Why did Leica angle the rewind crank?

[Huss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M4, M4-2, M4-P, M6, M7.

They all have the angled rewind crank.  But why?  It is a weaker design than a straight crank and more vulnerable.  Why didn't Leica just add a rewind lever to the end of the straight crank?

 

[williamj]

They did, it’s called the M5   They wanted to squeeze the crank into the same size chassis, no doubt. 

[hepcat]

1 hour ago, williamj said:

They did, it’s called the M5   They wanted to squeeze the crank into the same size chassis, no doubt. 

The M5 rewind crank is on the base plate, not the top.  The angled rewind crank on the M4 and variants came about because of complaints that the M3/M2 rewind crank method was too slow in operation.  The angled rewind crank is about twice as fast to use in operation.  It allows the body to be held in one hand at a comfortable angle and the other hand rewind the film as fast as it can be physically wound.   It speeds the reloading process considerably, especially when under stress for photojournalists or combat photographers. 

[Greenhilltony]

I have been wondering why the M3/2 rewind do not offer the folded handle as the slant rewind crank on M4 and onwards. Yesterday when I rewound on my M3 with MR-4 sat on the cold shoe, I somehow realized why the M4 made it slanted. With the MR-4 on M3 top, it doesn’t feel comfortable to spin the knob in this way: left hand holds the body, lens facing outward, right hand palm hover on the body and use the right forefinger and thumb to spin the knob. There is not enough room between MR-4 and the knob to let you spin the knob casually to a larger extent every time. And then, when the MR-4 is paired with M4, the slant rewind crank avoids the competition of space naturally, like this:

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!

In conclusion, the slant design might have considered the add-on of the MR meter as well as the intention to keep the length of the body unchanged (M4 and M3 have the same dimensions). Edited September 15, 2023 by Greenhilltony

[adan]

2 hours ago, Huss said:

M4, M4-2, M4-P, M6, M7.

They all have the angled rewind crank.  But why?

So that it fits beside the rangefinder/viewfinder in the traditional M body form - the shaft is narrow, but the crank was too wide to fit unless tilted outwards.

BTW - do you actually have evidence that it is weaker? Say, repair statistics across 2000 cameras using each type of rewind?  

[Bronco McBeast]

5 hours ago, Huss said:

M4, M4-2, M4-P, M6, M7.

They all have the angled rewind crank.  But why?  It is a weaker design than a straight crank and more vulnerable.  Why didn't Leica just add a rewind lever to the end of the straight crank?

 

Who decides that it’s weaker and more vulnerable?

You’ve ever disassembled a M3/2 rewind knob because you’d know better…

[AndreasG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor einer Stunde schrieb Bronco McBeast:

Who decides that it’s weaker and more vulnerable?

I also do not think the angle rewind crank is weaker or vulnerable. I have two M6 and a M4-P in use for around 35 years and never had any trouble with the rewind. I suppose, thousands of Leica M users can confirm this.

[Fotoklaus]

I have a whole Box full of broken angle- rewind- cranks. Then i woked up :-)

What could we think of next? Broken leafs of the film tulip?

[250swb]

The angled rewind crank is weaker because it sticks out beyond the edge of the body and a knock can easily bend the crank assembly because it's only made from a softish alloy. That it can bend so easily may be intentional as it would stop the shaft being bent. Look at enough on eBay and you'll find one with a bent crank assembly sooner or later, but they are very easy to replace if you buy a new one. Of course an M3 rewind can bend if dropped, but that's made from brass and steel all the way through, so less liable to take a minor knock but more trouble if it does. 

Edited September 15, 2023 by 250swb

[hansvons]

Prefer the quicker crank to the knob. The slanted design makes it easier to operate as @Greenhilltony rightfully pointed out. 
 

Today, film Ms and Ms in general are rarely journalistic devices but mostly used by pastime photographers who enjoy mainly the contemplative side of photography. Turning the knob pays into that. That’s why Leica brought the knob back. Pure nostalgia.

