Leica M4

Hello Folks;

Why is it that some people consider the Leica M4 to be "the last truly great Leica"? I am in the market for a second body (I have an M6 Classic) and am considering the M4 if I can manage to find one that is affordable. I am a user, not a collector. Any advice is appreciated.

Thanks.

For me, it's the viewfinder. The M4 eliminated the slight hazy

bluish color of the M2 and M3 (designed to make the rangefinder patch

more visible, but distracting for users of color film), the frames

are uncluttered (the 35 and 135mm are so different in size that they

aren't distracting), and they more nearly cover the actual image to

be recorded on the film (unlike the 80% of the M6). The quickload

feature and rewind crank are nice, too.

John,

<p>

Really a difficult quwstion to answer. Not necessarily for a lack of

reasons, rather the reverse.

<p>

It was the last of the models where "craftsmanship" held sway over

cost cutting. It incorporated BL finders from 35 thru 135mm, which

constituted the bulk of the lenses they produced.

<p>

It was assembled by individuals who had served an apprenticeship in

their craft and had produced the same basic camera (including the M3

from which it evolved) for 20 years.

<p>

Subsequently, in order to respond to the perceived market and include

a meter, they forgot one of the prime reasons for the Ms popularity,

that being its size and shape. They learned their mistake with the

M5, but in learning that mistake and producing the M4-2, they made

others.

<p>

Dropping the top cover engravings, removing the self timer, zinc

rather than brass top covers, shutter and flash socket problems,

cheaper body covering, etc. All served in their own way to remind the

affecionado that the M4 was the last in the line of the handcrafted

Ms where production cost was not paid the amount of attention it is

today.

<p>

This is not to say that the Ms of today (6, 6 TTL or or M7) are

deficient or servicable products. They still are the best 35mm RF

body being currently produced. The M4 (and M3) though, are from a

different time, where considerations were different.

<p>

Hence the value many place on them today.

<p>

Best,

<p>

Jerry

Mostly because they're nostalgic for an era they never knew.

<p>

Godfrey

It is the "last of the hand built" and crafted M's. Because back

then they could afford, or should I say they didn't bean count so

much and it was considered 'the golden period'. They hired

Bavarian Elves, from the mountain hilltops. They had small

hands, they could make these wonderful machines, they worked

late into the night and they loved what they did. They were skilled

craftsmen and they could engrave the Leica script with precision.

With a keen eye for detail and attention to quality materials. It

was a labour of love. They bestowed each Leica with a soul,

because they were each handmade, a piece of art, each an

individual. Then one day, the dreaded Accountants from the far

lands came along and scared all the little Elves away. They were

never seen again. It was a different time, a different era.

Funny thing about my M4:

<p>

Shutter tore loose.

<p>

I don't like the plastic tipped wind lever or the self timer/preview

levers.

<p>

The engraving on the top plate seems deeper and more crude than the

fine engraving on my M3 and M2. I looked at it with a loupe because

some of the blace filling is coming out.

<p>

Does that mean my M2/3 are made in Midland, even though they're

engraved Wetzler?

<p>

To me the M3 is the best, but yes, the M4 is the last legendary Leica

M.

<p>

I found a black enamel M4 for $700 13 years ago. They're out there -

be patient.

BTW, The Black M4 is still out there somewhere other than where it

should be. It was stolen out of my storage unit. I don't have the

number; I was a more faithful in people person back then. It has a

black chrome rewind knob (from where I dropped it - the strap slipped

off my shoulder) and baseplate (to keep the orig. nice, as I used the

camera). It was in storage because the Hassy went along to the

Malaysia/Thailand assignment.

I have never found my M4 to be any less reliable or precise than my

M6's but Bill raised an excellent and little-known point: the

framelines in the M2, M4 and M4-2 are slightly larger than those in

the M4-P and M6. The viewfinder magnification is the same, but to

get the 28mm frame in and not have it practically touch the 35 frame,

Leica shrunk the other frames a little. The result is that they show

a bit more of what will actually be on film at longer distances...and

the 35mm frame is a bit harder to see with glasses on. My M4 has a

few woodpecker dings near one of the strap lugs and a shallow but

visible scratch in the top plate...I was a college kid when I bought

it second-hand. It had a DAG CLA about 3 years ago and it's like new

mechanically...that's another thing about the M4: it is more

dependent on the service technician vis-a-vis precision, since it has

more adjustments than the M6. It also has a rangefinder prism which

was cemented with UV-cure optical cement and they do not come

decemented like the M2/M3 which was cemented with balsam cement.

To summarize: The 'classic' M-Leicas built in Wetzlar by people who

knew (or who knew people who knew) Barnack and Ernst Leitz II were the

M3/2/4.

<p>

The most convenient and practical M-Leicas to USE are the M4(-2,-2P)/

M6/M7.

<p>

The M4 is the only camera that appears in both categories. It's the

most practical 'classic' and the most 'classic' practical camera.

<p>

As a user - you can PROBABLY find another M6 used for about what a

decent M4 costs - and gain the meter. You can PROBABLY find an M4-2/P

for LESS than a decent M4 and get essentially the same functionality

(minus the self-timer). In neither case will you get the 'aura' - or

the script/black paint.

<p>

None of the post-M4 bodies have been around long enough to prove or

disprove that the M4's different means of construction actually

translates into a 'better' or longer-lived camera.

Here's an article from the Leica Historical Society: (it's a pdf file,

so you need Adobe)

<a href="http://www.lhsa.org/pdf/343leicaM4.pdf">M4.</a>

Actually I was going to say that M5 was the "last truly great Leica".

It was built in Wetzlar for the last time and of course, I do love

the M7 too, but the M5 size and metering are its winning points. It

feels like a R8 in terms of handling.

<p>

People like to end on the M4 because the M5 seems to get dissed on

its size and some of its replacement parts too. Personally I don't

have a complaint.

I bought my first M4 30 years ago, and haven't found anything since

that equals that rock solid, airtight feel. I think it's that quality

of the M4 that makes it unique. I've only had two failures over years

of heavy use - early in 1972 my rangefinder came apart, and in 1999

the shutter failed. My daughter uses my M4 and it STILL works. THAT

says a lot!

<p>

Jim Bauman

John. I think the M4-P is the best (most functional) of the non-

metered Leicas, and they are not really collected. Thus, the prices

aren't driven to any great extent by the collector market.