Leica M4-p V.S. M4-2

Hi,

 

I love my M6 which bought a few months ago, I like the way taking

photos with it. And I'm considering of buying a second M body.

My photo dealer has got two black M's both in A+++ condition, first

a M4p for 1100USD and an M4-2 for 850USD.

The only difference I can see is that the M4p has the red Leitz dot

on the rubber finish and of course the name!

Were there any other difference?

 

Thanks for answers!

 

Regards

Cris

I think the main difference is the P has a viewfinder which is similiar to the .72 version of the M6 with frame lines for 28mm>135mm.The P was manuf right up the start of the M6 around 1984.

M4-2 has no 28mm frame. Otherwise they are the same really.

Basically Gerry is correct, the M4-P has additional framelines for the 75mm and 28mm lenses. The M4-2 was also the first M camera produced after a hiatus of several years after the demise of both the M4 and M5, and it was built in the Canadian plant on a new assemblyline with a new design philosophy of closer-tolerance machined parts but fewer technician-adjustable paramaters, and it took a little while for things to iron themselves out. This historical anecdote has been perpetuated as a myth that the M4-2 is an inferior body, when in fact by now any glitches have been fixed by previous owners. But it does keep the prices on the M4-2 low.

 

Your biggest concern should be the condition and operation of the individual camera, or the framelines. Either of the two, if they have not had an overhaul in the last 5-10 years is probably due for one soon, and it will cost upwards of $200. That would put you at a mimimum of $1050 for the M4-2 and $1300 for the M4-P. Contrast that to a late-model M6 Classic (with meter)or M6TTL which can be had mint for around $1200, and the older bodies don't seem like such great bargains.

Oops yes the 75mm frame is missing too. Otherwise I think they are the same. Jay brings up the chestnut about the poor reputation of the M4-2 even compared to the M4P, which I don't think is warranted, although neither cameras compare in beauty to the original M4 I accept. This is one of the reasons that the M4-2 has a lower price. Probably this represents an opportunity for a buyer, assuming the M4-2 is not worn out inside - there is no way of knowing. After all the M4-P may be a lot younger but had a lot more hard use - who knows? If you don't have a 75mm lens I would probably save the money and get the M4-2. I am not much of a fan of the 28mm frame lines on the Ms anyway.

What is the serial number of the M4-2? Late number and it is OK. Avoid early

number cameras. For very little more money you could buy a used M6 which

would give you a considerably newer camera and a light meter.

 

I bought an early M4-2 and did not have a happy time with it. By the time I got

everything sorted out I did not trust the camera anymore. I happily sold it at a

considerable loss. YMMV.

....I concur with the previous responses.

 

I have one of each and often get them confused, they are so similar.

 

But there are a couple of subtle differences which actually make me prefer the M4-2 by a hair.

 

First, the M4-P is more susceptible to rangefinder patch flare - whatever changes (parabolic mirror?) Leica made to the illumination system that causes the flare (in my theory) relate to the addition of the 28 frame. I think they were trying to extend the edge illumination to cover the extra framelines.

 

Second, the M4-P has an M6-style 90mm frame - four bare lines that end well short of the corners of the frame. The M4-2 has an M2/M4-style 90mm frame - an 8-section box that defines the corners much more definitely (if not accurately).

 

Third, the M4-2 35mm frame covers a slightly larger area than the 35 frame in the M4-P. Apparently Leica 'tightened' the 35 frame a notch to squeeze in the 28 frame.

 

However the M4-P supposedly has an improved motor connection dog/gear.

 

If both are really in A+++ condition I would think the 4-2 price a bit low and the 4-P price a bit high - $900 vs. $975 might be what I'd expect.

 

But really it depends on whether you want/need the 28 or 75 frames - if you want to use those lenses extensively, go for the -P. If you're going to be a 35/90 person - go for either, with the -2 having a tiny edge.

