[Leica] Re:M4 variants

[ricc at mindspring.com (Ric Carter)]

The M4 is my downfall into being something like a collector.

I got into Leica late, replacing my Olympus equipment (OM3, OM4t, and  
lenses accumulated on low budget buying over 15+ years) which had  
been stolen. Job changes and "maturing" attitudes and body let me  
decide to strip my pack down to something easier to manage. I shopped  
used and got an M6, 21, 28, cron 50, and cron 90 with the insurance  
money.

When Sonny decided to lighten his load, Kitty urged me to get his M7.  
It still made working sense. I really do prefer working with and  
automatic. So I'm up to two bodies.

Then soon after, local craigslist popped up a bargain: chrome M4,  
Tele-Elmar 135, Chrome Summicron 50, MR Meter, a fistful of filters,  
and a Minolta 16 submini for $500. It all worked fine, if a little  
stiff.  How could I say no?

I bought it. Ran a couple of rolls through the M4 before the shutter  
died (metal lead on one curtain broke loose). Well, it's not worth  
much that way, so off it goes to DAG. As long as it's on the way,  
might as well polish up the 'cron 50 as well. Now I've spent about as  
much as I would have if it weren't a bargain.

So now I have an M4 with 50 that I really don't "need." The 50 isn't  
really more useful than the newer black chrome 'cron I usually use.  
It doesn't focus as close and the infinity lock can aggravate on  
distant focus. The M4 has the rewind crank and more modern loading. I  
guess this make it the perfect snob user M Leica--old world  
construction and smoothness with new world convenience. Of course  
that doesn't put a meter in it, so it becomes a third stringer when  
it comes to work.

Here's the problem: both of them are so DAMN fine to see and handle,  
I couldn't possibly get rid of them. I trot them out regularly for  
shooting, but they aren't the first thing I grab on the way out the  
door. I guess that makes them collector equipment.

I'd be happy to get any rationalizations on why these pieces are  
necessary for day-to-day work, or ideas on things that they can do  
better than my other stuff.

The other goodies in the basement (a gift from a friend) are a IIIf  
(RD) with a Summitar 50, Nikkor 35/3.5, and Nikkor 135/3.5. I  
currently trying to get through a local CLA/shutter repair on the IIIf.

Ten years ago, I would have told you that I would never own a Leica.  
Now look what's happened! Beware, children, beware!!

Ric Carter
http://gallery.leica-users.org/Passing-Fancies




On Dec 24, 2006, at 12:53 PM, J. Newell wrote:

>> M4, M4-2, M4-P. I haven't been able to get any Leica book that  
>> says that one
>> was superior to another, but have heard anecdotal information that  
>> (1) the
>> M4 was best built of all Leica M bodies [I think the current MP  
>> gets that
>> award], and (2) either the M4-2 or the M4-P is not up to M2, M3,  
>> or M4
>> quality. The M4 seems to be the most coveted of the three, but  
>> that might be
>> because it is a better "collector".
>
> The M4 is most coveted because it was the last of the classic M  
> bodies assembled by the post-war workers in Wetzlar (although there  
> are some Canadian M4s as well).  Many Leica users and Leicaphiles  
> view everything that followed as lesser quality.
>
> The M4-2 was a somewhat economized version, production of which was  
> moved to Canada.  There were early teething troubles, but note that  
> this has been the case with almost every Leica M body.  After the  
> earliest production, the finder was modified sightly to reduce  
> costs but the result was that the finder is more subject to flare  
> than the M4/M2 finder.  The M4-2 was the first that would take a  
> motor without factory modification, but the steel gear in the  
> geartrain makes it feel less smooth.  The M4-2, like the M4-P,  
> eliminated the self-timer of the M4 and earlier bodies.  For a  
> variety of reasons, most of which I think are emotional rather than  
> objective, the M4-2 has long been a poor cousin in the M range, and  
> prices usually reflect that status.  I have gotten the sense that  
> there is a small number of M4-2s that were produced after they got  
> the bugs ironed out but before the finder was simplified.  If that  
> were true, that would be a great user body at a great price, relative!
>   to oth
> er meterless M bodies.
>
> The M4-P introduced 28mm and 75mm framelines.  It is generally  
> regarded as better made than the M4-2.  Whether that is really true  
> or true only because it didn't have the early problems that the  
> M4-2 had, I don't know.  Very late M4-Ps had zinc alloy top covers,  
> like the M6, with flush windows.  It is essentially an M6 without a  
> meter.
>
> IMO M6s are a better user than any of these and recent pricing is  
> very good on M6s, but YMMV.
>
> Season's cheer
> John Newell
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information