So why is the M5 unpopular?

[rxmd]

My favourite M5 comment came from a Kazakh photographer who said "Ah, that one, built for Americans and their huge hands."

 

[Spider67]

There's an analogy to that phenomenon: Porsche brought their 914 model on the market and it was spurned as not being a real Porsche and disliked. Maybe Leicas and Porsches attract a certain clientele that like to have some continuity in their lives.

 

[thomasw_]

I loved my M5. I had a black one for a few years and it worked perfectly but for one aspect; I sold it a year or so ago. The rewind mechanism rocked and the meter worked very well and the size fit my large-ish hands just right. And it was a rugged, beautiful-functional-ugly beast; yes, it was an oxymoron. The reason I sold mine was because I could not use all my lenses on it without being ultra-careful. That fact made the M5 lose some of its footloose and fancy-free 'ruggedness'.

 

[Vincenzo Maielli]

My hands are not too big, as the americans photographer, notwithstanding i'm 182 cm tall and 100 kg heavy, neverthless the M5 fit perfectly in my hands.
Ciao.
Vincenzo

 

[peterm1]

Hasn't the M5 had something of a revival in recent years? Originally it seemed to be disliked as a bit of an ungainly beast but more recently it seems to me people have begun to revise their opinions of it and seek it out as a competent and well made camera.

 

[Joop van Heijgen]

Hasn't the M5 had something of a revival in recent years? Originally it seemed to be disliked as a bit of an ungainly beast but more recently it seems to me people have begun to revise their opinions of it and seek it out as a competent and well made camera.

Most M photographers have never had the M5 in their hands...

Since its introduction the M5 remained always an expensive camera!

I paid for the M5 in 1980 DM 2200,-.

Nowadays the M5 wil cost about €1200,-

The M5 is the most unknown M camera (like the M4-P) but the real Leica lover knows better for many years! 🙂

 

[FrankS]

Hasn't the M5 had something of a revival in recent years? Originally it seemed to be disliked as a bit of an ungainly beast but more recently it seems to me people have begun to revise their opinions of it and seek it out as a competent and well made camera.

Shhhhhhhhhh!

🙂

 

[ERV]

A couple of random thoughts to add about the M5;
I consider the M5 one of the few times in Leica history that the designers were given an opportunity to rethink the design of the rangefinder camera.
In my opinion, all the other M's are a variant of the M3 in concept and form, with each model being the recipient of minor modifications as the result of improvements in manufacturing processes (brass to zinc tops) aesthetics (protruding rangefinder windows to flushed windows) and functionality (the large shutter dial of the M2 that gave way to the button dial). Obviously there are other examples of these transitional developments in the history of M line, some of which found themselves offered as options in the most recent a la carte program.
What I find so intriguing about the M5 is it was in essence an a la carte camera from the designer/ engineering perspective (the anti-a la carte camera) 😎

 

[Paul C. Perkins MD]

The original question:

<< I recently posted a question as to which Leica to buy - the consensus was M6 (I'd like a meter built in for one thing). Some M2/M3 loyalists chipped in - but no-one recommended the M5. Is there a good reason why? >>

I was going to say something rude about the M-5 - but I think I'll just observe that if you want a built-in meter in an M-body - it would make more sense to go with an M-6 than an M-5 just on the basis of size and aesthetics.

Paul

 

[Rob-F]

It's only unpopular with those who don't like it.

I tried one and didn't like it. Compared to an M6, it is bigger and heavier, but doesn't do anything I can't do with an M6. And with an M6 I get 28mm framelines. The M5 meter is more sensitive; but in light dim enough to need that extra sensitivity, I couldn't see to focus. The M6 and MP do it for me.

 

[rxmd]

Since its introduction the M5 remained always an expensive camera!

I paid for the M5 in 1980 DM 2200,-.

Nowadays the M5 wil cost about €1200,-

You may very well halve that sum if you don't mind signs of use. I paid 500 EUR for mine, plus 50 EUR for a CLA here in Berlin. There were a number of them that recently sold in the 400-600 EUR range on German eBay. M5 prices have taken a downturn over the last two years or so.

OK, if you want to spend 1200 EUR, Arsenal will sell them for that sum (but that's already the more expensive of the two he currently has on offer).

Philipp

 

[jarski]

my M5 gets currently little use, but not because of its size. main problem is that I've so used to digital, that when I want all the same information from my film scans that I get automatically from digi... well, its just a bit effort, thats all..

 

[Joop van Heijgen]

You may very well halve that sum if you don't mind signs of use. I paid 500 EUR for mine, plus 50 EUR for a CLA here in Berlin. There were a number of them that recently sold in the 400-600 EUR range on German eBay. M5 prices have taken a downturn over the last two years or so.

OK, if you want to spend 1200 EUR, Arsenal will sell them for that sum (but that's already the more expensive of the two he currently has on offer).

Philipp

http://www.schouten-select.com/products.asp?gid=62&Leica+M5

http://www.leicabeimeister.com/

http://www.leica-camera-berlin.com/index.php?id=78

For 'mint' M5's you have still to pay! And not cheap!

