M film failures - most reliable for a user camera

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ian,

as ex-user of MP, I can say that the brightness and contrast in VF is the same for MP/M-A, the best of film M Leica.

Only the complete bottom line can make difference in use ( where the LED are in MP there is a space in bottom frameline ).

 

In M4 & co. older M, the contrast is less present and sometimes flare and/or double spot lights (at night), may be their age

with less effective or aging coatings on the lenses and prisms in VF.

 

...

Kevin,

Considering the now prices of old second hand M4 needing CLA, I'd buy new M-A/MP or SH M4-2/M4-P.

Edited October 22, 2021 by a.noctilux

[Advertisement]

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

[andrew01]

My advice is to buy from one of the reputable used Leica dealers.  The choice of model is personal preference, there are no bad choices.  

 

If it was me, I would consider one of the following:

- Wetzlar cameras (M3/2/4) the iconic original models with the mechanical precision of a Rolex watch that is not matched by later models (all relative, later models are still very nice).

- Leica Canada models (M4-2 and M4-P) - best bang for buck in current market.  dIscreet black chrome looks great.

- M6 classic.  Like the M4-2/P but with the convenience of a great meter.  Expensive.

 

I am not so keen on these (personal preference):

- M6 TTL - they changed the proportions slightly so not as true to the iconic design. I don’t like the shutter dial for the same reason, even if it is easier to turn.

- M7 - auto exposure/ electronic shutter doesn’t suit the minimalist experience and piece of mind about long term reliability of a mechanical M IMO.

- MA and MP nice but you pay a big premium for these (nearly double).

- M5.  I was curious to try one when prices were reasonable a couple of years ago, but now they are expensive.  A reduced pool of technicians willing to work on them.  

 

[wattsy]

All the M cameras are fine but the MP is probably the best all-round choice for someone buying into the system today.

[plaidshirts]

8 hours ago, KFo said:

Yeah, I was hopping just to avoid something like the M9 sensor debacle.

I didn’t list it, but I’ll want a .73 finder - I shot 28 more often than anything else and very rarely 90.

You’re not going to find a debacle in the magnitude of the M9 sensor with film bodies. I’ve used most of the cameras mentioned here and they are all solid choices.   

Since you prefer the 28mm focal length and want a built-in meter , an M6TTL with .58 finder is what I’d recommend. A classic M6 or MP would do as well but the ttl version with that magnification seems more available. 

[Mute-on]

38 minutes ago, wattsy said:

All the M cameras are fine but the MP is probably the best all-round choice for someone buying into the system today.

This is my experience, too.
 

I have M2, BP M4 and 0.58 MP. I also slightly prefer a 28mm lens, and that lives on the 0.58 MP. However, had I not had the opportunity to purchase a 0.58 (as a dealer demo), I would most likely have ended up purchasing a 0.72 in BP. 
 

As much as I enjoy using the M2 and M4, for sheer convenience in use the MP trumps both. This is predominantly a result of access to an internal light meter, with the secondary benefit of rapid film loading, shared with the M4. 
 

If I was buying today, it would be  a new BP MP any day of the week.

Good luck!

[250swb]

I think the choice for the OP has been narrowed right down, and so long as it isn't confused by over-customising a camera (.58 viewfinders, worrying about very occasional flare from earlier viewfinders, silver vs BP, etc) it stands at

M4-P built like a tank, an M6 without a meter.

M6 - a meter, but electronic parts are now difficult to source for repairs, at worst you end up with a meterless camera.

MP - meter, old style knob rewind but hardly any slower in practice.

MA - costs only slightly less than an MP but add on the price of a hand held meter.

Almost any camera tech can work on these cameras because the basic design hasn't changed for 60 years. If as appears money isn't a problem I'd go with an MP without a backward glance, it's as uncompromised as you can get and has all the ingredients. If the OP would rather spend more on lenses the M4-P is a very fine camera that has everything except a meter, and isn't overly hindered by being too fashionable so there are plenty around to shop for a very good one. Always buy from a dealer for the warranty.

