Is there a Leica called M-5?

[mike_pry]

First off I am new to the site and it is truly fantastic! I am new to the Leica world as well as I recently aquired a M5. I don't see hardly anything about it even mentioned. Is this like the step child of the Leica world??????? It really puzzles me as to why there is nary a mention about this camera and what I think is a really fine piece of photographic equipment. I almost feel a new sense of freedom with it as I shoot mainly 8x10 and wanted something smaller for loose street photography. Just a questioning kind of thought. Thank you all again for the wealth of information on this site!

 

<p>

 

Michael Pry

[john_collier5]

You are not caught in some strange conjunction of the

universes. There is indeed a M5. Go here for an "all M5 all the

time" piece:

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/m5.htm">

http://www.cameraquest.com/m5.htm</a>

 

<p>

 

And for an overview which includes the M5:

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm">

http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm</a>

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

[mark13]

Michael:

 

<p>

 

You do indeed have the bastard child of the Leica line. I have the

339th one ever produced. I love it except for the crease I put in the

bottom once knocking it off a shelf in my safe (ouch). No one talks

about them much as there were never that many produced. However, the

Leica CL is in some ways similar (and very dissimilar at the same

time) and there were 60,000 (plus another 20,000 Minolta CLs) produced

and you hardly hear a peep about them either. The M5s are great

machines. I find the extra size is nice when shooting a Noct (the

lens, not the sausage) and other big lenses. The meter is more

sensitive than the M6's but the needle system is hard to see in low

light (where you need that sensitivity). Every now and then you'll

run across one that someone had M6 frames put into. I would love one

but I always seem to have just bought a lens when one turns up.

[Sanford]

Just try typing "leica m5" into the little box at the top of the

screen called "address"

[jay_.]

The M5 was Leica's answer in 1970-1 to the demand for a TTL meter,

and another example of Leica engineering a superb product without

heed to the market and it nearly got them bankrupt. The main

complaint about the M5 was that it was bigger and heavier than many

SLRs of the day (not Leicaflexes, though). The M5 was discontinued

and the M4, which had been discontinued, was eventually revived

around 1974 and was welcomed by buyers--despite still having no built-

in meter--and led to the M4-2 and M4-P and finally, *ten years later*

the M6 debuted with a TTL meter in the M4 chassis. Mechanically the

M5 is very reliable and has several advanced features: a metering

pattern more akin to a spotmeter than the M6's, shutter dial easily

turned with one finger, shutter speeds visible in the viewfinder,

metering area (with 50mm lens) outlined in the finder. The bottom-

mounted rewind crank is a little quirky, and it lacks a 1-sec speed

on the shutter dial although I seem to recall that "B" and the

selftimer can be used to get 1 sec somehow. Early M5's had

rectangular strap fittings at one end (so it hung vertically)to which

a 3rd lug was later added for a choice of carrying orientations.

Certain lenses (collapsibles--if collapsed, and early 21 and 28mm's)

can not be used on the M5 or damage will occur to the meter cell

mechanism, which is on an arm that drops into a well in the base when

the shutter is pressed. Cocking the shutter raises the meter cell

into position in front of the shutter and turns on the meter. The

meter unfortunately will then not turn off until the camera is fired,

though with a lenscap in place the current draw (on the discontinued

PX625 Mercury battery--recalibration or adaptors are available)is not

great. Judging by current prices on the used market, the M5 is more

popular by far today than when it was new.

[Rob F.]

In the late 60's or early 70's I was on assignment to Pan Am, testing

a new computer we had installed on a 707. I heard two pilots

talking: "Flown the 747 yet?"

 

<p>

 

"yep. just checked out in it yesterday."

 

<p>

 

"Whaadya think? Any good?"

 

<p>

 

"Yup. It's a Boeing."

 

<p>

 

The highest compliment that can be paid to an aircraft.

 

<p>

 

The following year I picked up an M5 in a New York camera store, and

handled it for a few minutes. My companion asked, "Whaddya think?"

 

<p>

 

I replied, "It's a Leica."

