Jump to content

CLA M7 ....or sell for new M-A?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, logan2z said:

Well for once in my Leica camera buying life I might have made a good purchase! That quoted price in UKP reflects nearly 600 Euros difference in what I paid back in July for my new M-A, bought from a Leica dealership here in SW France. Good to know, thanks!

Maybe there's an uptick in interest in buying film Leica's now as some of us weary of the digital dance that attempts to persuade us to shell out more money on the newest shiniest got-to-have model every few years or so, analogue cameras have a much longer useful life than their digital cousins even though the running costs are higher of course............and as you've pointed out, maybe the analogue cameras actually gain in value too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For my taste I would not want a Leica without exp meter. That s why I prefer the MP over the M-A.

I have a M6 and a newer MP and a M10r.

While I am sure the "flare free" viefinder is improved, I never had an issue with my old M6-viefinder.

If you only use ext meter you dont need the dx sensor anyways, right?

I find the M-A a little too much reduction and too pricy.

AND...I think it is great to get things repaired instead of replacing them. So in your sitution I would also get the M7 serviced, if it is not too too expensive.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point in time the M7 will become a paper weight -- unlike the MP it cannot work without the battery except at 1/60 and1/125. I had an M6 and the flaring was terrible, and I have an M4, no flaring, and it is my favorite far and away, but the viewfinder is not as bright as the MA, which makes sense, there have been advances in glass chemistry since 1968. The M2 and M3 have fewer lens frames and the older methods of film loading, etc., yet the M4 was built using brass and before Leica was finding ways to cut costs. This is how the flaring showed up in the M6, different (less expensive) condenser. If you and many others love the M7, go for it, I have toyed with getting one many times, but my friend at a Leica dealer in NYC always steered me away for the reasons mentioned.  Either way, these are first world problems and you are going to enjoy regardless, a great position to be in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An additional perspective - I've mostly regretted selling off my old cameras. It always seemed the best idea at the time, but now that I'm older I have some regrets, mostly for nostalgic reasons but those old cameras were good to me at the time and today I would love to have them still even if sitting idle - they are a part of my life history.

FYI - I use an M3. I find it great to use, so glad I bought it. I would like an MP for the build-in meter and the ability to use 35mm lenses more easily but if I were to find an MP for sale I'd still keep my M3 for the reasons just given.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, sblitz said:

At some point in time the M7 will become a paper weight -- unlike the MP it cannot work without the battery except at 1/60 and1/125. I had an M6 and the flaring was terrible, and I have an M4, no flaring, and it is my favorite far and away, but the viewfinder is not as bright as the MA, which makes sense, there have been advances in glass chemistry since 1968. The M2 and M3 have fewer lens frames and the older methods of film loading, etc., yet the M4 was built using brass and before Leica was finding ways to cut costs. This is how the flaring showed up in the M6, different (less expensive) condenser. If you and many others love the M7, go for it, I have toyed with getting one many times, but my friend at a Leica dealer in NYC always steered me away for the reasons mentioned.  Either way, these are first world problems and you are going to enjoy regardless, a great position to be in.

That attitude always makes me laugh. Yes the M7 may fail at some time (but Leica can still repair them at the moment), but so will most digital cameras become "paperweights" eventually and that doesn't seem to put people off. Also the point about cutting costs when the brass top plate was superseded has been rather misrepresented as the reason was because of the number of cases of distortion on the M4-2. Leica made quite a play about the advantages of zinc over brass at the time, a classic case of curing one fault and creating another. Having said that the bubbling problem only occurred on a relatively few, early, M6s and mine is fine. Again the flaring problem with the M6 seems to vary and I have never experienced it in over 20 years use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Matlock said:

That attitude always makes me laugh. Yes the M7 may fail at some time (but Leica can still repair them at the moment), but so will most digital cameras become "paperweights" eventually

That's why we're on the analog M forum 😉

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Matlock said:

That attitude always makes me laugh. Yes the M7 may fail at some time (but Leica can still repair them at the moment), but so will most digital cameras become "paperweights" eventually and that doesn't seem to put people off. Also the point about cutting costs when the brass top plate was superseded has been rather misrepresented as the reason was because of the number of cases of distortion on the M4-2. Leica made quite a play about the advantages of zinc over brass at the time, a classic case of curing one fault and creating another. Having said that the bubbling problem only occurred on a relatively few, early, M6s and mine is fine. Again the flaring problem with the M6 seems to vary and I have never experienced it in over 20 years use.

