Leica M5: Merits and Demerits

<p>I have nothing against the M5. I was around when it came out and didn't even consider it as an option. I had two M2's and an M4 (still have 'em) and it just didn't seem like anything I'd want. It was big, ungainly and odd. I considered it the clown camera of Leica. It came out about the same time as such delightful cars as the Gremlin, the Pacer and well, do I need to say more. I know it's a fine camera. David Kennerly could be seen at the time, as President Ford's photographer, with an M5 on each shoulder. He made many great pictures with the M5. </p>

<p>Any Leica M camera is an asset and <strong>more than enough</strong> for good photography. Slight differences between them are likely of little importance (perhaps more so if you compare the standard line with the CL, although the latter isn't a bad machine at all, capable of high quality imaging in the right hands and within its limits of focus accuracy and meter cell outdatedness). If I could point to a case, where the choice of one of the three main metered film Leicas, or another choice from any three meterless Leicas, has made a distinguishable difference in results, I would be really hard pressed to do so,.</p>

<p>Comparing mechanical, electrical or optical perfection is just unimportant "giilding the lily" when it comes to Leica and most viewfinder-rangefinder type photography with it. Whether the exposure dial has been machine stamped on a metal disk, as on my M4-P, or more laboriously engraved on metal, as on my former M3, is of no importance to me. I am actually very glad that Leitz took such cost-cutting steps in unimportant areas (not to say there are no important areas in regard to the VF, to mechanical longevity, or to adjustment/maintenance of the instrument...) as they did in order to just stay in business in the late 70s. Otherwise, we might well be dealing today only with collectibles. When I am not photographing, but simply handling or looking at my M-9 or M4-P, I may wish that they have as smooth a shutter release as my IIIf or my old M3, or I may wish that the M6 and later Leica models had those neat front body screws that give an aura of mechanical "nobility" to the M4-2 and M4-P. Again, unimportant to most photography with the Leica.</p>

<p>Thanks to Mr. Lazarri for an insider's perspective on the construction of the M5. There is no perfect camera. Merits and demerits are of secondary importance I believe. If you enjoy photographing with an M5, then that is really all that matters.</p>

<p>Please don't get me wrong; I like the M5 for it's unique style & handling.<br>

But with the choice of materials utilized during this stage of Leica's history, I can <strong>in no way support</strong> the quote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Leica never made a camera as fine as the M5 before and certainly never after, including the MP"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In fact, there were other shortcomings that I attribute to the "materials" of the time, but I didn't wish to get into the minutia of it all and give the impression of "piling on". This critique is in line with the shortcomings of the same era "<a href="../leica-rangefinders-forum/00Xqaq">Plastic Bokeh King</a>" lens.</p>

<p>Mukul, you know what they say about a picture speaking...</p><div></div>

<p>Gus, to say that certain parts of the M5 are no better than the same parts of another M camera, yet to not say that they are worse, is a neither here nor there statement which could well have been avoided.</p>

<p>Indeed pictures speak: but I lack the literacy to comprehend your comparison photo. My understanding is that the M3 finder is unique while all later M finders are based on that of the M2 -- excluding, of course, the Flare Special of the M6. It follows that comparing the M3 finder with other M finders leads us nowhere.</p>

<p>Had an M5 for a while but never got comfortable with it. Thought I would enjoy having a meter in the finder, but realized a hand held meter was superior for what I was shooting. Another strike against was the fact that my favorite lens, the 21mm Super Angulon wasn't compatible.<br>

Here's a photo of the M5 I briefly owned. It's resting on a large bar of fine silver such as the ones that are dissolved in nitric acid and used to make film. The bar weighs almost 79 lbs so not much chance to slip it in a pocket.... ;-)</p><div></div>

<p>So late in life, and everything I think I know is wrong.</p>

<p>I am amazed how Leica users and service personnel can get so involved about materials of construction, especially when virtually nobody worries that modern cars, devices that undergo much more mechanical rigour than cameras, can still use several hundred different formulations of plastic in their construction (a former Ford director of research in the mid to late twentieth century mentioned that count at over 700, I think it is a much lesser number of resins compositions today, if only to simplify recycling), or that a Corvette, of which my knowledge is only very basic, uses fibreglass (fibre and plastic) construction for major body parts instead of stamped steel or aluminium alloys.</p>

<p>If Leica has not been able to keep all the materials of construction it once used, have the cameras become that much less long-lasting, or if they have to a slight degree, in how many instances is that making a practical difference? In normal and not rough use, I expect the difference is slight. My optics do not need re-centering or other servicing surgery because I handle them with respect. Canadian versus German production is hardly important, it is the design team that calls the shots, and of course the head office (does anyone think that Wetzlar head office had no say in the Canadian manufacturing methods?). Also, Dr. Mandler and subsequent optics team heads in Germany have apparently designed lenses that could not be made with normal manufacturing methods, they would just require a precision of manufacture or assembly that is not practical using normal mass production. It is all related to cost and staying in business. We don't need stainless steel exhaust systems in cars, unless you are investing in a Rolls Royce and money is no object. Over design is as much an error as insufficient design.</p>

