[Leica] M5 - what to look for - was M4 variants

[abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge)]

I've really wanted to shoot with an M5 but have never had one in my
hands which appreciate a somewhat larger camera. The M6 verges on
small-ish for me.

Can someone enlighten me about what to look for when seeking an M5 out
in the world? What to look for and what to avoid?

Thanks


On 12/24/06, Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com> wrote:
> the ultimate quality M was of course the M5 but most didn't like the
> styling GDR
> Frank
>
> On 24 Dec, 2006, at 17:53, 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>