Midland M4/M4-2 puzzle

I saw a discussion of the Canadian-made "Midland" M4 in the LUG archives. It reminded me of an issue that perplexes me. If Leica was building M4's in Canada off and on over the years and produced a short run of them late in the life of the M4 (1974-1975), why is the Midland M4 considered a fine camera while the Canadian-made M4-2, which came out of the same plant starting in 1977, is considered by many to be a piece of crap? I understand that there were some design and materials changes in the M4-2 (some purely to cut costs, apparently), but it's not as if the Canadian plant didn't know how to build the camera. Why is the M4-2 held in such low regard?

It's a relative thing--the cameras previous to the M4-2 had self-

timers and a more expensive outer finish and cover, so people

regarded it as crap, as you say. Now the M-6 is essentially the same

piece of "crap", with a meter and a few additional downgrades

(batteries that discharge quickly, flaring viewfinders, which I

gather the first runs of M4-2 didn't have, etc.), but since the M4-2

broke the ground the M-6 is "normal" rather than an even worse piece

of crap, which would be how it would be graded if the people doing

the grading were being consistent.

The Midland M4 cameras were assembled in Canada but the

parts (probably subassemblies) were made in Germany. Due to

rising German labour costs and the unpopularity of the M5, M

camera production was due to cease completely! The last M4

cameras (quickly reintroduced while the M5 floundered) were

being assembled from left over MDa parts. The head of the Leitz

Canadian operations argued that he could continue production

profitably in Canada with its then lower labour costs. Remember

a significant amount of Leitz Canada's production was M lenses;

no camera, no lenses. All production equipment and key staff

were transfered to Canada and the camera design was

simplified by deleting the self timer and using less expensive

production materials in parts that were low stress or

non-wearing (the famous plastic frame counter dial for instance).

It was also modernised by the addition of a hot shoe and

couplings for a winder. The problems arose with getting the new

production up and running smoothly (training staff and what not).

The early M4-2 cameras were plagued with maladjusted or

misassembled parts. It only affected the early cameras and

most were sorted out under warranty (beware the mint in the box

low number M4-2). PopPhoto has an excellent review of the M4-2

where all these issues are discussed (May 1980 I think). I had a

late production M4-2 that worked perfectly and would gladly buy

another, funds and spousal unit permitting.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

Before the advent of the internet, where the absolute truth is only a

click away <wink>, there were a lot of rumors, folklore and

misconceptions that, repeated often enough, have become gospel for

some Leica users and collectors. The M4 was not only made in Canada,

but also in the same black-chrome finish that many disparage about

the M4-2. The other thing that most people notice, and then ascribe

to the M4-2's supposed inferiority, are the steel winding gears

(required for motorized operation)that give it a rougher sound and

feel than the M4. At one time, the machinery that produced the

internal parts for Leicas was not capable of turning them out

consistently within the fine tolerances required, so provision was

made for the final assembler to fine-adjust various mechanisms to

specs. The M4-2 departed from this, and any outlier parts were to be

rejected in favor of in-tolerance ones. There is some speculation,

fueled by reports from some independent repairpeople, that this

didn't always happen, and thus M4-2's were sold that were out of

spec. IMO all coins have two sides. By now, most if not all M4-2's

have had any OEM maladies remedied in service, and so they pretty

much work as well as any other M. Because of the stigma attached to

them, they are the bargain body of the line. By the same token, most

M4's have been (or need to be) serviced by now, and due to its

greater number of internal adjustments, an M4 is more dependent on

the competence and dedication of the repair-person. I used to own a

couple of M2's and an M4-2; currently I own an M4 and couple of M6's

(about 6 years apart in age). I can not point to any one and say it

is/was more or less reliable as a camera body than the others. I

have yet to be convinced by any personal experience that the

reputation and market prices of various used Leicas are an indication

of their relative worth as a picture-making tool.

re: John's mention of the "famous" plastic frame-counter, this was

substituted somewhere in the mid-to-late M6 Classic production. M4-

2's, M4-P's and M6 classics up to some unknown serial number still

hade the metallic frame counter.

The M4-2 is a perfectly fine camera, but I suppose it could possibly

be regarded as a downgrade from the original M4 which was, in general,

made in Germany (=good in collectors minds!), and shared the same

beautiful appearance as the older paragons (particularly the M3). The

lack of the selftimer is the only real "loss" of feature. I still

think this is a pity myself as I like them a lot. Still, I think the

combination of Canada and downgrade is enough to convince collectors

that this is an inferior Leica. In practical terms the M4-2 was the

direct precursor of the M4-P and this gave rise to the M6, so a very

good thing really. It is a very good camera. Of course, original M4s,

made in Canada are rare so they are worth nore than regular M4s, the

rarity over-compensating for their ("bad") origin as far as collectors

are concerned.

