Trade M4 for M5?

[Nokton48]

The metering with a M5 makes you slow down. The top reading measuring of the M 4 with a MR 4 (or extern meter) allows for very fast operation. The 'classical' M size of the M4 is in fact a better one than the M5.

I have the MR on M2, and the MR-4 on M4-2. That tends to bulk them up somewhat more comparably to M5. I would say that the M5 is faster and way more intuitive, more sensitive, as well as accurate with incredible spot precision. Great for difficult low-light situations such as stage-lit shows. Deadly accurate, best in-camera metering system I have ever used, period. Also I hate diodes in finders, they are distracting!

No comparison at all, but I'm glad to have the Leica accessory meters, IMO.

 

[Joop van Heijgen]

"I would say that the M5 is faster and way more intuitive, more sensitive, as well as accurate with incredible spot precision. Great for difficult low-light situations such as stage-lit shows. Deadly accurate, best in-camera metering system I"

That's another way of photography than I do with my M4(P)

For your way of photography I do use my Leicaflex SL2 because I find this reflex system do better (portraits) work than the M system .

For 'snap shot' photography you will be always too late with the M5 metering😎 (also for the M6 etc.)

The M camera without a metering system is always the most fast way for your shots.

 

[venchka]

Nokton48: Right on Bro!
Joop: You aren't using an M5 correctly.

 

[Joop van Heijgen]

"joop: You aren't using an M5 correctly."

In fact there is no big difference in lightmetering between the M5 and the Leicaflex SL2. (selective lightmeter)

And the results are mostly very good with the SL2.

"Great for difficult low-light situations ' is the M5 indeed; but not for fast shots in that situation...

You can metering with the M5 according to the MR4 system and then there will be not a big difference. That's the reason why I am saying that I do not make better shots with the M5 than with the M4, certain for street photography.

 

[DNG]

Good point about the nose, but it's amazing how many left eyed shooters there are using Ms anyway.

Left eye M5 user here.

My nose is a non issue after all these years with SLRs with Centered VF.

An M5 with a recent CLA and good meter (as mine) is a joy to use.

 

[DNG]

"I would say that the M5 is faster and way more intuitive, more sensitive, as well as accurate with incredible spot precision. Great for difficult low-light situations such as stage-lit shows. Deadly accurate, best in-camera metering system I"

That's another way of photography than I do with my M4(P)

For your way of photography I do use my Leicaflex SL2 because I find this reflex system do better (portraits) work than the M system .

For 'snap shot' photography you will be always too late with the M5 metering😎 (also for the M6 etc.)

The M camera without a metering system is always the most fast way for your shots.

Don't know about that ^^ in Pink, Just take an average reading and preset your f/stop and DOF scale and go capture like a point and shoot. With Neg film, there is enough leeway for a little error that can be cleaned up after scanning... for wet printing, dodge/burn what is needed.

 

[Nokton48]

"Great for difficult low-light situations ' is the M5 indeed; but not for fast shots in that situation...

I find I can shoot more spontaneously with any Leica than any reflex camera, due to the lack of "mirror blackout" and delay, and the resulting time lag. Seeing the subject during the moment of exposure also helps me out? Fleeting moments are easier for me to catch with the Leicas, M4-2 and M5 operate equally seamlessly for me. I can be very fast with M5 and it's my go-to camera. And when I'm not in "sunny 16" mode (which is faster for me) I personally prefer M5.

M4 and M5 would be a killer combination. The best of Wetzlar RF.

 

[Joop van Heijgen]

"Just take an average reading and preset your f/stop and DOF scale and go capture like a point and shoot"

Indeed! That's the reason why you don't need a build in meter in a M Leica.

The question was: "Trade M4 for M5"

My answer don' t do that because you don't need the build in meter of the Leica M5.
The meter don't justify the bigger size of the M5 camera.
And most M users find the M5 too big compared with the other M Leica's.

 

[Joop van Heijgen]

"Fleeting moments are easier for me to catch with the Leicas, M4-2 and M5 operate equally seamlessly for me"

Clearly there are big advantages of the M camera over the SLR cameras.
I am working for more thans 30 years with my M4 cameras, and I do love the system.
But I don't need the metering of the M5 because on an average I do get the same results with the M4. And finally I do like more the size of the M4.
But the M5 is a very nice camera to have together with the M4 special when you hate 'leds'

 

[Nokton48]

But the M5 is a very nice camera to have together with the M4 special when you hate 'leds'

Yes the combo works for me. I can estimate outdoor lighting well enough, but not interior/deep overcast situations. Sometimes I can pull out my Minolta incident meter for verification, but that's not an option in all situations. That's when I rely on M5 and it has not let me down so far. Great metering system.

The OP should try the M4/M5 together and decide for himself. Nobody else shoots the way he does.

 

[Joop van Heijgen]

"I can estimate outdoor lighting well enough, but not interior/deep overcast situations"

Yes, perhaps this is the main difference in use between the M4(P) and the M5.😉

I do use my M4's mainly outdoor! For indoor the M5 is more convenient!

For indoor I do mostly use my SL2 and R 7 cameras with naturally build in meters.

 

[DNG]

"Just take an average reading and preset your f/stop and DOF scale and go capture like a point and shoot"

Indeed! That's the reason why you don't need a build in meter in a M Leica.