Sometime doesn't mean tomorrow, and yes you are right about digital -- like having an M9 today with a sensor failure tomorrow. M4-2 is not the M4, M4-2 was Leica's attempt to make the M4 with cheaper innards. In fact I would say that most products from the 70s, especially the early 70s, are not very good, as firms were scrambling to lower input costs, etc, as inflation took hold. By the 80s, things were on more solid footing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, sblitz said:

Sometime doesn't mean tomorrow, and yes you are right about digital -- like having an M9 today with a sensor failure tomorrow. M4-2 is not the M4, M4-2 was Leica's attempt to make the M4 with cheaper innards. In fact I would say that most products from the 70s, especially the early 70s, are not very good, as firms were scrambling to lower input costs, etc, as inflation took hold. By the 80s, things were on more solid footing. 

Probably the M9 is one camera Leica would like to forget (although there are some satisfied users out there). I feel that there is a lot of bias against the M4-2 and M4-P but they probably saved the company. Leica did not want the M4-2 but had it not been produced by Ernst Leitz Canada Ltd then the last Leica M would have been the M5.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Matlock said:

Probably the M9 is one camera Leica would like to forget

For economic reasons yes - it cost them a lot more money than it made them. But from a design point of view - by perfecting the M8 to the Leica format it was a revolutionary camera and arguably the quintessential digital M.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an M7 .72 made in 2002 and bought used in 2008. I sent it in for updated DX and MP finder + CLA to Leica in 2011. Back then the cost was 450 Euro but did not include the curtain work you need, but they replaced the electronic board as part of the CLA. I sent it again for a replacement VF window as it was showing some micro bubbles in the coating in 2017. That was 400 Euros as they also did a CLA. Lot of money, sure, but worth it to me. I find the MP finder flare free compared to before. I've been so impressed I replaced the finder on an M6, but Youxin Ye did that for me 2017. The M6 flared very easily - constantly shifting my eye in the finder. Not at  all any more. Youxin made it magnificent. Pure butter and as quiet as the M7.

I have a few Ms. I mostly use the M2 and M3. But when I have to have the shots, out comes the M7.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matlock said:

but so will most digital cameras become "paperweights" eventually and that doesn't seem to put people off.

Maybe - but I have owned - still mostly do- digital cameras since 1998 and I haven't experienced any paperweight yet - unlike my rather cherished Olympus OM set which I could dispose of in the bin after my OM40 developed a shutter problem and -up to now- three irreparable R8 and R9 cameras. :( 

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 19 Stunden schrieb Jon Warwick:

Clearly this will be my own ultimate decision, but your opinions will help me decide, so thoughts gratefully received ....:

I have an M7, which I bought brand new but it was among the earliest ones, so with various known problems (i) non-MP viewfinder, such that my M7 flares; (ii) original DX reader that should be replaced with an optical reader. And now (iii) the framelines are natively stuck at 35mm/135mm (regardless of the lens), and would need a CLA.

I am guessing the cost to fix the above is probably around £1k via Leica in Germany .... which, if that were the case, means I’m almost break even selling my M7 to avoid the CLA and rangefinder flare costs, and getting a new M-A?

I fully understand the M-A is all mechanical with no batteries, and that is fine given I tend to use external Sekonic meters anyhow.

Beyond that - is there any obvious benefits of the M-A vs M7? I’m wondering (in particular) if accuracy / contrast / stability of the rangefinder focusing was improved, for example? ....eg, I found my M240 much easier to accurately focus than the M7, and I’m wondering if that benefit extends to the M-A?

Or will a refurb’d M7 make it as good as the newest and latest analogue cameras anyhow in that regard?

Any other thoughts, in either direction, would be gratefully heard to help me consider repairing an early M7 vs replacing with a new M-A .......

MP!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Maybe - but I have owned - still mostly do- digital cameras since 1998 and I haven't experienced any paperweight yet - unlike my rather cherished Olympus OM set which I could dispose of in the bin after my OM40 developed a shutter problem and -up to now- three irreparable R8 and R9 cameras. :( 

I have to agree. I have never had any problems with digital cameras and they may outlive me. To put things in perspective I have a M10-D and M10-R which I use regularly. As I have already stated my favourite Leica's are my M7 and IIID but I also use a Konica Hexar RF and a Minolta CLE both fully reliant on battery power and the CLE predates the M7 by around 20 years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Matlock said:

I have to agree. I have never had any problems with digital cameras and they may outlive me. To put things in perspective I have a M10-D and M10-R which I use regularly. As I have already stated my favourite Leica's are my M7 and IIID but I also use a Konica Hexar RF and a Minolta CLE both fully reliant on battery power and the CLE predates the M7 by around 20 years.

