for the members who've been around Leica for a long time

[cheewai_m6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

what was your reaction when the M5 was released? and what was the reaction for Leica followers that you recall? the M5 was released before I was born so i obviously can't recall on that. i personally find the m5 extremely ugly and disappointing. i'm guessing, and i am only guessing, that the majority of Leica followers didn't take to it very well.

 

was the design due to the new metering system? did leica go back to a more traditional design for the m6 because of the reaction to the M5?

[TomB_tx]

When the M5 came out I was still happy with my M4, but was interested because I also had a Leicaflex SL with semi-spot metering, and thought the M5 meter would be ideal. But I didn't get one (then) as I couldn't justify another camera, but did get a used CL a few years later; and indeed I loved the meter (much like the M5).

The M5 in chrome did not look appealing because the added height was all on top, making the chrome look top-heavy. I ran across a few users with the black M5 and it looked much better.

The cost was a lot more than I paid for my M4 back in 1968, but the cost of all Lieca's had climbed fast in those years, and the M5 wasn't that much more than a new M4 with an MR-4 meter.

I did get an M6 years later, but only because it came out when I was ready for another camera.

I picked up a black M5 a couple years ago, and really like it. Yes, it feels larger, but everything works VERY well.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[luigi bertolotti]

The M5 was not a success... but its styling is just one factor, not the most important imho, in its commercial failure ; there were TWO global issues that had a significant role :

 

1) In the 35mm field, they were the years of the great ramp up and final assessment of Single Lens Reflex as THE camera for professional and expert amateur use. The rangefinder cameras (in practice, the Leica only) , typical 35mm photo tool for professionals until the first years of '60s, had been in steady decline for almost 10 years when the M5 was released in 1971

 

2) The German photographic industry was in big troubles : historically the strongest photo industry of the world, it suffered HEAVILY for the spectacular growth of the Japanese industry, which in around 20 years had smartly evolved, step by step, from "low cost / low quality / copied products" to "good cost / high quality / innovative products". German cameras were simply TOO costly to manufacture : in 1973 Zeiss Ikon closed the camera manufacturing operations, in 1974 Leitz family was forced to seek financial help and sold the majority of the company to Wild Heerbrugg, Franke & Heidecke (Rollei) tried a partial manufacturing displacement in Singapore... and this simply postponed its bankrupcy to 1981.

 

M5 was designed because the Reflex market has gained further share thanks to the implementation of TTL metering as a standard and well integrated feature : if one looked , in the '60s , at a Nikon F WITH or WITHOUT the Photomic TTL meter... well it was not so fine, compared to a M4 WITH or WITHOUT the Leicameter: but in the '70s, a Pentax Spotmatic or Canon F1 (not to speak of the Olympus OM1 which arrived later) offered TTL metering in a "packaging" which made to pale a Leica M with its Leicameter fitted on top...

So they designed M5, with TTL, and this required more space : the result was a camera which was bigger than traditional Ms, with a look that many Leica users disliked, and with a very high cost, which kept far from it the new users, which for that price (say M5 + Summicron 50) could buy a good Japanes SLR with a set of 3 or 4 good lenses.

Leitz reverted to the classic M design 2-3 years after the end of M5 (1975) with the Canadian made M4-2 and then M4-P but, if you look at the numbers, the results were not so spectacular : they made around 34.000 M5s (5 years) and around 38.000 M4-2 and M4-P (8-9 years), an evidence that the problem was more the market than the product in itself.

[TomB_tx]

in its commercial failure ; there were TWO global issues that had a significant role

 

Excellent summary Luigi. I agree: changing market conditions were most of the situation.

[pico]

what was your reaction when the M5 was released? and what was the reaction for Leica followers that you recall? the M5 was released before I was born so i obviously can't recall on that. i personally find the m5 extremely ugly and disappointing. i'm guessing, and i am only guessing, that the majority of Leica followers didn't take to it very well.