[AndreasG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor einer Stunde schrieb 250swb:

M4-P built like a tank, an M6 without a meter

Yes, the M4-P is a great working horse, with or w/o MR-4 meter or optional with a separate handheld light meter (though the Lunasix is a little bulky...)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited October 23, 2021 by AndreasG

[Jon Warwick]

I know (say) the earliest M7s like I have can get the rangefinder upgraded to a flare-free “MP” version.

Anyone know if the M4-P rangefinder can also similarly be upgraded?

[KFo]

After reading through this, I’m leaning toward a new or very good used MP.  I really have no interest in getting into a CLA or other repairs, so newer is probably better.  The M4-P sounds interesting though.  I’ve got a good Leica shop (with plenty of used gear) here in town, I bet they’ve got a M4-P on the shelf that I can fiddle with.

I imagine the viewfinder problems with M4-Ps are obvious if present?

 

 

 

[a.noctilux]

Kevin,

M4-P VF flare was in the focussing patch.

You can see it (or not) when the bright light is hitting from an angle the front collecting lens frame lines illumination.

At some angle, the focus patch is white out and impossible to use the RF focus, but easy to 'cure' or avoid with some practice.

Edited October 23, 2021 by a.noctilux

[250swb]

If it ever happens you can avoid flare in the focus patch either by slightly moving your eye over the viewfinder, or slightly moving your body, once focus is achieved it doesn't matter if the patch goes back to flaring when the picture is re-composed. It's an over exaggerated problem to say the least. I used Leica M4-P's for theatre photography with spotlights shining from all angles and don't remember having a problem with flare. The first time I did get it was on holiday and despite knowing about flare it was so unusual it took me some head scratching to work out what was happening. 

Edited October 24, 2021 by 250swb

[KFo]

I see.  So the RF flare is more of an internet phenom than an actual photographer’s issue.  Thanks @250swb and @a.noctilux for clarifying that one.  If I pickup a M4-P I’ll look forward to having it happen someday.

It’s really funny to me, after my transition to digital in the mid-90s, I never thought I’d go back to film and haven’t even missed it a bit until recently.  I ran across my Luna Pro and Pentax V a couple of years ago and got rid of them too.  I guess what comes around goes around.

 

[ianman]

The major difference between the MP and the M4-P is of course the light meter, which also makes the shutter release button feel different as you have no half press to switch on the meter. You might shot prematurely, so to speak, if your not careful. I’ve had it happen a couple of times when coming from the MP or M9 but only for a frame or two.

Edited October 24, 2021 by ianman

[a.noctilux]

Another 'old' anecdote,

about 2007/2008, when I used a lot digital M, with those automated wind-on and "nothing to do more than pushing the shutter",

then I switched time to time to film M, for first frames, I needed to remember to wind-on after each pic taken.

😀

Now what ennoying (not big deal ! ) is the loss of frame lines in LED illuminated when the M decides to turn off, needing to push shutter release after LED time out.

LED illumination took care of VF patch flare of older M lines visible even in dark, nice move and not so energy-guzzling in my M-D for example).

Edited October 24, 2021 by a.noctilux

[LocalHero1953]

19 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Another 'old' anecdote,

about 2007/2008, when I used a lot digital M, with those automated wind-on and "nothing to do more than pushing the shutter",

then I switched time to time to film M, for first frames, I needed to remember to wind-on after each pic taken.

😀

Now what ennoying (not big deal ! ) is the loss of frame lines in LED illuminated when the M decides to turn off, needing to push shutter release after LED time out.

LED illumination took care of VF patch flare of older M lines visible even in dark, nice move and not so energy-guzzling in my M-D for example).

Now I've just returned to film M after 10 years of digital, I do remember to wind on - but I still check the back of the camera after taking a shot😕!

[a.noctilux]

5 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Now I've just returned to film M after 10 years of digital, I do remember to wind on - but I still check the back of the camera after taking a shot😕!

😄

I saw that,

...When I used film M, some sitters wanted to see what they look like on the LCD (as usual).