Anthony Camera (HK) has had M6TTL's for about $1450 (black, .72) quite recently. He's about $1575 for chrome .58 right now. Hardly makes an M4-2 or M4-P that desireable... except... I think an M4-2 or M4-P that has been gone thru is considerably smoother than the new M6TTL.

I have an M4-P that has given many years of reliable service. IMO, it is the best of the non-metered Leica bodies. You certainly want an M4-P if you have or are thinking about getting a 28 mm or 75 mm lens (whether Leica or CV, etc.), since the M4-P but not the M4-2 has these framelines. Also, as cited above, the M4-P has an improved motor connection and is a better choice if you might want a winder or motor. Otherwise, the M4-2 is a perfectly fine camera, that in fact was made in relatively small numbers so is not that common.

 

BTW, the earliest M4-2s (first 90 or so) did have red dot. For reasons that I do not know, Leitz decided to issue the bulk of the M4-2s without the red dot, and then to reintroduce it on the M4-P. I personally like the red dot which is a flat metal piece different from that used on the M6.

if you like your m6, try getting some thing a little bit different. if you are going to factor in $200 for a CLA look for an M3 cosmetically challenged M3's can be had quite reasonably, and the .91 magnification viewfinder is made for the 50mm and works very well with longer lenses.

don't go near the M4-2. i use mine as my primary camera because i

haven't been to afford something else, but it's terrible. it needs

repair at least once a year. the rangefinder constantly goes off, it

barely works with my abrahmsson rapidwinder (he had to send me

different parts to make it work), it will barely work with any of the

motor drives, even the one made for it, the motor M4-2, and in general

it is an inferior product. mind you i treat it terribly. it's been to

the balkans and afghanistan and the middle east and i shoot several

hundred rolls through it each year. but for an extra couple of hundred

dollars, on average, you can get an M4-P or an early M6. xxxx

Howdy,

 

I know this is an older thread, but I just got my M4-2 and I'm doing some followup reading on my new baby. Regarding the M4-2's reliability I pose the following from a pretty good missive by Andrew Nemeth. Here is the link:

 

http://www.nemeng.com/leica/016b.shtml

 

And here is a quote from it if you don't want to read the whole thing:

 

"It thus appears that the entire M4-2 production run has become unfairly stigmatised by a bad reputation earned by the first few hundred cameras. Provided you steer well clear of these (serial #s: 1 468 001 - 1482 000), it makes little sense to dismiss the entire production run. Granted it is not as exquisitely crafted as an M4 (what is?), but it is still clearly part of the evolutionary line which lives today as the M7."

 

My M4-2 is a newer model and doesn't fall in the serial number range listed. It looks to be in great cosmetic and operating condition. Although I haven't had time to burn any film yet, I'm not worried. Coming from a Russian rangefinder background I doubt it will bother me if I have trouble wit it. I'll fix it and move on.

 

Regards,

 

Henry Chavez

I just found this topic after doing a Google search on the M4-2. I was curious as to what they were going for on Ebay and wonderd why I didn't see much for this model there. I found the answer in the article that was cited in the last post.

 

I bought my used M4-2 around 1986 and it was not one of the earlier problematic serial #s mention in that article. I was a a photo graduate student then shooting street photography and used it constantly. The only problem I had with it for the first 10 years was the leather started crumbling off. I ingnored that until I started to have some real problems after using it constantly on a trip to Japan in 1996. The advance lever kept coming off, but since I didn't use it that often again for a while, I was able to put it back on myself and still didn't need to take it in for repairs. It was only in early 2000 when I developed some more serious problems did I take it to be repaired. I had all of the problems taken care of and had the camera back from the shop in 2 weeks. Then just last month I took it in again for a repeat of only one of the problems (with the lens, not the body.)

 

Considering the age of the camera and the heavy use it has had, that doesn't seem excessive to me. I just bought a digital SLR, and have a variety of excellent cameras, but I will never give up my Leica.