, with all these current and older, new and used Leicas, this has been my total repair record:
1- Leica M4-2 :: bought as used and "UGLY" from KEH; viewfinder full of dirt, had it cleaned, collimated, and adjusted.
2- Leica M10-R :: bought used, refurbished from Leica dealer; viewfinder calibration/collimation off, Leica USA set it right on warranty
3- Leica CL (film) :: bought used; one of them had a meter arm malfunction, DAG repaired and CLA'ed camera.
As to "fit, finish, and feel" of old vs new: The biggest difference that I can offer is that the M4-2 and later film wind isn't quite as 'smooth' feeling as the M4 and M3. This is because the M4-2 and later cameras have steel gears instead of brass gears in the film transport mechanism, and the two materials feel different when put under load.
As to the "cost reduction" changes that've been mentioned:
- Early M4-2 examples like mine have exactly the same viewfinder optics as the M4. Users had been complaining to Leica that the M4 framelines were "thin and dim" compared to the M3, so a running changes to the second build run of the M4-2 involved removing one of the viewfinder condensor components to brighten (and thicken) the frame lines. People liked this, but it became apparent that removal of this condensor induced a certain amount of flare in the rangefinder patch when there was a bright light in the viewfinder FoV. Leica corrected that problem with the viewfinder in the first MP production, and has used the corrected optics ever since, back fitting it to earlier models when requested.
- A lot of disparagement has been leveled at the M4-2 and later cameras, saying that they were much cheaper built than the M2/M3/M4(/M5). This is a half truth: The M4-2 and later were much "cheaper to build" than the prior models, but they are not "much cheaper built". The reason for this is that prior to the M4-2, Leica's manufacturing process was direct legacy from the 19th century where each camera was hand assembled from scratch from the base parts bin ... what this means is that each shutter, each viewfinder, everything, was built of parts individually picked from the bin, measured for fit, and then fitted into the completed camera. This kind of craft manufacturing is extremely expensive in modern times. With the M4-2, Leica adopted mid-20th century manufacturing techniques where you build subassemblies that meet a fitment spec independent of an individual camera's build process, and then pick and assemble the line-produced subassemblies into each individual camera. This saves a VAST amount of time and money in the manufacturing process, and has been proven to net the same or better finished products ... It's how virtually everything else in the world of mass manufactured good is made. It also means that products constructed this way cost a lot less to service than the prior "craft made" products since, for example, each shutter subassembly is complete and can be bolted out and into any body assembly whereas the craft made shutters are each and every one slightly different and have to be hand-fettled to spec. This "cheaper to build" cost reduction basically put Leica back onto a profitable footing and saved the company from extinction while producing the same quality products as the craft made ones.
Leica, like every other manufacturer, has made some mistakes over the years. And, again like every other manufacturer, has made some excellent decisions about how to deal with those mistakes alongside some bone-headed ones. Nothing different.
I have used many high-end pieces of photographic kit over my time: Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji, Mamiya, Contax (old and new), Rollei ... and on and on. All of them are special in their individual ways, and at the same time all of them do ultimately the same job. To single out Leica and nominate it to be the "special-ist" one of them is a bit ridiculous in my opinion. I pick Leica for most of my photography because they have worked well and proven durable and consistent over many years and many thousands of photographs. The same could be said for others ... I don't deny that ... but I like what I get with the Leica cameras.
You have to decide whether the siren song of 'newness' and warranty support is worth the price premium. That's all. The subtleties of how a particular camera might feel (yeah, take a nice old or new Leica, bash it around in a professionals hands as a working tool for a few years, then have an expert repair technician completely overhaul it and fettle it to spec ... and the result in the end may 'feel' far better in the hand than even a new one, where the pre-refurbished one might feel pretty rough) are really like deciding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
It's a camera, not a piece of modern art mechano sculpture. You use it and hopefully make decent photographs with it.
😉
G