Since those M8/M9 days, I've never look at the rear screen after taking the pic, so I didn't have to "remember not to do" 😀

Edited October 24, 2021 by a.noctilux

[Topsy]

5 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

😄

I saw that,

...When I used film M, some sitters wanted to see what they look like on the LCD (as usual).

Since those M8/M9 days, I've never look at the rear screen after taking the pic, so I didn't have to "remember not to do" 😀

I have to say, using M9s I rarely check the screen after shooting (unless I am in tricky lighting) there's not much point.

[poli]

I use both an M10-d and m-a. I have to constantly remind myself not to open the bottomplate to take out the ‘sdcard’ of the m-a after each photowalk…

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ko.Fe.]

The title is 

Quote

M film failures - most reliable for a user camera

What is "user"? One roll a month or less "user"? If so and it is 99.99 % likely so for majority of us, then any recently CLA'd (with papers and on camera seal to prove) and with warranty from willing shop M is good.

MP is not different from M6, M5 if you are intend in long terms ownership. Eventually electronics becomes not available as parts. 

Nor they are needed for film photography. Just for owning or for real use. External meter is more accurate, way more convenient than stupid (sorry) only if shutter is coked use  and at some point, after practice, just not needed anymore.

It is more, as it was mentioned, about lenses. If 28 is planned to be used, then M with frame-lines for it. If no 28mm lens is planned to be in use, then all pre M4-P cameras have much more accurate and not cluttered frame-lines. 

I had several film Ms, but knowing what CLA is a must, if in real use, I let them go except M4-2. I gave it real use (thousands scans per year and not counted un-scanned exposures). In this real use, same as always happened, camera needed CLA and parts. And not just one time. Which is not surprising. Winograd has to bring his film M for service regularly and get new, used M regularly as well.

Those times are gone. 

So, if you intend to use it as most of us now, drag oil dried  gears with rare use for many years, it will be fine without CLA.

I got M3 ELC DS some years ago. Nobody wanted it from the shop back then. It was few years before film M current hysteria.  The take-in spoon was rusted due to absence of use. It has original ELC seal. I purchased it and used it periodically without any issues for year or so.

Couldn't sell it for lowest price on the market for months. These times are gone too. 

 

Edited October 24, 2021 by Ko.Fe.

[Matlock]

6 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

The title is 

What is "user"? One roll a month or less "user"? If so and it is 99.99 % likely so for majority of us, then any recently CLA'd (with papers and on camera seal to prove) and with warranty from willing shop M is good.

MP is not different from M6, M5 if you are intend in long terms ownership. Eventually electronics becomes not available as parts. 

Nor they are needed for film photography. Just for owning or for real use. External meter is more accurate, way more convenient than stupid (sorry) only if shutter is coked use  and at some point, after practice, just not needed anymore.

It is more, as it was mentioned, about lenses. If 28 is planned to be used, then M with frame-lines for it. If no 28mm lens is planned to be in use, then all pre M4-P cameras have much more accurate and not cluttered frame-lines. 

I had several film Ms, but knowing what CLA is a must, if in real use, I let them go except M4-2. I gave it real use (thousands scans per year and not counted un-scanned exposures). In this real use, same as always happened, camera needed CLA and parts. And not just one time. Which is not surprising. Winograd has to bring his film M for service regularly and get new, used M regularly as well.

Those times are gone. 

So, if you intend to use it as most of us now, drag oil dried  gears with rare use for many years, it will be fine without CLA.

I got M3 ELC DS some years ago. Nobody wanted it from the shop back then. It was few years before film M current hysteria.  The take-in spoon was rusted due to absence of use. It has original ELC seal. I purchased it and used it periodically without any issues for year or so.

Couldn't sell it for lowest price on the market for months. These times are gone too. 

 

Whilst a CLA may be needed in certain circumstances, regular use is much more beneficial. My button rewind M2 has never had a CLA and still works flawlessly. The only camera that I own that has been CLAd is a Rolleiflex 2.8E3  that had been unused for a number of years.