 

<p>

 

I wish people hated M4-2s more than they do - then they would be still

cheaper - they are still pretty pricey. Everything Leica is collected

which is both a blessing and a curse - but Leica collectors are not

necessary concerned with rational photographic matters, so all these

rumours and insinuations have no practical importance to people who

actually will be taking photos with their Leica. Nevertheless if you

are swept up in the Leica mystique at all you will feel the weird

negative vibes coming from dealers and potential purchasers if you

wish to sell an M4-2. It is a bit like selling a computer that has

been replaced by a later model. This kind of feeling is very rare with

Leicas!

Thanks for all the info and viewpoints. These answers generally

confirm what has been my long-standing, cut-to-the-chase opinion:

"What a bunch of hooey!" I owned an M4-2 for awhile before I

"upgraded" to an M6 for the meter and the additional framelines. The

M4-2 always worked like and felt like a "real" Leica to me and I do

miss that non-flaring rangefinder. I'm more than willing to

perpetuate the "M4-2 is a child of a lesser god" myth if it will keep

the price down so that maybe I can buy another. ;-)

The reason that the Canadian M 4-2 is considered badly is that in the

Popular Photography test by Norman Goldberg, where everything was

stripped down, he said that it wasn't up to previous Leica

standards. Coming right after the M5 fiasco we all presumed that

Leica had gone to hell in a handbag.

Thanks for the correctiom Jay. Sorry about that I went back and

reread the article. Plastic did come with the M6 but the M4-2

introduced a single stamped piece rather than a dial made up of

several individual components. BTW steel winding gears were

first used on M cameras with the MP! I guess Leica felt the

Leicavit placed too much stress on the brass gears (or Leica

knew the press were going to put a great deal of film through

them).

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

PS: You can easily add a self timer back to a M4-2 or M4-P but

not inexpensively of course.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

Yes, the MP, M2-M and M4-M/MOT all had steel winding gears, and yet

they are coveted by collectors. The attribute of "un-leica-feel" to

the M4-2 and later cameras is probably due to the fact that very few

Leica users ever handled the older motor-ready cameras so the feel of

the steel gears was off-putting, plus it seems to me people were

looking for reasons to hate the M4-2 just because Leica chose to make

it in Canada--and not lower the price! PS, for anyone who really

wants a selftimer on their M4-2/-P/6, the ones that screw into the

cable release threads work just fine. I picked up a few over the

years at swap meets and use them with Leica and Hasselblad (the

latter needs some adjustment to the plunger to make sure the rear

flap doesn't close before the leaf shutter at slow speeds).

I still think it was cheap of Leica to take off the self-timer -

particularly as they did not need the space freed up for anything

until the M6 came along. Sure you can get a screw in type - but you

have to screw it on and then take it off, find it in your bag etc,

etc. This seems to me to be one of the small but annoying things

about these great cameras - a bit like the R6 coming out without a

1/2000 sec top speed (even the SL had that back in 1968), but

correcting this later with the R6.2. Not that I actually use 1/2000

sec much of course, but it seemed liked economizing and yet still

asking an arm and a leg for the camera just the same.

Readers of this thread who don't already know it might enjoy Jim

Colburn's column "Lets Kill All The Leica Collectors" which is

archived at dirkhalstead.org [The Digital Journalist]. The column

archive is at the bottom of the contents page. ................

It seems many people, for reasons unknown to me, think that it is

impossible to be a "real" photographer, but also appreciate collecting

too - I don't see any conflict myself. As it happens I don't have

enough money to collect anything, but I see nothing wrong with it - it

probably keeps Leica afloat!

I've had my M4-2 for over two years. and it was serviced by Leica UK

last year when the shutter dial played games. But reading the various

lists, it makes sense to allow for an early 'CLA'on a used camera.

I look on it as a good thing if the collectors are not interested in

the M4-2.. what I like about mine is that it seems to take the same

lenses as other M's:-)

My wife's Canadian, so I have a built-in respect for the quality of

anything produced up north. She and I are both tickled that since all

my lenses (21,35,90) are also from Midland, I actually own something

very collectable and rare - the ONLY professional-quality

interchangeable-lens 35mm camera system produced not in Germany or

Japan but entirely in North America!! (Kodak made something in the

40's/50's, but I think it was German-built).

 

<p>

 

Salute the M4-2. It's the camera that carried the torch for

rangefinder photography during Leica's years (literally!) in the

Canadian wilderness. They made only 16,000 of them (half as many as

the M5) If the M4-2 had died, there would have been no M6, no G2, no

Hexar or Hexar RF, no Voigtlander...nothing but a sea of SLR's as far

as the eye can see.

 

<p>

 

"Oh, Canada....!"