 

was the design due to the new metering system? did leica go back to a more traditional design for the m6 because of the reaction to the M5?

 

I was a working city daily news photographer using an M2 and two M4 cameras at the time. When the M5 came out I was entirely put-off by the whole unconventional design. On the other hand, a couple peers liked it for the slightly larger body.

 

At that time, Nikon was practically giving away the F model to news photographers. That made it tough for Leica. We liked the F because of the modular design. We banged up our gear quite badly and it was convenient to just swap out a body or, more commonly, the prism.

 

 

I do think the M6 was the appropriate design choice for a TTL meter.

Edited December 29, 2012 by pico

[sblitz]

Still have an m4 lying about?

[iedei]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

interesting to read your perspectives. I am too young to give 1st hand accounts...but have read about the M5.

 

As an M5 enthusiast, i've been told that Leica spent more money and effort on designing and manufacturing the M5 than any other Leica before it.....The build quality is amazing on it.....it was the last handbuilt Leica made at Wetzlar and the attention to detail shows.

 

I think the M5 is THE most beautiful looking Leica ever made.....yes that may seen weird to you, but it has the most cohesive and dynamic bauhaus sensibilities combined with a forward-looking ethos. The M5 still looks modern in 2012....even though other Leica Ms do not. A VERY unique camera.....

 

I have since started reading about the introduction of the M5.....and first things first, the M5 was very expensive when it was launched, and with respect to the features it had. Of course all Leicas were/are expensive....but the M5 took things up 2 notches. Secondly was that people into 35mm shooting were traditionalists by that point....as mentioned by others here....and a lot of people were fascinated by SLRs. The M5 was expensive and non-traditional. It looked ahead....something Leica users were not looking to do then.

Edited December 30, 2012 by iedei

[designed]

Another "newcomer" into Leica gear, but I got myself an M5 this spring after being inspired by the M8. One could say I love the "odd ones" in the Leica family, another could say they are usually priced more towards my means. I do find it funny that the two Leicas that I have are usually excluded from the family tree in the folklore.

 

The M5 certainly has its own character. It's not a beautiful shape, but it has that purposeful usability built into it: it's better to hold without a grip than a classic M, the thumb shutter speed dial is genious (it also works between the steps for really precise control), the meter is intuitive despite the exaggerations of how weird it is and so on. I've understood that even the film loading is improved from the M2/3/4.

 

The M5 feels like a tool without going completely USSR or military with excessive weight and existing in olive green only.

[earleygallery]

I understand that the M5 was unloved at the time, due to a combination of the factors already mentioned - break from tradition for Leica, cost, rise of the SLR etc., but I only hear good things about it on the forum from people who own them.

 

Of course it almost caused the demise of the Leica rangefinder altogether - sales were poor and Leica had their SLR system too.

 

When the M5 fell by the wayside it was Leica Canada who persisted with the case for making the M4-2, returning to the familiar Leica shape and back to basis meterless body.

[pgk]

Leitz reverted to the classic M design 2-3 years after the end of M5 (1975) with the Canadian made M4-2 and then M4-P but, if you look at the numbers, the results were not so spectacular : they made around 34.000 M5s (5 years) and around 38.000 M4-2 and M4-P (8-9 years), an evidence that the problem was more the market than the product in itself.

Whilst the M5 was just before my Leica owning days, I am pretty sure that when I worked in a camera shop whilst studying in London in '79~'80, there was still at least one new M5 in stock (~5 years after they ceased production?). There were certainly used ones which sat on the shelves, and I do remember that there was little interest in them at the time, whereas the older M4s were far more sought after. Today M4s seem to be the best 'bargain' M available with some surprisingly low prices asked at times given their specification. And FWIW M5s seem to be becoming more popular (if prices are anything to judge by?). I've handled several M5s over the years and found them to be slightly disconcerting to hold relative to other M cameras but beautifully made.

