Why did the M5 fail?

I had an M5 when they were new, and right out of the box they were great, except that with the squared off ends it never felt quite like a Leica. The meter repeatedly became untrustworthy, and even after repeated repair it would drift off too little to notice in the field, but slides would come back virtually useless. What do you think killed it? The size, the shape, the baseplate rewind, the loss of 1 sec shutter speed, the lack of a winder, or simple disgust with Leitz for lack of ingenuity by making a bigger clunkier camera when the trend was toward smaller, clever designs such as the Olympus OM 1&2.

What killed it was it was a too-radical departure from the historic

Leica M, and Leica had not yet realized they were in the business of

producing icons as much as cameras. Buyers voted decisively with

their wallets that they didn't want the M to change (much). It was a

lesson Leica took to heart and which is very much still a part of

Leica's thinking 30 years later.

What killed it?

 

<p>

 

E. All of the above.

 

<p>

 

Think about it: in many ways the M5 is the most "advanced" M camera

Leica has produced. (Minolta put TTL flash control and AE in the CLE,

so in some ways it remains the most advanced M camera *anyone* has

ever produced.) The M5 had a selective-area meter (with the metering

area shown in the finder), shutter speed readout in the finder and a

shutter speed dial that hung over the front edge of the camera

sot that it could be turned with the index finger of your right hand.

Oh, yeah, it would even do multiple exposures, if you like that sort

of thing. More than 20 years down the road and we again have an M

camera with a big shutter speed dial (that turns the wrong way).

Still no speeds in the finder, still no spot meter. When the M5 and

the CL were introduced, I remember thinking how cool the concept of

the CL was and what a beast the M5 appeared to be. I still can't warm

up to the M5 much, it does strike me as too big for what it is, but it

seems ridiculous that it's taken Leica so long to reintroduce some of

its best features.

For the record, the CL didn't fail. It was killed. Sales figures for

the CL show a production and sale of something on the order of 60000

units in 3-4 years. Leica would do well to bring out a CL/M6/CLE

hybrid with a longer RF base, more standard frame lines AE etc. I

would buy one tomorrow.

Its also funny now that a good used M5 sells for more than a M2, M3,

M6, and even all but the most mint M4's. I wonder if the people that

are paying $1750 (one just sold for that on ebay) now for a clean M5

body know it was a failure. I agree, the CL was not a bad seller, it

may have been discontinued because it sold too well. I can imagine an

updated camera with modern electronics and standard finder lines that

would make people forget about Cosina in a hurry. I wonder if Leica

is afraid to have more than one type of M body out at the same time

for some reason. From reading the M7 thread, its obvious that they

will never please everyone with just one camera.

Isn't there already an updated CL available, this time by Konica

and without Leica's cooperation?

The CL was a much more compact camera than the current Konica Hexar.

I agree that the change in the size and shape of the M5 was too

radical for Leica nuts to accept which led to its failure. As an M5

user and coming from a family that owns several M3/4/5/6, etc. (we

owned a camera store) I feel the M5 is the best user camera. I like

being able to see the shutter speed in the view finder and the fact

that it hangs over for easy use. The size feels great in my hands

and not too dainty to handle. The meter on mine works great but no

meter made to date is 100% accurate and shouldn't replace our own

judgement and experience. I guess the design of the M6 was to return

to the classic look to satisfy the consumers' taste. Catering to the

consumers' taste is wonderful. More companies should do that. I

would hope to also see some real improvements to the camera as well

though. The M6 offers no substantial improvement over the M5. A TTL

flash for what is essentially an available light camera? Maybe

that's useful for some Leica users but not me. A 0.85x viewfinder?

Why not the M3 viewfinder. I think even the collectors are realizing

that the M5 was and is a great camera and are willing to pay for

them. But you can't have mine.

If one follows the various Leica user groups, there's a definite

impression that there's a resurgance (or, given it's first round,

perhaps a "surge") of enthusiasm for it. People now, looking back, see

it as a M6 with a better finder, and more comfortable in some hands. I

remember when it came out, though, and I wouldn't have touched it with

a ten-foot pole: Leica users didn't use meters, and I still think it's

too big and boxy, myself, but that's just me, and I can understand why

people like it now.

