DaveO Posted July 9, 2012 Share #1 Posted July 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is the Leica M5 that is considered the ugly Leica or orphan. Why is this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Hi DaveO, Take a look here Leica M 5. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted July 9, 2012 Share #2 Posted July 9, 2012 Because it's much bigger than a "real" M. Owners love them. Problem was that there weren't enough owners... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted July 10, 2012 Share #3 Posted July 10, 2012 Because it's much bigger than a "real" M. Owners love them. Problem was that there weren't enough owners... Yep, great camera, a joy to use. I sold my M7 but kept the M5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsh Posted July 12, 2012 Share #4 Posted July 12, 2012 The M5 is a real M! Really and truly, it is!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
enboe Posted July 13, 2012 Share #5 Posted July 13, 2012 There are a number of good threads on the M5 in these forum pages. I encourage an evening of pleasant reading. I picked up an M5 chrome, exc+++ condition, back when the M8 came out. Lovely camera, paid around $1400 (equivalent trade for my RD-1). Just recently, I decided to prune the collection, and was surprised the body received no queries at $1200. I researched why and learned that the average selling prices of M5's have dropped around 14% over the past 6 years. This is still insignificant depreciation in the photo world, and it is good news to someone like yourself looking for a superb Leica for less than $1000. A useful reference: Leitz: M5 Price Guide: estimate a camera value Enjoy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dslater Posted July 14, 2012 Share #6 Posted July 14, 2012 Because it's much bigger than a "real" M. Owners love them. Problem was that there weren't enough owners... I wouldn't call it "much" bigger. An M5 is 155x84x36mm while an M3 is 138x77x33.5mm for a difference of 17x7x3.5mm. That's about 12% longer, 9% taller and 10% thicker Definitely bigger, but I wouldn't call that "much" bigger. It is true that this size difference contributed to the M5's commercial failure, However, the Leica CL is also largely responsible. The M5 was very expensive when it came out, while the CL was much less expensive, had the same TTL metering, and a much shorter RF baseline. However, once people discovered that 1) the CL's RF baseline is long enough for short lenses and that Leica lenses work just fine on a CL in spite of what Leica marketing said at the time, many people chose to buy a CL instead of an M5, resulting in the CL taking away many sales that otherwise would have gone to the M5. The commercial failure of the M5 was largely a marketing failure. I have an M5 andI love it. Sure it's bigger than an M3, but compared to my N###n F100, or D300, it's tiny. I can take my M5 + 35mm + 50mm + 90mm lenses somewhere in my pockets, no camera bag needed. Try that with your SLR . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 16, 2012 Share #7 Posted July 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've never even held an M5 but find them terribly ugly (sorry). Though not large by any SLR standard, I find them unesthetically big having odd angles, strange edges, ornamented windows hovering uncertainly above the lens mount and weird large swaths of metal seemingly to no good use at all. All features appear affixed haphazardly at almost random locations on the body. That said, those who love them really love them. /S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsh Posted August 6, 2012 Share #8 Posted August 6, 2012 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 6, 2012 Share #9 Posted August 6, 2012 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What's in his other eye? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
janrzm Posted August 6, 2012 Share #10 Posted August 6, 2012 I've never even held an M5 but find them terribly ugly (sorry). Though not large by any SLR standard, I find them unesthetically big having odd angles, strange edges, ornamented windows hovering uncertainly above the lens mount and weird large swaths of metal seemingly to no good use at all. All features appear affixed haphazardly at almost random locations on the body. That said, those who love them really love them. /S I never liked the M5 until I got one as part of a "job lot" of Leica Gear.....all I'll say is I kept the M5, here it is looking beautiful with the Version 1 35mm Cron!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted August 9, 2012 Share #11 Posted August 9, 2012 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Funny, I thought it was beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsh Posted August 9, 2012 Share #12 Posted August 9, 2012 I own two M5s and I gave a third to my nephew, Dr. Joe Tufts, who loves it. He designs and builds digital cameras and lenses for 2 meter telescopes in Santa Barbara. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.