[luigi bertolotti]

Whilst the M5 was just before my Leica owning days, I am pretty sure that when I worked in a camera shop whilst studying in London in '79~'80, there was still at least one new M5 in stock (~5 years after they ceased production?).

 

Nothing strange for M5 : surely Leitz cleaned its stock.... but the dealers' channel was VERY SLOW to sell ALL of them... a dealer in my town had one, new-boxed, in 1986 (and tried to sell it to me when I bought from him a fine DR Summicron...) ; I suspect that some brand new unused item still exists somewhere....

I do not know which kind of support Leica can provide today on M5... it was a superbly built camera, according to some "under the skin" reviewers... but I suspect that some component in the TTL metering system could be at risk of unrepairability.

Edited December 30, 2012 by luigi bertolotti

[pico]

Still have an m4 lying about?

 

Yes, an M4-p.

 

Just sold two with consecutive serial numbered M4s. They were cosmetic wrecks but still ticking. I think they went to China.

[TomB_tx]

I do not know which kind of support Leica can provide today on M5... it was a superbly built camera, according to some "under the skin" reviewers... but I suspect that some component in the TTL metering system could be at risk of unrepairability.

In the USA both Sherry Krauter and Don Goldberg still seem to have M5 parts and do excellent service. (I had Don service mine, and it is now perfect.) Sometimes you read that the CDS meter cell is unavailable, but some of the independent techs seem to have some stashed away. It is certainly a camera worth fixing - and the used prices are usually below other M models.

[iedei]

In the USA both Sherry Krauter and Don Goldberg still seem to have M5 parts and do excellent service. (I had Don service mine, and it is now perfect.) Sometimes you read that the CDS meter cell is unavailable, but some of the independent techs seem to have some stashed away. It is certainly a camera worth fixing - and the used prices are usually below other M models.

 

Apparently Sherry thinks the M5 is the greatest camera Leica ever made!

 

i've actually been shopping for a 2nd M5 (in Silver), however the prices are going up sadly! the M3 or M4 are the most affordable now...

Edited December 31, 2012 by iedei

[robert-gregory]

I was just getting into photography and Leicas when the M5 was the only new Leica option (unless you happen to find an un-sold M4 on some shop shelf like a friend of mine, the last of the classic Leicas went fast after the M5 came out).

 

It wasn't a big seller as everyone knows. Most working photographers already had their rangefinder M-series camera as a side camera to their main camera SLR system. The built-in meter was a big thing [and the camera itself was a 'big thing' too of course] but not a necessity for someone that knew their B&W film and could 'see light', and it was 'big' chunk of change ($) too. In some ways - right or wrong - the M5 wasn't a 'Leica' in some photographer's minds with the classic M3 body style being so set as 'a Leica'.

 

Personally I had my M3/M2 and for me the exciting purchase was when the limited 50th anniversary M4 came out which I got to use not collect. A new M4! even if it was a whopping $700. I did end up eventually getting an M5 too since rangefinders were my 'thing' and the built-in meter was cool and great for use with color slide film. As Leica promotion pointed out at the time, a classic style M-series with MR meter was about the same bulk in a not so streamlined package as the M5 anyway.

 

I've had a couple other M5s now down the road. Its still one of my favourite cameras for many reasons, but I don't have one now. As pointed out Sherry and Don are very good with repairs, but for the most part they are the only options for quality work and parts, and many repair folks don't even work on them.

[hepcat]

The M5 was despicable when it came out. It was huge. It hung funny on its strap. It just wasn't "right." Nobody wanted one. I thought they were an outrage. I have one on my "watch" list on eBay right now.

 

Peripherally mentioned in other posts was the state of the rest of the manufacturers and what they were turning out. Rangefinder cameras in general were "old" technology. Other than Leica, the last successful interchangeable lens rangefinder camera standing was the Canon 7s and they were discontinued by the late '60s IIRC. The latest technology was SLR with meters... and like the early '2000s with digital, the techno-advances were coming out monthly. Dozens of companies were producing high-quality bodies and lenses at reasonable prices. Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Konica, Petri, Practika and the list goes on and on. The markets were flooded. Optics were improving, built-in metering was improving by leaps and bounds and the public was consuming SLR cameras like there was no tomorrow. Rangefinder cameras in general were a forgotten genre in the popular marketplace.