<p>I regret having sold my version IV Summicron 35mm lens (so-called Bokeh King). It provided wonderful results for me and except for noticeable edge softness at full apertures (even my 21mm ASPH has some of that problem) I could not really ask for much more. The same is true for my more modern Solms Elmar-M 50mm collapsible lens. Because this lens uses lighter metals than brass in its construction, it is much lighter than my former Elmar 50mm collapsible of Wetzlar. It is also superior in my opinion, even though I have some prints with the older lens that are quite impressive for detail when it was closed down to f5.6 or f8. It may well cost Leica less to manufacture in current dollars than Leitz spent on the earlier Wetzlar Elmar, but if I treat it normally I expect I will see as good a life expectancy as the older lens (which had developed haze after much less than 50 years of existence).</p>

<p>I don't think Robert or Richard or others should be worried about the differences between Leica products. In many cases, perhaps VF flare apart, the differences are negligeable in photographic practice.</p>

<p>Isn't that the real name of the game?</p>

<p>Forget the meter, and you will have the best designed Leica M ever, in your hand. In Japan it has the most prestige among all Leica M series; same for F3 among Nikon SLR family. </p>

<p>Wow! Thanks everyone for your responses. Quite an education.</p>

<p> i was offered a new M5 many years ago, soon after introduction. It simply would not sell.my Leica dealer said i could have it less 10% on his cost! He would show me the invoice. it never appealed to me or for that matter, no Leica user at the time! Time has proved it was NOT the pinnacle of construction.<br>

Gus mentioned the plastic bits but friends of mine, has problems with the shutter drums etc. It is a big box. The meter is a problem, the CDS cell part of it. The lack of a mercury battery another glitch.<br>

Sherry seems to like the body. Other repair folks i know, actually have little good to say about it. In the end it is OLD. Not as old as my M3. The love of that by new photographers astounds me! It is also way too old.<br>

A M6 or M6TTL is the best you can buy without going to an MP. The M7 is a totally different shutter and i know neither good or bad. Sure the M6 is not built like an M2/M3. C'mon guys some of those are 50~60 years old..<br>

If you are using the M5, enjoy. It is a Leica. </p>

 

<p>On December 23, 1989 I was in K&S in Palo Alto trying to decide whether to buy a used M6 or M5. The salesman (not Paul that day) recommended the M6. The M6 was $1600 and the M5 was $800. My wife, Sawako, was with me and she told me to go with the M6. I got the M6, which I still have and love. The next time I considered I considered an M5 was in the 1990s. Prices in Japan were sky high. For the same price I could get an M6TTL. Well, now at Yaotomi Camera M5s are about what I would have paid at K&S in 1989. So I've been thinking. I really appreciate all the comments on this thread. You know what attracts me most to the M5? It resembles the Canon EF, an SLR I adore. Am I weird? </p>

<p>Grrreat thread, wow.<br>

I used an M5 only for one day - in conjunction with an M6. Without any grips. The M5 was just better for holding/waiting for a long time without moving (theatre photography). Especially with the 90/135mm. Carrying it on the side (the long way) was cumbersome. Carrying it around the neck this way nearly impossible (croaching down and leaning over all kinds of things). In hindsight, switching back and forth (M5<->M6) was the worst thing about that setup of yore.<br>

IMHO, all Leicas handle better with a grip or the motor M.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"So I've been thinking. I really appreciate all the comments on this thread. You know what attracts me most to the M5? It resembles the Canon EF, an SLR I adore. Am I weird?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're not weird for being attracted to the Leica M5. The weird people are the ones who put down the M5 because a rubber bushing has to be replaced after 40years.<br>

I think I'm weird because I didn't realize just what an extraordinarily collectable piece of Leica history the Leica M5 is until now. Plus, it's not just an extraordinarily collectable Leica M, (only 30,000 made), it's also an extraordinarily well designed, hand assembled camera, too. Nothing like this M ever came out of Wetzlar again after the M5 ceased production. The M5 was the last to be literally hand made, (human assembled, with hand fitted components and parts). And another thing, I'll bet you the Leica M5 has the quietest shutter of all the Leica M cameras.</p>

<p>Well, Robert, it was called the musical Leica. While the meter moves slowly to its recess after the shutter button is depressed there is the bouncing sound of the meter springing back into position when you cock the shutter which makes for a bit of racket. My M5 and M6 were serviced within a year of each other and the 1/30s on the M5 is 75dB and the M6 is 72 db. The M2 has Ektar in it so I can't test that. I still think the M5 is a marvellous machine. You know those little dogs that people like to have and that you can pick up with one hand or even carry in a bag? That's the standard M and I love it, indeed also for its compactness. But the M5 - that's a big dog. You can pat just its head with a large hand, and you don't have to bend far from the waist to do it. Alex is curious to try one. He just has to do it.</p>

<p>I think it's a great working camera. It's perfect for the Zeiss lenses I have. I went on holiday with just the tiny VC 25 and the ZM 25 finder. Like having no lens at all on the front of the huge M5. The three-branded machine turned a few heads that trip.</p>

