M5: Why did it fail?

[hans_beckert]

I always liked the M5. Why do you think it failed? For people with big

hands, the M4 is a bit too small. The large shutter-speed dial of the

M5 is clearly superior to that of the other M's.

[shambrick007]

Too different from the other bodies.<p>

A light meter on a camera in the 70s was too-little-too late.<p>

People were switching to SLRs in droves anyway.

[hans_beckert]

I don't understand. The M6 has been very popular, and it has a meter.

[Troll]

It failed primarily for two reasons: 1) because some non-photographer industrial designer thought it would be smart to have it hanging from one end (wrong!), and because the ends weren't rounded, losing the "Leica Feel." By the time they came out with the three lug model it was too late. It was also introduced at a time when other cameras were getting smaller and lighter, and the M5 seemed a lot larger and heavier than the M4 (which it wasn't, when the MR-4 meter was added in). A secondary reason was lack of reliability of the metering system on early cameras. I loved mine, but when shooting Kodachrome it was necessary to expose within 1/3 stop of perfect, and the meter would slowly stray off, which wouldn't be obvious until the slides came back.

[new hampshire john]

It's big(ger), (some folks think) it's ugly, it's different (which some folks object to), and the SLR comment is well met -- surely by that time even the pros (who us lowly amateurs (and the then-nascent "prosumers") followed like lemmings) were flogging the SLRs somewhat more. Plus hadn't AE and programmed exposure become somewhat more available by this point? For Leica to say "Hey, look at us! We got ourselves a meter IN THE CAMERA!" at that point could easily appear to be a day late and a dollar short for the masses.

 

But thank dog it was made, it's easily my favorite M (though I've not used the MP (yet)). It's terribly useable. There were a couple of very pro-M5 posts a while back, search the archives for posts to massage your own opinion of the M5.

 

I get more parenthetical later in the evening; I think the scotch makes my brain work in alternative channels while the main river is flowing. In any case, sorry for the obtuse prose.

[m_.]

It never failed. I still love it.

[a m]

The M5 was a magnificent piece of mechanical craftsmanship, but I am not sure if it was very good industrial design. The failure reasons:

 

1. Very expensive (I remember $700+ for the body alone in 1974).

2. Big and bulky, almost as big as the much more capable Nikon F.

3. No ability to add a motor. This was a big feature in the 1970's, and Leica flubbed it.

4. Early reliability problems gave it a bad reputation among newspaper photographers and other pros.

5. The timing was poor because of the growing popularity of SLR's.

6. The onslaught of excellent and relatively inexpensive Japanese cameras.

7. Leica M traditionalists rejected the bigger body.

8. The Leica CL, also with a built-in meter, may have taken away sales from the M5, although some reject this hypothesis.

 

Adding a meter to a rangefinder camera was an obvious evolution whose time had come. Sadly, the M5 just did not fill the need, and the timing was off.

[dan flanders]

It departed from the then perceived �Leica Look�. Big, bulky vs small compact. Many Leicaphiles used bulk film and had a large supply of cartridges � would not fit M5. SLR revolution was at height of popularity.

[john_henneberger]

Computers once programmed with errors cannot excercise the judgment possesed by humans to analyze the meaning of its mistakes. It's failure to rationalize killed hundreds. M5 had to be destroyed.

 

Oh wait. That was the answer on the Star Trek board.

 

The name M5 is jynxed. That's why it failed.

[henry_ting2]

The M5 failed because it was huge compared with the other Ms. Plus it lacked the "fondling" factor. :)--

[runkel]

"<a href="http://soundwavs.trekkieguy.com/2/53/m5.wav">Why is it called M5 and not M1?</a>

[octavio bustard]

Beats me. It is, hands down, the best M ever. I even love how it looks. So what if its alittle bigger.

 

I do think the SLR comment made before is very perceptive. People saw rangefinders as a dying technology in the 70s; nobody really wanted them anymore. Then Leica offended its market by having the nerve to restyle the M and even those who might have bought an M6 moved on to a Nikon F.

[h._p.]

