Differences among M bodies

[sungho_jun]

<p>Hello, I have a quick question about the differences among the early M bodies.</p>

<p>I can see that the M3,2,1,4,5 (and others) bodies seem a little different with each other,<br>

but I would like to know some of the differences except the looks.<br>

I know that M3 has double, single stroke versions, and M4 has newer rewind knob.<br>

and they all do not have light meter...</p>

<p>What else is different?<br>

Thanks.</p>

[ulrik]

<p>The web is full on resources about this. Try this one: http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm<br>

Ulrik</p>

[SCL]

<p>This is a pretty elementary question, and the answers are way too long to respond to here. Only the M5 and later models have internal light meters...the earlier models relied on photographer's knowledge of light and exposure or ability to use external meters. The rangefinders are different in the various models, as is the internal gearing, and use of steel or brass components - some say affecting long term reliability. The shutter timing mechanisms are different among some models, as well as self timers, the baseplate in certain models can use a rapid wind device, and so on and so on. I would strongly suggest you do some independent research, again, as this topic is pretty expansive.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Other than loading and rewinding and metering, all RFDR film Leicas work in much the same way. Your time may be better spent in getting to know the one you have.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p><strong>Sung Ho</strong>, as mentioned, there are several differences. M3 with two winding mechanisms (the double stroke is stronger but adds another sweep) and largest magnification (near life size) viewfinder, but only framelines for 50, 90, 13mm lenses. It also has the most flare free finder. The M2 has a 0.72X finder and framelines for 35, 50 and 90mm lenses. The M4 added the 135mm frameline and a newer attachable coupled light meter that required an angled rewind knob. The M4-2 added motor winder capability but rejected the self timer, and the M4-P has six framelines (adding the 75mm and 28mm framelines). The M5, preceding the M4-2, is much larger and incorporates a through the lens CDS metering system. The M-6 has a newer type (GPd?) meter cell (without memory effects) without the need for a retracting internal semiphore arm of the M5. Despite some small changes in models after the M3, the rangefinder mechanism is essentially similar between the M2 and M4 through M6 models.</p>

<p>If you are really interested in considering the differences more fully, see the aforementioned Cameraquest site or (better) borrow one of the Leica M guidebooks (e.g., Matheson).</p>

[Sanford]

<p>I had an M6 for a while. They tell me if I had wanted to experience the ultimate M, my particular M was not the best choice. Made in Germany but in the wrong German city, black finish but the ugly black chrome, not the black paint that let the brass show through where the paint rubbed off, not the hand adjusted model that allowed for finer internal adjustments. They say the M4 and earlier were the ultimate Leicas. Some claim the later MPs recaptured some of this élan. I don't know where the digital Ms fit in.</p>

[paul_keller]

<p>For me the M2-R represents the best of the early M bodies. The M3's widest viewfinder being 50mm was just too much of a limitation. Having a goggled 35mm lens added too much bulk as does a separate passive viewfinder. The M4 is a close second in my observation. I actually like the M2's manual frame counter, and a 1.25x magnifier can be added to the eyepiece to attain nearly the same RF focus magnifiactiion as the M3. RF flair has never been a problem. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The OP seems to want to know the differences between the various M models through to the M5 and not particularly our personal favourite M. They are all high quality rangefinder Leicas and share similar operational characteristics but slightly different features. I don't think any Leica engineer or production manager cared whether his camera model was made in Solms or Wetzlar or Midland or Portugal (the latter for some R series). I have never found one model better than another in any really significant way, although among meterless RF Leicas I always loved the svelt looks and the multiple frameline choice of the M4-P, or the earlier anodised black M4-2 (I don't care for glossy black enamel cameras). But they permitted the same quality of photographic results as my M3 (and its shorter range of VF frameline lenses, but smoother shutter release action).</p>

[woolly1]

<p>@ Sandy<br /> :-)</p>

<p>My M4-P is good enough for me. It winds, focuses and clicks accurately. Apparently it isn't a Leica at all but some Canadian clone. The fact that it wasn't $2000 means the photos will never have that 'look'. Darned thing is 30 years old and still mint ..... can't be a real. I can still force some of that 135 film in it that the real ones use though.<br>

<br /> Night B+W photos are nearly always the same setting so no need for a meter - Moony f2 @ ASA400. Glad about that as a Leicameter MR4 sold last week in the UK for 200 pounds !!!!!!! Will I never have the chance to scratch that annoyingly good black chrome top plate?</p>

[ray .]