They keep working until they don't I suppose, as for the R8 and R9 Jaap mentions -- that's my point about the M7. And yes it is working fine now, and that's terrific and I hope it keeps on working

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in a similar position with an early M7 I had been using for close to a decade. On the whole it had been a great camera to use over the years and was still in very good cosmetic condition. But in terms of operation had ultimately reached a point where it needed several things addressed. These were seemingly minor issues like those you mentioned; viewfinder flare, temperamental DX reader and contacts on the ISO dial. The camera was still usable, but all these things start to add up and became a bit irritating to work around at times. The straw that broke the camel’s back was the frame counter not returning to zero.

In my case, the repair estimate to have everything done was almost halfway towards buying a new M film body. It would have also meant being without the camera for an unspecified amount of time. My decision was to sell the M7.

Additional reasons for deciding to sell the M7 were; shutter speed dial goes in opposite direction to  the other film M bodies I’m interested in using together. (M-A, MP and M3.) The M7 did pair well with a digital M body, but I no longer have a digital M and currently unsure if or when I may buy a new digital M. (There are times I have to use digital, but not a fan of the CMOS sensor aesthetic at all. It's a have to use, not want to use. Which greatly reduces the desire to spend the asking price of a new digital M.)

Depending on where you are in the world at any given time, I found the batteries for the M7 can also be very hard to obtain. You can buy extra when you find them and always try to carry spares, but sometimes things happen and you find yourself in a pinch. I had to resort to being limited to the 2 mechanical shutter speed settings on occasion with the M7.

With a fully mechanical camera like the MP you lose the meter function, but can still shoot at all shutter speeds. For the other meterless cameras batteries are just one less thing to worry about. In this day an age there’s often something close to hand to use in lieu of an internal meter if really needed. Smart phone, other digital camera and of course external / small pocket light meters. Having no internal meter is also good practice, slows you down and can result in paying more attention to scenes and conditions. It’s good for keeping you on your toes.

The reasons to keep the M7 might have been aperture priority mode and the higher shutter speeds offered by the electronically controlled shutter. Personally, I always kept the camera in manual exposure mode and very rarely used the highest shutter speeds. So they weren’t strong reasons to hold onto the M7. Time will tell if I miss the higher shutter speed settings.

The final decision to sell was largely made by wanting to end up with a pair of mechanical film bodies that share uniform controls. Such as the current M-A and MP. And to further reduce unnecessary reliance on electronics when shooting film with an M.

Needs and wants greatly differ from person to person, but good luck making your decision.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have more than one M7 and one  M-A. I love both and use both, depends on my needs.
The M7 is the one i use most, but the use of the M-A is liberating when working with the sunny-16 rule.

Because you bought it new, i would never let go the M7.
After a fully Leica CLA and upgrade(s), you have a new camera.

Edited by Paul Verrips
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Nowhereman
On 11/27/2020 at 8:21 AM, Jon Warwick said:

...Do others see a practical difference in the flare vs non-flare viewfinders? From the above it sounds that it will be noticeable?...

For me, it's a huge difference. I have an M6 bought new years ago new.  Shooting in the harsh, bright, tropical light of Bangkok, I found that the exposure meter LEDs in the viewfinder flared out frequently to the point of invisibility; also, whenever I shot into the light, or with strong side-light, the rangefinder patch would also flare out. I had the viewfinder replaced to the non-flare MP viewfinder — and took the opportunity of changing from 0.72x to 0.85x, because I was shooting mainly with a 50mm lens.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Edited by Nowhereman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks everyone for your help, it’s been great to read your thoughts. I’ll definitely be going down the route of sending my M7 to Germany (when that’s possible via Leica UK), and might well see if I can get the viewfinder changed from the 0.72x to a 0.85x, given my predominant use of 50 and 75mm lenses.

From the various charts, it looks like the position of the 50mm framelines on a 0.85x would equate to somewhere between the 35 & 50mm ones on a 0.72x, which could be a nice upgrade for my typical lens choice.

I assume using a “native” 0.85x viewfinder is brighter and clearer than simply bolting on Leica’s 1.25x magnifier onto a 0.72x viewfinder? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

I assume using a “native” 0.85x viewfinder is brighter and clearer than simply bolting on Leica’s 1.25x magnifier onto a 0.72x viewfinder? 

It will certainly be more convenient and you won't have the eyepiece magnifier poking you in the eye but my understanding is that there is still a small reduction in brightness with the 0.85x compared to the standard 0.72x VF (and, similarly, there is a brightness gain moving to 0.58x compared to 0.72x). I think it is a consequence of the laws of optics but I couldn't begin to explain it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...