[john_collier5]

"Every now and then you'll run across one that someone had M6

frames put into. I would love one but I always seem to have just

bought a lens when one turns up. "

 

<p>

 

Marc,

 

<p>

 

It is inexpensive to fit a six frame mask set to your camera. It has

been a long time since I made similar enquires to Leica but I

think around $100US comes to mind.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

[Robin Smith]

The M5 is very collectable now, and I think it is a lovely camera. The

cameraquest article stresses its good points. Why it all failed is

quite a mystery to many observers, but perhaps the "meter on the

stick" approach seems unsophisticated to many Leica users, there was

and still is a feeling that the Leica is a barebones camera and the M5

seemed to have too many comforts, was too large, and did not allow

some lenses to be used on it. The Leica M crowd are difficult to

please. I dislike the 2 lug one (my CL hangs vertically too and I hate

this aspect of the camera) so the 3 lug one from my perspective is the

nicer variant. But as others say the M5 and CL might just not have

existed in Leicadom for the amount of talk that they attract - rather

weird.

[joel_matherson]

I just purchased a pile of Leica brochures off ebay and one of them

was for the M5. One interesting point of the M5 i found was its

rangefinder baselength of 68.5mm. I often read on here about the M3

being superior in this respect to the M6, with the M3 having 62.1mm.

That makes the M5 even better! Its larger size obviuosly has an

advantage here. I often read complains about certain lenses like the

50mm f1 and 90f2 and 75 f1.4 being too large and difficult to focus

on M6's etc wide open, well with the larger size and rangefinder base

of the M5 it surely must be a winner with these lenses?! People claim

this camera was a failure because it didnt sell in vast numbers but

it sold in much greater numbers to the Nikon SP which is considered

the best and most famous of the Nikon rangefinders, I think the

purists need to look a bit closer at the M5 and judge again.

[Robin Smith]

I bet the M6 with 50mm is heavier than many amateur SLRs of today! All

Leicas are heavy (or dense is a better word). The exception being the

R6.2 which is unexpectedly light. The M6 is not a lightweight. If the

M5 is heavier it is only because it is a bit bigger. The Leica CL and

Minolta CLEs are very light in comparison.

[cing_dao_kan1]

I agree with Robin - the M5's bulkiness largely is due to its size not

its weight. But after I use my M5 for an extended period of time, I

feel so comfort with camera's size and weight. It certainly has

better balance with Noctilux and Summilux 75 than other classic M

bodies.

[john_collier5]

All M cameras with rangefinders have a physical base length of

68.5 mm. The M3 camera has a magnification of 0.91 which

results in an effective baselength of 62.3 mm. The M5, like the

M2, M4, M6 and variations, has a magnification of 0.72 which

results in an effective baselength of 49.3 mm.

 

<p>

 

The M5 was not a success for several reasons. First the SLR

was perceived to be way to go for the buying public, both

professional and amateur. Sales of Leica rangefinder cameras

were hitting all time lows (about 10,000 a year for the M5 and

have pretty much stayed there as well).

 

<p>

 

Second, was the introduction of the CL. This camera was made

by Minolta for Leica and I think Minolta was one who benefitted

the most. Leica was hoping for an introductory model which

would then lead to people moving up to their flagship M5. Well

the 65,000 CLs sold during its short three year run and took

sales away from the M5 rather than what Leica had hoped for.

 

<p>

 

The final nail in the M5's coffin was the SL2, Leica lost money on

every one sold! So here we have Leica's flagship cameras

selling in low unprofitable numbers, and, the camera they are

selling buckets of, making money for Minolta! So the SL2 was

cancelled, the R3 was developed and the complete M line was

dropped (and then saved by Leica Canada but that is another

story).

 

<p>

 

Cheers

[Robin Smith]

Yes, the M5 and the SL2 are in many ways the apotheosis of the

old-fashioned Leica - beautiful, somewhat complicated mechanical

cameras, beautifully made and finished. Reminds me of the Zeiss/Ikon

Contarex in some ways, but Leica at least got much of it right and

hence were able to extricate themselves from the crisis by the skin of

their teeth.