Is the Leica M5 the best built camera? **I dunno**

[alfie wang]

I was looking at a used M5 chrome at CBOP today and the manager Todd told me that Sherry Krauter believes that the M5 is the most reliable of the M series camera. Is this true or something which is more of a fantasy? After all, I would suspect that Sherry would know best since she repairs all sorts of M cameras.

[Rob F.]

It is difficult to see why it should be more reliable, based on the

presence of the retractable meter arm, which gives it one more part

to fail. Still, I suppose there could be some reason. Someone

posted that Sherry Krauter is especially fond of the M5. I don't

know that this is equivalent to saying that she thinks it's more

reliable. Maybe you could ask her.

[wilhelmn]

The M5 meter, like its cousin the CL, unfortunately is quite prone to

malfunction.

[kens]

The title of Best Built Leica is most often awarded to the late

version M3 - serial numbers above 1,000,000. The usual reasons are 1)

the long production run from 1954 to 1966 (226,000+ cameras over the

13 year period) allowed the bugs to be wrung out and the assembly

line to become very expert, and 2) it was made before manufacturing

economies started to force build compromises.

 

<p>

 

The M5 is one of the most interesting cameras, but its run was so

short (1971-75, 33,900 cameras over the 5 year period) they never

really had the chance to refine it as well.

[eliot]

The metering system of the M5 is rather fragile (unlike the M6). It

is a well built camera, but cannot be considered the most reliable M

camera by any stretch.

[tony_salce]

Alfie,

 

<p>

 

I don't believe Sherry believes the M5 to be the best bulit Leica M.

She believes that the Leicaflex SL is the "M3 of SLR's" so by that

reasoning one could safely assume that it is the M3 that is the

pinnacle of the Leica M's. Quite clearly, it is, in my humble opinion.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

 

<p>

 

Tony Salce

[carlin]

Sherry does indeed believe the

M5 to be one of the best built

Leica M's. I don't know that

this translates to it being more

reliable. Despite the meter arm

(that had some bugs early on)

the later cameras are quite

robust and reliable.

[c._w._satterfield]

I have a M5 that has been Krauterized. Sherry advises it is one of the

best Leicas built above serial #133XXX. She CLAd mine and did

everything necessary to keep it going for many years. It has a

reliable spot meter too. See Steve Gandy's review on his web site. It

is an under rated camera and is just now being appreciated for what it

is---another fine Leica.

[budc]

I always understood that Sherry thought the M5 to be the best of the

M cameras but not necessarily the best built M. Don Goldberg told me

the M5 was the first M in which some cost reduction appeared.

 

<p>

 

I cannot see how the M5 could be more reliable than my 1.1+ mil M3 or

even the M2 or M4. If nothing else, the M5 is far more complicated.

 

<p>

 

In any case, I really regret not buying a new M5 when I had the

chance. I passed it up for one reason...shape.

[Robin Smith]

I don't know what "best built" means. How can we tell what is the most

reliable really without the stats? Average number of repairs per

lifetime, per number of exposures, how often it survives a drop

from height x onto floor/ground of type y etc. etc. But my gut feeling

is that it is unlikely to surpass the manual, meterless Leicas

M3-M2-M4, or even M4-P, as we know the meter cell does need to be

periodically replaced - but as that is an extra feature compared to

the others should this really be included in a comparable reliability

test?

 

<p>

 

I like the M5 actually, but I would not get one today as the M6TTL has

the same or better functionality (except for the beloved selftimer!)

is cheaper and easier to repair when the time comes.

[eliot]

Carlin. I too think the M5 is a very well-built and under

appreciated camera. The meter (as far as light metering) is very

reliable, though it requires the no longer available in USA mercury

batteries (or a suitable substitute).

 

<p>

 

But the meter problem I refer too is not one of construction flaw but

design flaw. The swinging meter cell is just more vulnerable than

the dot painted onto the shutter curtain of the M6. I'm sure there

must be many satisfied M5 users who never had a problem. But ask

Stan Tamarkin about his first experience with a brand new M5 whose

meter failed on a trip the first time out! :-)

[chris_chen]

Good point the mercury batteries.

 

<p>

 

I always thought the swing-out meter a Rube Goldberg solution; more

moving parts. Although, the CL I had, and had stolen, produced good

results.

 

<p>

 

The vibration of the arm would be less than a mirror, but against all

philosophy of a Leica. I don't have a clue why buyers are paying

current prices, I wouldn't, same goes for the CL. I got my mint

w/40 'cron for $450 CDN.

[budc]

I wouldn't call the metering system in an M5 a Rube Goldberg design.

Given the technology in those days, it was a brilliant design and

produced the best TTL meter available (even better than the SL and

far better than the Nikon F's).

 

<p>

 

The M5 meter is more sensitive and more selective than the M6 meter.

It was a true spot meter which wasn't influenced by varying exit

pupil ratios.

[cing_dao_kan1]

Sherry often mentioned that M3 with serial number above 1,000,000 is

the best built Leica M body, and M5 with serial number above 1,33x,xxx

is the best body as user.

 

<p>

 

I wasn't that convinced when I first started using the M5. But the

more I use it, the more I feel comfortable with it. Because it is so

different than classic Ms in terms of its size and the way the camera

is handled, one should use M5 alone (without mixing with other Ms) to

fully appreciate its capability. When I use my M6, I usually set the

shutter speed first, and then I adjust my aperture and focus before I

press the shutter. I rarely adjust the shutter speed while I focus.

However, when I use the M5, I could adjust both the aperture and speed

dial while I focus (the large speed dial on the M5 is very

convenient!). To me, the M5 provides a more flexible shoot style. The

large size of M5 is also more comfortable for handling compared with

M6, IMHO.

 

<p>

 

Mechanically, the shutter on M5 is different than that on the classic

Ms. It sounded smother and quieter for speed lower than 1/60 sec. The

M5 with serial number above 1,33x,xxx had the latest design change on

the shutter and meter arm mechanisms. BTW, the Leica had worked on

the M5 for thirteen years before released it on the market.

[george_l._doolittle]

Best for what? I've also talked to Sherry. Her viewpoint is

certainly valid in a mechanical sense, but from a practical aspect,

the m6 works best for me. I do a lot of travel photography and

city/people shots , thus, weight and handiness are important. When I

don't need to be concerned with weight, I enjoy using the m5. It is

important to heed Sherry's advise and seek a chassis no. of 1,333xxx

or higher. Good shooting

[chris_chen]

Alfie,

 

<p>

 

Are you on another shopping spree?

 

<p>

 

My advice: Go slow, opportunities abound!

 

<p>

 

More power to you!

 

<p>

 

Play away. 8@}

[carlin]

Eliot and all - what can I say,

I'm a dedicated M5 user. I think

the meter is great, I love the

design...whoever said you have

to use it by itself is absolutely

right. It's too often compared to

the classic M's, I think a little

unfair. You have to take it on

its own terms. I love the lack of

red lights and red dots, the

shutter speed dial, the black

film counter and Leitz

engraving. And it's a Wetzlar

camera, built solid and

smooth...just my opinion.

[budc]

Yup, Leitz engraving on the top plate is like a three pointed star on

the hood of a car.