 

[telenous]

There's no hate for M5s or unpopularity or what you have, just cheeky teasing among Leica users. Checking current second-hand prices here in the UK, the M5 is priced right in-between the M4-P and the M6. That suggests to me a canonical reinstatement of the M5 in the Leica line-up, something attested by M5 aficionados too. If the M5 was priced at a lower point, it would sell like hot buns in the Leica second-hand market.

In terms of aesthetics, I always thought the M5 was the one M camera that looked/felt similar to the SL/SL2 Leicaflexes. Not a big surprise there, since they were concurrent, at least for a time. I think they were both gorgeous cameras although the M5 is still kind of dear for the pocket in the big scheme of things. Last, I don't think it was the M5 specifically as a design that jeopardized the existence of Leica, just a massive transference of the customer base to the relatively new, and very faddish SLRs. But I am sure someone must have said so already.

 

[JNewell]

it would make more sense to go with an M-6 than an M-5 just on the basis of size and aesthetics

That's fine, but it's a purely personal opinion. Obviously, an opinion that most of Leitz's market shared, but still just a personal preference.

 

[larmarv916]

The M5 never got a fair deal from the get go...when it came out, there was a major section of the Leica fanatics that stated was not a real Leica. I was in school and was amazed by the negative press. Also it was reviewed as "not enough" to turn back the tide of superior products by Japan's SLR marketing giants. The SLR marketing craze was in full speed with newer and better products rushing to market.

At the same time.. Leica tried to market the M5 as break thru against the SLR and even dedicated a massive 15th edition Morgan & Morgan , Leica Manual..wow what a monster. It was really dedicated to M5.

The devoted Leica owners were being told to teach the factory a lesson. At the time I did not find the M5 anything other than a serious effort to put a meter into a rangefinder body. I own an M5 now and find the meter to be very accurate. I low light situations it is a great tool. It is more sensative than my M6TTL The size difference between it and the M3 is not an issue for me. Mount a Noctilux on the M5 and you can stalk the dark and get great results.

Drawbacks are loading...The spool is not easy to grab and should have been like the M6. But that is hindsight. The rearview mirror of history. Do I like my M6 better....not really All M5's had a great quality of build. But they still suffer from being a marketing blunder. Leica had and still has the idea.....If we make it, you should assume we know what is best for you!! I see the M8 and M5 as suffering the same fate when history judges them. We know a full frame Digital will show up in the near future. The M8 is not good enough to compete against the D3 or even for that matter the D200. I still shoot with my M5 and now days think how much it reminds me of a Zeiss Ikon ZM body.

 

[sepiareverb]

Perhaps a "Which was the bigger marketing blunder M5 or M8?"

 

[lemalk]

Perhaps a "Which was the bigger marketing blunder M5 or M8?"

I don't see the M8 as a marketing blunder at all - on the contrary, the camera's exposure in the marketplace is an amazing exercise in marketing while the actual camera is an imperfect execution in digital rangefinder production.

Think about it - nearly no marketing budget for a $5000 (then) camera.
Rely solely on word of mouth among an exclusive group of professional and enthusiast photographers. Wait a few months. Then raise the price.
Genius.


The M5 was technologically advanced for what an RF could do in the early 70s. As others have mentioned here, it had to compete with SLRs. The paradigm shift was happening and Leica was caught off-guard. They promoted the camera, but it turns out that it wasn't *exactly* what the cult base was looking for. It looked "different." It was "heavy" and "massive."

Fast forward to 2007. Now you have a camera that looks *EXACTLY* the way the other M cameras look. Almost identical. Except it's now digital. And it's more than twice as expensive as its predecessor, the M7. And it sells so well that there's an "apparent backlog" and new lenses have to be introduced to account for the magnification factor. And those start selling as well.

And it kicks off a "mini-resurrection" of rangefinders as more and more people come into the fold.

And the Leica-branded point and shoots and compact digitals start selling pretty well on their own.

I think the late 2000s hold much more promise for Leica than the mid 70s did.

But that's just my two cents...

 

[Al Kaplan]

Not all that long after the big M5 hit the market Leitz and Minolta teamed up to introduce the cute little CL. It was smaller and lighter than an M4, had an accurate behind the lens meter, hot shoe, and bright frames for 40, 50, and 90mm lenses. It was half the price of an M5. That didn't help M5 sales at all. A lot of us got CL's as "walk around" cameras. I still use mine and I bought one for my son as well.

 

[ChipNovaMac]

Not all that long after the big M5 hit the market Leitz and Minolta teamed up to introduce the cute little CL. It was smaller and lighter than an M4, had an accurate behind the lens meter, hot shoe, and bright frames for 40, 50, and 90mm lenses. It was half the price of an M5. That didn't help M5 sales at all. A lot of us got CL's as "walk around" cameras. I still use mine and I bought one for my son as well.

Right you are Al.

The CL did not help the M5 or Leica in general. Folks flocked to the CL for the Leica name and "quality" of the brand. Sort of like Cadillac Cimarron of 1982.