Leica M Mount Camera Guide

</p>Click <a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/mmount.htm">Leica M

Cameras</a><p>

I think you have the M4-P and M4-2 (junk), and the three-lug M5 chrome (rarer) and M5 black prices reversed.

Stephen, why do you call the M4-2 junk. I had one years ago and really liked it. Has time not been favorable to it?

The common misconception is that M4-2 is stigmatized because it was made in Canada rather than Germany. That is clearly not the case, because some M3 and M4 production was also done at Midland and those cameras are actually valued higher as collectibles than their Wetlar siblings.

 

The M4-2 was Leitz's first attempt at quasi-mass-production and relied on a right-or-replace philosophy wrt subassemblies, whereas its predecessors left more leeway for highly-skilled assemblers to fine adjust the cameras. Had the plan worked as theorized all would have been well, but management found too many parts that were out of tolerance and tossing them would have been too expensive, so there was a fair bit of cobbling and shimming permitted--even encouraged. The end result was the early production of the M4-2 was frought with mechanical unreliability. Furthermore the feel of the redesigned winding head gears, and the finish of the body (LEITZ was now stamped into the top plate vs the fine script engraving of the M4)added to the overall impression that it was a cheapened product.

 

After 30 years most of them have been sorted. However there are some that for one or another reason (one owner, or a succession of owners who found it more economical to sell than have sorted) to this day are troublesome. Many experienced Leica collectors expect that in the future the M8 will be looked upon with the same disdain as the M4-2, for much the same reason--and then some.

 

I am also surprised that the prices listed for the M4-2 are higher than the M4-P but I am not familiar enough with the market for user-grade Leicas to question the accuracy of those numbers. The collector market in Leicas tends to be somewhat fickle, aside from the rarities which are always in high demand.

When the M4 and M5 was dropped in favor of their SLR line - remember the early to mid-70's when EVERYONE was ditching rangefinder cameras for SLRs? Later, after "popular" demand, Leitz reintroduced the M4-2. It was a far more cheaply made (mechanical precision and manufacturing process) than the previous M4/5, with cameras being put together using the process of fit or replace, rather than fit and adjust. Far fewer adjustments were made available in order to streamline the process and save man-hours per camera. With subsequent cameras (M4-P and beyond), Leitz, then Leica got better at the process. This process continues to this day. I'm not saying the machine tools are better then than today, or that Leitz had/hired less skilled workers. The manufacturing processes today have been improved using more automation. The last great camera for mechanical precision are the M4/5. Just call/e-mail any of the Leica repair persons. Can one imagine if Leica cameras and lenses would cost today using the same methods making the M4/5? Just check the prices of high-end Swiss and German watches, NOT Rolex, Omega, etc. Of all the RF Leicas, the M4-2 gets the lowest price, except special additions, of course.

Obviously, I was typing as VP was posting. VP, good analogy WRT the M8. I didn't think of adding the point because I don't have a dog in the fight. ;*)

The biggest problem you'll encounter with any Leica is they are persnickety cameras when it comes to lubrication and don't store well. If they have been sitting unused in someone's father's or grandfather's closet for years it's a good bet the shutters don't operate right and unlike many other older cameras, Leica's usually can't be exercised back into working. And unlike many other older cameras that you can find someone to work on for under a c-note, you may have to add $300 or more to those listed prices in order to get that Leica working.