Add aperture priority / manual exposure electronic shutter system and you have the perfect camera, the M7.

[Robin Smith]

<p>Sanford,</p>

<p>I sympathize, surely <em>everyone</em> knows you must have a Wetzlar Leica (not Solms, or, perish the thought, a Midland or Portuguese-assembled one). No Portuguese-assembled lenses. Real Wetzlar chrome, not this vile over-bright M6 stuff. As for black chrome - horror of horrors. It must be black paint all the way. No to built in lenshoods! Not sure you even want Midland lenses, although I guess Mandler's designs are acceptable. It's so complicated being a Leicaphile...</p>

[Sanford]

<p>Owning a Leica is a once in a lifetime experience for most of us, might as well do it right!</p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

<p>Here are the highlights (most of which can be found on Steve Gandy's website):</p>

<p>M3 - 50-90-135 framelines. Many changes during its production life-cycle. About 225,000 units were produced.</p>

<p>M2 – 35-50-90 framelines (about 80,000 units). Started off as a poor man’s M3. Production cycle went from two variations of button RW to a lever-wind. Self-timer was nil, then an option. The M2 was the first platform for a Leica motor. The M2 with a self timer was catalogued as the M2S - those without a self timer were the M2X.</p>

<p>M1 - M3 with no RF (variations include the MD and MDa).</p>

<p>M4 – 35-50-90-135 framelines (about 45,000 units). This was the first and only Leica M to receive no upgrades or downgrades during its production life cycle. Main features included rapid film loading (first tried in a M2 production model for the US military for use in Vietnam - about 900 units - known as the KS15-4 (or the military M2S). Also featured a new slanted RW crank - touted to save many seconds in film RW time.</p>

<p>M2-R - Introduced during the M4 run (featuring M4 loading). Not very popular during its production life-cycle (it seemed they couldn’t give them away), but later became a classic. 2,000 units were produced numbered sequentially.</p>

<p>M5 – 35-50-90-135 framelines. First M camera with a built-in meter. Larger and heavier body – comparable RF compared to those prior. This was the great experiment in which Leica staked their future. It was a huge failure and nearly buried the company (and killed the M line for about eighteen months in mid-1970s).</p>

<p>M4-2 - Essentially an M4 without a self timer, but with a motor-winder mechanism added. The (RF mechanism was 'downgraded' about half-way into production with the removal of a condenser lens (later added back - 25-years later - in 2002 with the introduction of the MP). Limited engraving - stamped 'Leitz' (originally including 'Wetzlar') - produced in Canada.</p>

<p>M4-P - M4-2 with six framelines (28-35-50-75-90-135).</p>

<p>M6/M6TTL – Essentially M4-P with a meter. Brass topcover was replaced with a zinc alloy. Various special additions during its production featured brass topcovers. All production moved to Portugal and Germany. The M6TTL is 2mm taller and features a larger shutter speed dial, which moves in the opposite direction.</p>

<p>M7 – M6TTL with an electronic shutter mechanism - features two manual speeds (60 and 125).</p>

<p>MP – A $5,000 M6 - featuring a ‘new’ condenser lens (the same one removed from the M4-2), M3/2 style RW mechanism, black paint, a brass topcover, and a funky new eyepiece design, which no doubt saves Leica no less than 10 cents in the production process.</p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

<p>I should note - I have owned several Leica Ms and, in spite of the obvious (and some not-so-obvious) downgrades over previous Leica Ms produced, I have found the M6 classic to be the most functional and reliable ... <br>

... while certainly not the 'prettiest'. </p>

[Sanford]

<p>Surely not as "pretty" as that M2 you have in your gallery.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Let's please petition for a "Wetzlar Leica and RF forum" to rid us of this continual baseless snobbery, and leave the rest to an "Ordinary Leica and RF forum", destined for the unholy pleebs, a.k.a the practical Leicaphiles. </p>

[Sanford]

<p>Well, to be honest, my first "serious" camera was a IIIF and NOTHING, including all model M's or any other brand camera has ever or will ever comes close in refinement...!</p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

<blockquote>

<p>Surely not as "pretty" as that M2 you have in your gallery.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Stanford. But if you're referring to the "M2-6" folder - in the interest of full disclosure - that's an M6 dressed to look like an M2.</p>

[stuart_vu]

<p>M1 - M3 with no RF (variations include the MD and MDa).<br>

<br /> Sorry, the right answer is : M1 is a M2 NOT a M3 with no RF and no 90mm frameline.</p>