 

As was said here, Leitz tried to modernize the M series and incorporate some of the techno-advances other companies were making into a "modern" looking body. They were hugely successful with the M5. It is a superb body. The public wasn't ready for an updated rangefinder camera. It was still considered "old technology" by the public, and not a "purist's Leica" by the marque's faithful. It wasn't really until the mid-80s that there was a resurgence in the use of rangfinder cameras. The public began to once again appreciate the clean, simple process of using rangefinder cameras, but to this day, rangefinder cameras have never regained their post-war popularity. Now with two generations of photographers removed from the 1975 technology, much of the history of the development of this equipment remains buried.

Edited December 31, 2012 by hepcat

[derleicaman]

I remember the M5 quite well, as I had talked my dad into buying one in the then new black chrome on a trip to Germany in 1972. Attended the Leica Schule at the time and saw M5's being made on the "montage" in the Leitz Hochhaus in Wetzlar, too. We had two chrome M3's and a Black Paint and chrome SL's as well. I was 16 at the time and working after school for a Leica dealer. God, what a fantastic camera! I still have the SL's and one of the M3's (sold one for a Hassy 500 CM), and my dad kept the M5. Years later, I bought a chrome M5 and had DAG install M4-P framelines, a new top plate along with an overhaul. That is a real machine. Still have that one too. Of course it was bigger, but that meter and the shutter speed dial you could adjust with your index finger, the readouts in the viewfinder all made it worthwhile. And that goofy side-hang strap really did work well.

 

In the meantime, I became a Leica dealer (semi-retired now) and involved with LHSA. Past president and current editor of the LHSA journal Viewfinder.

 

When the Leica bug bites, it bites hard!

[nikau]

I was looking to replace a Pentax outfit when the M5 arrived and seriously considered it, as I liked rangefinder cameras, but I found it big and clumsy and bought a run-out SL instead (the SL2 had also arrived), Although hardly small and compact, the SL fitted my hands better and was nicer to use than the M5, in my opinion. I later bought a used M4 and had the M and R combo for many years. I know many people love the M5, but that was just my experience.

[budrichard]

For the photojournalists I worked with and personally knew in the Midwest and I worked for two large papers, the M5 was a non-event. I know of no one who regularly used Leica M equipment at that time. The Nikon F was King and most had two F's with M36 motors. At sporting events, all you heard was the click clacking of the motors.

One of my fellow workers had an M2 with 35mm and only used it in the studio.

He offered it to me for $200 at that time. I had used a friends M3 with 50 mm DR extensively and knew that the M camera's were significantly handicapped compared to the Nikon F's especially after the Photomic heads came out. The M5 was Leica's answer to the TTL metering but by then it was just too late as a Nikon body could also be used with a vast variety of focal lenghts.

I don't believe its actual appearance had anything to do with its commercial failure if indeed it did fail commercially.

The SLR with TTL metering and interchangeable lenses was King among 35mm photographers of all types.

I believe Leica brought out the M6 because some clever person thought of a better way to do TTL metering for the M camera but by then the Leica M was an enthusiast camera..-Dick

Edited April 25, 2013 by budrichard

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[giordano]

I couldn't afford one so the question was academic. But I felt at the time (and still do) that:

(a) The M5 is too big and heavy.

( The marks to indicate the meter cell's acceptance angle made the finder too cluttered (Leitz seem to have agreed, as they didn't include them in the M6).

© In any case TTL metering isn't important for most rangefinder photography. Using the CdS Leicameters was dead easy (just point the 90mm framelines at a suitable part of the scene); the only advantage of the M5 is that it lets you set the exposure while looking through the finder.