I have an M5 - the 339th one produced. I love it but I would like 28

and 75mm frame lines. I guess I could pay leica and have them

installed but I could also buy a lot of film and shoot more I guess

too. It's definately bigger and more angular but it appears to be the

recipient of a lot of respect from other photogs. They see the M5 and

often remark about how under-rated it was as a fine camera. They only

built about 33500 of them, I don't know how that ranks amoung leica

production but It wasn't one of their better sellers. I would

seriously recommend every M collector/shooter have at least one in

their collection.

The M5 seems to me to be good camera - in many ways preferable to the

M6 - it is larger, but that is no bad thing as larger things are

often easier to hold and to hold steady. Shutter read out in the

viewfinder seems a no-brainer good thing to me. The meters are

reliable, but, like the CL, the cell does need replacing eventually,

otherwise you get the issues that Bill alludes to. Leica will still do

this for you. Leica are very loath to put out a "cheap" Leica again,

since, I assume, that many more CLs were sold than M5s - and this cost

them a great deal of revenue and profit. For the same reason Leica are

probably wise not to embrace a cheaper M6-type camera - they might

well cut into the bread and butter sales of the M6. Of course, some

people believe that there is a rangefinder renaissance. Personally, I

doubt it, most people like reflexes (with good reason I might add -

they have formidable advantages), so adding to the pot of available

cheap r/fs might be seen to be very unwise from Leica's perspective.

We shall see what happens with Konica and Voigtlander, of course and

whether they really will expand the r/f market as they hope. A worry,

perhaps to those of us who value what Leica stands for, is that they

will cut into Leica's profits so much that Leica goes under which

would certainly be the end of an era and to me a shame. Of course if

"the customer is always right" then this does not matter - but I am

not so positive. Leica does represent some kind of pinnacle of quality

most of us agree.

 

<p>

 

It depends a bit on how you see Leica Camera - either as an old

fashioned company lacking in good innovative (read digital) ideas who

just needs a kick up the backside, or a small company in a world of

huge producers where a foot wrong could break them. I tend to see them

as the latter.

About 1970 or early 71, while on an engineering assignment, I flew in

the cockpit of a Pan Am 707. I listened while the pilots talked

about their reaction to their first time flying the 747. They would

nod approvingly, and say "Yup, it's still a Boeing." A year or so

later, I again found myself in New York, this time at a camera

counter, handling an M5. My reaction? "Yup. Still a Leica." I sort

of liked the size. I thought it was easy to hold. I loved the built-

in meter display. I didn't have the bucks to buy it then, so I stuck

with my M2.

 

<p>

 

Years later, sometimes I feel the desire to get one, but I remind

myself that it doesn't have 28mm framelines, and my 21mm Superangulon

won't work on it. The M6 meter is much better, even without a

shutter speed display. I don't need to see the shutter speed in my

finder, unless the camera is in autoexposure mode. So when I see an

M5, I just think, "That's a nice camera, but I'll leave it for

someone else."

 

<p>

 

BTW, the M6 shutter speed dial only turns the wrong way if you are

thinking of the front edge of the dial. Think instead of which way

the rear of the dial is moving, and suddenly it's going the right

way.

Well the M5 failed because of the new realities of the camera

market and the CL. In the market before the M5's introduction,

the SLR was just coming into its own. More and more people

were switching to SLR cameras or starting out with SLR

cameras. The M5 sold at a rate of about 7500 cameras a year;

not that much less than the present rate of about 10 000 to 12

000 M6s a year. The CL sold at about a rate of 16 000 a year.

Unfortunately, Minolta, not Leica, made the most money on the

CL. The CL took sales away from the M5 on which Leica did

make money. So Leica was forced to discontinue both cameras,

the one a victim of the others success. Rationalisation within the

company almost meant the end of the M line completely.

Fortunately the M was saved by the transfer of production to

Canada. Leica is now a much smaller company than it was in

the glory days of the late fifties and early sixties. Remember

Nikon and Canon got their start after the war by making Leica

copies and lenses!

 

<p>

 

Cheers,