What is it about the M5?

[Firefly]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As the thread title says really, some folks swear by the M5 but it has the reputation of being the camera that almost killed the M line and in turn maybe Leica full stop.

Sure by the time of release the market for rangefinders was rapidly contracting but that same market has able to sustain the M4-2 and all subsequent models since, a new film model has only just been released this year when film is supposedly long dead. So it's not the market then?.

 

Many say the M5 has a really fine build quality, including I believe some noted repairer's. The Canadian built M4-2 and later models are claimed by some (many) to be cheapened off and have never reached the quality of earlier models, so it's not the build quality then?

 

Along with the build quality the M5 introduced a built-in meter and several other features not seen before in a M, and in some area's it was along time before these featured again, so it's not the specs and features then?

 

The size, many SLR's were bigger then and have grown larger since, the looks then? it is a camera, designed to take pictures, not a ring or a necklace etc etc

 

So why did the M5 flop so badly? there must be a logical reason out there unless it's been lost in Leica land folk-law, and just one final thing, I notice a lot of intemperate posts, can we try and keep this thread sweet? regards to all, Rob

[madNbad]

The M5 was introduced at a time when Nikon was dominating the professional ranks, Canon had just introduced the F1, TTL metering was becoming more sophisticated, motor drives cheaper and really wide and really long lenses were all the rage. The M5 being such a radical departure from the previous M cameras wasn't warmly embraced by the traditional buyers. Look how the change to the M6 TTL and M7 shutter speed dial were abandoned with the introduction of the MP. Neither of those cameras are nearly as different from the M4 as the M5 was. It was bigger, didn't have the same look or feel as an M4 and the controls weren't in the same place. What the engineers saw as improvements and bringing the design forward ran into the reality of what the market expected. Many M5s' sat on dealers shelves for years and sold at a deep discount. Those buyers found them a joy to use but long after manufacturing had been shut down and the rangefinder line nearly abandoned. Newspapers and magazine pools were buying three Nikons for the price of one M5. Serious amateurs followed the trend and moved to or started with using the Japanese SLR. The M5 is a great camera that came along at the wrong time.

[Advertisement]

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

[M-Mount]

It is the ugliness that is so beautiful. A good Wetzlar made , bad crazy strap lugs and ugly camera in one package.

[otto.f]

It was the bulkiness, relatively speaking. It was the first and last deviation from the original M3 basic model.

I'm afraid I cannot agree with the explanation from external factors as "nikon time". The market just did not agree with the new Leica styling and it is not a great camera because it doesn't roll in or out of your bag, it just hasn't THAT feel.

I wonder if the M240 will turn out to be the M5 of the 21st century, also relatively speaking. It is not a failure as the M5 was, but it is a signal that in US and UK the M is offered now with price reduction. It is something that Leica never did before if I'm not mistaken.

Edited November 19, 2014 by otto.f

[bocaburger]

By the time the M5 came out, rangefinder Leica's had quietly transitioned into a cult camera but company management failed or refused to acknowledge it. They completely mis-read their market. The M5 was big and heavy compared to petite SLRs of the day such as the Pentax Spotmatic and Olympus OM1 series, and the justification---TTL metering--was already seen as being behind the curve technologically, as Autoexposure was featured by several major manufacturers including Nikon (Nikkormat/Nikomat EL) and becoming the next amateur gotta-have. Plus, Leica cannibalized M5 sales by introducing the CL at the same time.

 

It is rather ironic that put next to an M240, the M5 doesn't look all that big or heavy as it does next to an M4. But the M5 is basically an M4 with a light meter shoehorned inside, whereas the M240 is basically an M4 with a wearhouse-full of film shoehorned inside.

 

I don't think Leica mis-read the market for the M240. I think what happened is people saw they could get an M-P with sapphire screen, frame lever, and double buffer for $700 more, and it killed sales of new M240's. Perhaps another $500 will help clear some inventory. In the days of the M6, rebates were commonplace, this is nothing new, just something that hasn't been done in a while.

[leicaphilia]

In addition to much of the above, Leitz introduced the CL concurrently, for about a fourth of the price. The CL cannabilized much of the sales that would have gone to the M5 had it been the only 35mm rangefinder on offer from Leitz.

 

If you look at the sales numbers for the m4 in the five years prior to 1971 and the intrduction of the CL/ M5, you'll see that Leica actually sold more rangefinder cameras in the years of the M5 than they did in the years of the M4. It just so happens that 2/3rds of those sales were CLs and not M5s. Of course, the CL looked or handled nothing like the classic Ms, but they still sold really well, which I think puts the lie to the idea that the M5 was a "failure" because of its aesthetics.

 

The idea that the M5 was the camera that almost bankrupted Leica is an ex post facto fiction of lazy thinkers. If any camera almost bankrupted Leica, it was the SL and SL2, which were sold at a significantly lower price than the cost of manufacture. Leitz had to compete with the much lower priced Nikon F and figured they'd make back the money they lost on the SL bodies on the lenses. Didn't work out that way.

 

The Leicaflex SL: The Camera That Almost Bankrupted Leitz (No, It Wasn’t the M5!) | Leicaphilia

 

The M5. Leica’s Misunderstood Masterpiece: A Revisionist History | Leicaphilia

Edited November 21, 2014 by leicaphilia