The question was: "Trade M4 for M5"

My answer don' t do that because you don't need the build in meter of the Leica M5.
The meter don't justify the bigger size of the M5 camera.
And most M users find the M5 too big compared with the other M Leica's.

My main idea was that if don't need a meter inside.. as you compose, then, it can be used like any M with a external meter, BUT, if you find yourself in difficult lighting, the Built-in meter is very good and accurate, having a narrow fov, and is fast, because you keep your eye in the VF to adj exposure and framing. Plus with a 50mm, you have a center meter indicator to use as to what you want to meter. An MR4 meter is too wide for precise measurement, unless you are close.

If, you don't need a meter in the VF, any M will still do with an external meter. But, it gives you a option for a more narrowed Metered area than an External meter.

As far as trading to an M5.... Only if you like shooting in tricky light (night clubs, high contrast situations, where you need to expose for the subject only at a distance, or want more control on "What Is" really metered), Then, get the M5, if not, keep the M4/MR4.

I have an M5 because it the only M I bought years ago, but, I could not afford at my young age to add to it. But, I did enjoy the camera, and I very much liked the on board meter. But, I had no experience with other M models, so, the shape/weight/meter had no negatives for me. For, me, it was my 1st Leica, so when I could afford it latter on, I got one again. Sentimental, yes, but, I still like using it as my main film camera.

 

[venchka]

True, there are corner ticks to mark the metered area with a 50mm lens.
Then there is the center rangefinder patch to mark the metered area of the 90mm & 135mm lenses.
Next up is the 135mm frame to mark the metered area of the 35mm lens.
Still more...the 90mm framelines mark the metered area of the 28mm lens.
Shall I continue?
Those who use, know.
Those who don't use, don't know.

 

[Nokton48]

There was a strong business reason why Leitz brought the M4-2 out after M5 was on the market for only 2 years, and dropped it completely after 4.

Yeah when you could buy the Leica CL for a fraction of the price why would you want the M5???

 

[venchka]

Nokton48,

Amen again! Leitz did more to shoot themselves in the foot re: M5/CL sales or lack of same than any imagined horrors of the M5.

 

[ChrisN]

My original point about the in-viewfinder metering slowing me down was more about me, and how I use a camera, than a negative of the camera itself. If a camera has a meter I have to refer to it. But I really dislike having to raise the camera to my eye to do that. I'll only raise the camera to actually take a photo. And while I'm doing that I don't want to be distracted by having to check the meter and adjust aperture or shutter speed. For my preferences and shooting style the little VCII meter on top of the camera is better: without raising the camera take a reading and set the exposure before raising the camera to take the photo. More discrete. A hand-held meter can be even better.

I don't think anyone has mentioned the longer travel of the shutter release with the M5, needed to swing the meter arm out of the way.

But by all means the M5 is an excellent camera, and if you are comfortable with it, give it a go. But don't sell the M4.

 

[DNG]

True, there are corner ticks to mark the metered area with a 50mm lens.
Then there is the center rangefinder patch to mark the metered area of the 90mm & 135mm lenses.
Next up is the 135mm frame to mark the metered area of the 35mm lens.
Still more...the 90mm framelines mark the metered area of the 28mm lens.
Shall I continue?
Those who use, know.
Those who don't use, don't know.

Which was a brilliant move to use the "other-smaller" frame lines that come with using a 28(full VF)=90, 35/135, 50 w/marked metering.

On a M6 VF upgrade, the 50 is now a 50/75 with original meter guides for the 50 still intact. (Bubba has such an VF upgrade)... So it would be now as any M6+, 28/90, 35/135, 50/75

Not sure on the Original 35-135 VF.... 35/135, 50, 90 and use the RF spot if I remember for the 90.

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

The meter in my M5 gave up the ghost, so it now is a 'meterless' M... I still prefer the M5 to the M4-2/P simply because of the better finder in the M5. I would like to try a 'real' M4 at some point for smaller lenses, but I since My M5 lives with the Nokton 35/1.2, Nokton 50/1.1 and now the Heliar 75/1.8, the larger size of the M5 balances better than a regular M.

I can never understand why traditional M users rail the size of the M5, but then happily promote that a half case or grip improves the handling of the Leica M. Either of these accessories added to the classic M is a larger and bulky camera than the M5.

My advice to the OP, is to buy the M5 and use it. If you like it keep it, if not, sell it.

 

[johannielscom]

Loved the M5 while I had one, never any issues with the meter. I only metered when light conditions changed: open sky to forest, or indoors etc.

Size? I get half a dozen offers a day for enlargements, so bigger is better, right? 😉

In case you want an M5, try to find one in the 135xxxx range, they have a better shutter drum, the older ones have drums that can crack and that's a very expensive repair, requires complete stripdown of the camera. Word is Sherry won't even work on <135xxxx M5 cameras because of it!

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Just to chime in here with what's probably already been said:

I'm sitting here with an DS M3, CL, and M5. I've also tried out the M2, M4, and M6. At least in my experience I have to say that the M5 has the quietest shutter by far. And the viewfinder is much more useable for my be-spectacled eyes. I can actually see the 35mm framelines in the M5!!

All that said, I find the M3 the most attractive as a tool. Its a combination of things.. smaller size - lovely to hold, simpler machine (no meter, one frameline - I only use the 50 lines), and its just prettier to look at. I like the film loading of the M3 more as well. The M5 loading is a little more 'fiddly' than the M3, IMO.