<p>Speaking of the most silent Leica shutter, it is not M6 nor M5; it is not even M7 (which is really quiet). It is, and by far it is, MD, because, it has a solid top plate structure, and no lose rangefinder parts for resonance. It is unbelievably quiet. I do have MP and M7; however, I use quite frequently my MDa with 40mm Summicron (the best angle for Street) and a viewfinder at the accessory shoe, with a grip and a Thumbs Up, with wrist strap!!! MD is the underappreciated M, and it is the only M that you can find at almost new conation, and under $800</p>

<p>It's a great practical user.<br>

Many of the folks who bust on this camera have never used it. And most current users of the M5 came to it from other Ms. <br>

Over the last 20 years I've owned and used an M4, M6, M6ttl, M7 and MP (and since have got rid of them all), and I believe the M5 is better then all those cameras in terms of practical use. I appreciate the more accurate 50mm framelines and the match needle metering is just a breeze to use. The spot meter is sensitive and unique to a rangefinder. <br>

As with all old cameras, they would probably benefit from a servicing, but since Sherry worked her magic I've never had a problem with the 2 M5s I own.<br>

The M5 is an ugly camera, no doubt about it, and that's why some of the folks who have a bit of the fondler in them despise it. But like the Leicaflex SL (another ugly camera (and my favorite)) it's great user. It was build for people who take pictures.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<h1>Leica M5: Merits and Demerits</h1>

</blockquote>

<p>The M5 was an odd-duck from the beginning. I recall hearing "what were they thinking" from many when it hit camera stores. The bazaar setting between 1/2 second and B, the over-engineered swing-out meter arm, the (even then) obsolete matched-needle system, and it's larger and significantly heavier-than M size made it doomed for failure.</p>

<p>Its only accolades were around the fact it was the first metered M camera.</p>

<p>I've owned two over the years - neither for very long (for all of the reasons noted hereinabove).</p>

 

<p>I've own a slightly battered M5 (chrome three lug version) for several years now and still use it alongside my other Ms, including M4s, M6s and an M7. It's a heavy beast to be sure, but I love how it handles, especially with my heavier M-mount lenses. I agree with what Stephen York said recently about its usefulness as a camera, but I understand quite well, all the complaints I have read with regards to its ease of handling, including finding spare battteries now.</p>

<p>Thanks for your input everyone. I have no problems with getting batteries here in Japan. I use regular batteries with adapters in place of the old mercury batteries.</p>

I use Kanto MR-9 battery adapter + PX76 in my M5

<p>Suddenly I got it into my head that I might want to get an M5. I've always admired the design but have been worried about the meter. Any thoughts? Thank you in advance.</p>

I remember Sherry at Golden Touch Camera Repair tell me one time that the M5 was her favorite Leica (this is before any of the digital Leicas). She said the meter was the best and most accurate of any of the M's.

I use Kanto MR9 battery adapter

KANTO MR-9 Battery Adapter Solution for Discontinued Mercury Battery Japan F/S | eBay

I remember Sherry at Golden Touch Camera Repair tell me one time that the M5 was her favorite Leica (this is before any of the digital Leicas). She said the meter was the best and most accurate of any of the M's.

Yes, that's what Sherry told me when she did a CLA on my M5 many moons ago. I keep it in reserve as a back-up body. My favourite is the M7 with 0·58 viewfinder—I can see the whole field of view for the 28mm lens with eyeglasses (impossible on the M5). Sherry claims the M5's meter is the most accurate 'dead-on balls' meter of any Leica. The circuit board on my M6 gave up the ghost—Sherry was working on it—and I took the M5 with me to Hawai`i for 2½ weeks as I didn't want to fuss with the shoe-mounted Leicameter MR on my M2, or fiddle around with my Weston Master V. The M5 can be an ungainly beast but it did the job perfectly.

I remember Sherry at Golden Touch Camera Repair tell me one time that the M5 was her favorite Leica (this is before any of the digital Leicas). She said the meter was the best and most accurate of any of the M's.

 

She really is a fan of the Leicaflex SL too.

 

I had a couple M5s back in the day, and it is was my favorite 0.72 Leica M (having also owned and used M4, M6, M6ttl, MP, M7). Very practical in the field. Tremendous ease of use. Larrge 50mm frame lines. Since then, however, I've come to favor the larger viewfinder of the M3.

Edited August 17, 2017 by stephen_york|3

Firstly, no need to be concerned about serial numbers. Some of the first cameras on the market had a defect that had to be repaired. As Don Goldberg told me, by now any M5 on the used market has had that part replaced. My wife bought an M5 at midtown Willoughbys the first week camera offered for sale and never had a problem. It remains her favorite camera. I finally bought one three years ago. Best Leica viewfinder, easy to use in bright light than diods, easy to load. I advise using the hard case rather than the soft case after dropping wife's camera on stone floor at airport a week after she bought it, which knocked film counter out (but everything else worked).