Personally, I think the answer is simply that it's ugly. The M4 has to be a strong contender for 'prettiest Leica' and to follow it with that slab sided monstrosity was very nearly as daft a move as Ford attempting to market the Edsel.

 

Photographers are very image concious and the pun is intentional. Anyone who spends a lot of time making pictures is going to have views about what he likes and dislikes visually. I wasn't in the market for a Leica when the M5 came out but I did say to my wife that they were going to have a hard time selling the thing. It was one of the rare occassions on which I was right.

[jean_.]

To different. Leica users don't like things that are different. I almost wonder that the M was a success, since it was such a change from the screwmount cameras.

 

To little, to late. The rangefinder era was over to begin with, the market was changing, and probably the huge success lasting for decades with the screwmounts and the M made leitz blind for these changes. Imagine, for 50 years everything that company touched turned into gold. The M5 marks the point where leica lost it, and changed from being a player in the photographic industry to a male jewelry producer. A smart move IMHO, unlike all the other once proud european brands, they survived until today - not as a mere label, but as a real factory with real people building cameras and lenses.

[kajabbi]

It failed because it took too big a step toward rangefinder perfection. The traditionalists were'nt ready, the rest had eyes for the SLR. My remaining (tiny) thread to tradition is an M3DS(on the Visoflex) and a IIIF. They remind me of my past and are used almost never. My M5s are in continual use. One(loaded with ISO 400) is never farther away from me than five feet.

[chip l.]

Something that others have failed to mention is that the Leica CL was introduced about the same time. It was a less expensive alternative to the M5. It has been said that consumers at the time thought that the CL was on par quality wise to the M series of cameras.

 

So the higher M5 price, the change in handling style, and the availability of the CL led to the M5 not seeing a proper market.

[jay bee]

Gotta say that I for am glad its the red-headed step child of Leica's. Great bodies can be had very reasonable and they are a pleasure to use. In fact, I like the fact that it handles differently than my M6TTL - variety is the spice of life.

[hans_beckert]

I always thought it was very good looking, and the large shutter speed dial is superior to that of other M's.

[tony_salce]

Hans,

 

I cannot add anymore than the other respondents about the reasons for its financial failure. They all probably have merit. However the camera itself is hardly a failure. I suggest you read Robert Hitt's posting "M5 Thoughts" for a comprehensive summary of the strength of the M5.

 

I am fortunate to have two of them. Sherry Krauter put me on to them. Prior to my first M5 I had an M2 and M3. Didn't use them much ( if at all ) after I acquired my first M5. Then sold the M2 and M3 to purchase another M5. Sherry has CLA'd them both. If you are interested Sherry may have one or two for sale. I believe it is Sherry's favourite user M camera. She will tell you more.

 

Good luck,

 

Tony Salce

[runkel]

I've never understood the accepted wisdom that this is an ugly camera. I don't think it is ugly at all. Cleaner lines than, say, the M4.

[hans_beckert]

Of course, when the meter could be added to the M-4 style body, resulting in the M6, that made the M5 redundant. But why drop the large shutter speed dial? And why the MP? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Allen Herbert]

Personally, I think the answer is simply that it's ugly.

 

Very subjective, Harvey. Okay, you are not what one would call pretty, but you do all right. Myself, very handsome, and do alright.

 

Big and pricey. Everyone else going smaller and cheaper. The red spot marketing was not up to scratch at the time. That's what i read in the history books, anyway.

[Brian1664876441]

Stated simply, "It lacks the Leica Look".

 

M5 was not called M1 because M1 was taken in the Leica line but not yet in the US tank line-up. The M1 was without an RF. The M3, M2, M1 came out in reverse order and the numbering scheme and "sort-of-follows" follows the old screw mount designations. The Series III, like a IIIf has RF and Slow Speeds. The II series, like IIf, lacked the slow speeds. The I series, such as the 1f, has no RF or slow speeds. This the M2 was a simplified M3 and the M1 was a simplified M2. The M4 broke this trend.

[pensacolaphoto]

Many years ago, I sold my M5 and bought an M3. Why did I do so?

I found the M3 more elegant and I liked the idea that it was the first M camera. I miss the meter in the M5, but I now use a handheld spotmeter with the M3.