So why is the M5 unpopular?

[windraider]

Personally I find the M5 more egronomical than its other M3 sized siblings - unfortunately pure egronmics isn't the reason why people buy Leicas.
Additionally when the M5 was launched in the '70s, SLRs were more versatile and there were even a few that were smaller than it (ie Olympus OM-1 & Pentax MX).

So there wasn't much going for a large RF which didn't look like its classic siblings at that time.
But I suppose with the release of bigger lenses by Leica in recent times (ie Summilux ASPH, Noctilux ) perhaps the larger M5 is gaining in popularity for its handling with these lenses.

 

[rxmd]

Paradoxically (or not, in a mini-replay of the 1970s) a CL would be pretty much the only Leica I could see replacing my M5 as a user camera.

 

[Joop van Heijgen]

'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.'

At that time ('70) the 'cult base' for the M (5) was disappeared!

Everyone wanted a SLR, also Leica photographers (Leicaflex SL, R3, R4...)

The M4-2 was the beginning of the new 'cult base' for the M Leica.

I belonged to that group: in 1978 I bougth my first brand new Leica: the M4-2🙂

 

[Rob-F]

Nobody reacted to my Yogi Berra style joke: "It's only unpopular with those who don't like it."

Sigh. 😉

 

[sf6864]

I also shunned the M5 in the 70's, and bought an M4-2 and an M3 DS, which I used for many years. Stupidly, I sold them many years later, and contented myself with SLR's and digital cameras. Recently I cought the rangefinder bug again, and happened upon a very nice M5 for a good price on the bay. We'll, it is a big, relatively ugly camera, that's for sure, but it's also truly great. This one had the meter recalibrated by Sherry Krauter ( who apparently worked on the previous owners entire collection) and is a joy to use. Sometimes I wonder if i'd prefer to have the rounded contours of an M6, but the M5 is beautifully made and has a spectacularly bright and acccurate rangefinder - the best I've seen on any M, and the meter is very sensitive, accurate and quick to use, and that shutter dial is easily the best ever put on any M. I should have gone for one in the 70s. (Also, I should never have sold my other Leicas, but I was going through a stupid period)

 

[sepiareverb]

And don't forget with some minor filing Tom A's Rapidgrip goes right on the M5, improving handling even more. The shutter speed dial is even better with the grip on there.

 

[Paul C. Perkins MD]

Benjamin wrote,

<<The Leica engineers had a hard time fitting 1970's electronics in the traditional M chassis. >>

The folks at Olympus and Pentax didn't have any problems putting 1970's electronics into their (smaller) cameras. . . So much for the vaunted engineering supremacy of Leitz. . .

 

[JNewell]

Benjamin wrote,

<<The Leica engineers had a hard time fitting 1970's electronics in the traditional M chassis. >>

The folks at Olympus and Pentax didn't have any problems putting 1970's electronics into their (smaller) cameras. . . So much for the vaunted engineering supremacy of Leitz. . .

As engineering projects, they were not comparable. Even the M6/M7 arrangement is really a kludge, although it works. There is no substitute for putting the cell in the lightpath, and it is so easy to do with an SLR.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

So much for the vaunted engineering supremacy of Leitz. . .

Yeah, well, let me modify what I said -- as far as I know it was an engineering limitation -- perhaps you are right and they are just a bunch a' monkeys over there.

Or, maybe I'm wrong and they made the camera's form larger for some other reason. I bought one recently and I have to tell you, I'm reaching for it rather than my M6 classic. Part of that is because it is always fun to play with the new toy. But part of it is definitely because the ergonomics work for me, the finder is great and the camera is pleasant to use.

Ben Marks

 

[Joe]

The M5 ugly? I've never owned a camera that elicited so many oohs and aahs. It isn't ugly, but it does get noticed. A black M5 with it's black leather half case is a beautiful camera. The M5's detractors can grouse about a few extra ounces and centimeters, but there is no questioning it's quality. It is 100% classic Wetzlar leica.

