[Leica] Re:M4 variants

[len-1 at comcast.net (Leonard Taupier)]

Ric,

You're hooked. A fine Leica is like a fine watch or a piece of  
jewelry. It's meant to be used but also fondled and admired. There  
are only two M bodies in my stable I don't use. A chrome M4-P and a  
black lacquer A La Carte MP, neither of which have ever been used.  
They're just beautiful. I can't force myself to use them although I  
want to. They're like my new IIIf, but I'm using that. And enjoying  
it. I also have a Nikon S2 with black 50mm f1.4 that I use even  
though it's mint. I don't plan on ever getting a M5 and I don't have  
a M4 to use. Have to look for one. Enjoy them, friend. There are much  
worse vices out there I do not partake in.

Happy Holidays,
Len


On Dec 24, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Ric Carter wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information