 

[Ororaro]

One has to understand the nature of the M5 and why it was badly perceived in the market. It is obvious that the M5 shares some components with the Leica SL (R system) and they're both as big. It probably was a cost-cutting measure (IMO).

At that time, SLRs we're booming in popularity and Rangefinders we're going down... And there was this new Rangefinder M5 which was as big (and maybe even bigger) then a Leicaflex or any Minolta/Canon/Nikon slr! No wonder it failed! It lacked the edge it had over the popular SLRs: the small size.

Of course, size isn't everything, but if you look in perspective it's like if Leica came out with a M8 as big as the new Nikon D3.


That's what the M5 is.

 

[sepiareverb]

And here we are 35 years later and everybody is still bothered by the size?

 

[Al Kaplan]

I'm more bothered by the end hang of the original two lug edition, and the lugs don't allow for the free movement of the strap the way split rings do. If you're shooting with multiple bodies mixing an M5 in with a pair of M2, M3, and/or M4 bodies just makes for confusion.

One reason for the pro acceptance of the original Nikon F was that it was designed to feel and handle as much like the S series rangefinder bodies as was possible.

 

[czamagni]

M6 is 10-20 years newer. It offers you a 28mm wievfinder. Has a mode modern lightmeter (normal batteries, silicon-diode technology). It cost more or less the same as a M5 in good condition. It's normal that people tells you to buy an M6. Choose for yourself!

 

[lawrence]

Personally I love almost everything about the M5. The M5 was a re-think of the classic rangefinder and the guys at Leitz were no fools. For example, few people seem to appreciate the utility of the end lugs. Instead of wearing the camera on your chest like a conspicuous photo-nerd you wear it over your left shoulder and bring it straight up to your eye to shoot -- try doing that with a conventional strap.

 

[venchka]

Bump!

Bump!

Nobody reacted to my Yogi Berra style joke: "It's only unpopular with those who don't like it."

Sigh. 😉

😱 😀 😎

 

[lemalk]

M6 is 10-20 years newer. It offers you a 28mm wievfinder. Has a mode modern lightmeter (normal batteries, silicon-diode technology). It cost more or less the same as a M5 in good condition. It's normal that people tells you to buy an M6. Choose for yourself!

You got me on the 28mm viewfinder - and I haven't had the chance to compare lightmeters between the M5 and the M6, but the M5 is spot-on accurate.

As far as the batteries, it's been discussed before that you can use hearing aid batteries - inexpensive and readily available.

And I got an M5 in *great* condition for less than $600. M6s are still in the $1000-1600 range.

I'd LOVE to have an M6 as well, but the M5 is a fantastic starter body for anyone considering getting into RFs but looking for a more rugged, robust, and Leica-branded camera.

 

[rxmd]

You got me on the 28mm viewfinder

To be honest one should say that the viewfinder in the M5 and M6 is practically the same, except the metering related stuff of course. The M6 has an 28mm frameline somewhere out there, and IIRC its 35mm frame is a little smaller to make room for it. That's about it. Magnification, area of view, it's all the same between the M5 and the M6. (Some M6s supposedly have a flare problem that the M5 doesn't have, but I don't have an M6 to know how much of a problem this really is.)

If you insist, you can have the M6-style frameline mask built into the M5 viewfinder as well, but given that Leica finders aren't really high eyepoint finders, and that with my eyes at least the 35mm frameline is already at the edge of what I can overlook without difficulty, for me at least the 28mm frameline in the M6 is quite useless.

Philipp

 

[venchka]

Bigfoot and the M-Hexanon 28mm lens work just fine together. Bubba has the M6 framelines and the C/V 75mm lens works just fine with the 75mm framelines. The 28mm lines, as Philipp said, are there but who cares?

 

[bobkonos]

M5's are like opera or hockey: you either love it or ignore it. To me, they are clunky in my hands and not that appealing to use. And once you hold an M6, after using other similar-shape M models with that classic M feel, forget it.