[250swb]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

Pure nostalgia.

It's only nostalgia for newbies, for everybody on the forum who've been using M3's and M2's for years and years it hardly warrants a second thought.

[hansvons]

3 minutes ago, 250swb said:

It's only nostalgia for newbies,

Happy to be a newbie. Doesn't change the fact that the crank is faster. Tried both.

[TomB_tx]

7 hours ago, Greenhilltony said:

I have been wondering why the M3/2 rewind do not offer the folded handle as the slant rewind crank on M4 and onwards. Yesterday when I rewound on my M3 with MR-4 sat on the cold shoe, I somehow realized why the M4 made it slanted. With the MR-4 on M3 top, it doesn’t feel comfortable to spin the knob in this way: left hand holds the body, lens facing outward, right hand palm hover on the body and use the right forefinger and thumb to spin the knob. There is not enough room between MR-4 and the knob to let you spin the knob casually to a larger extent every time. And then, when the MR-4 is paired with M4, the slant rewind crank avoids the competition of space naturally, like this:

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!

In conclusion, the slant design might have considered the add-on of the MR meter as well as the intention to keep the length of the body unchanged (M4 and M3 have the same dimensions).

This is the main reason: in the 1960s a LOT of Leica users user the MR meter on their cameras, and a non-angled crank would cause your fingers to hit the meter. They also replaced the MR meter with the MR4 meter, which moved the activator from the side near the crank to the top of the meter. When the M4 came out with the crank this was all explained.

[williamj]

Don't forget that there is a little crank that can be fitted to the M3/MP style rewind knob. When the knob is lifted the rewind crank can then be turned without scratching the top plate. This is not just a modern convenience and examples can be seen on cameras of the 1950s and 1960s belonging to Magnum photographers Abbas and Erwitt as well as David Douglas Duncan. Of course, they are likely to scratch the top plate at some point. I believe CameraQuest stocks a modern version although they say it does not fit all MPs and I believe Leica made one but it was discontinued.

Edited September 15, 2023 by williamj
grammar

[Anbaric]

I think it's pretty obvious they were going for the heritage market with the MP and the reason they reverted to the old design wasn't because they thought it was a better engineering solution. If you've used a film M in a situation where you want to change films as quickly as possible, you'll appreciate the benefits of the rewind crank, even if it does feel a bit more fragile. But today that's exactly the kind of situation where I'd probably be shooting digital, so these things seem less important (and the rewind knob doesn't put me off shooting the LTM cameras, where loading is also slower). Even so, if I had to buy a new Leica today, I'd go with the M6 reissue over the MP, because it's that little bit more practical.

[spydrxx]

Having purchased an M4 when they were originally issued, the angled crank, to me, was a futuristic design issue, clearly differentiating the newest Leica of the era, from other rangefinder cameras. I agree with Tom-B-tx though, it may in reality have been a practical consideration rather than just stylistic.

[Sandokan]

I love the aesthetics of a flat top and always saw the angled crank as cranky. 

Zeiss Ikon has the crank with handle at the bottom if I remember and it doesnt snag on the body. 

The M3 knurled knob has to be pulled up before rotation - so a crank would not get in the way. 

Maybe it was the meter in hot shoe that forced the angled crank? 

[LocalHero1953]

17 hours ago, Anbaric said:

I think it's pretty obvious they were going for the heritage market with the MP

But not with the new M6 or MA?

Otherwise I agree with you. When I shoot film I'm not shooting for speed these days - that's for digital.

But even when I shot exclusively with film, the M was not fast to reload compared to my Pentax MX which had a single big back door (no base plate to remove and hold in one hand while opening a separate small back door), fixed take-up spool the leader just slid into (no spool to be removed and attached with your third hand; even with the tulip you had to slide the film and leader into the gate, not just drop it in).

The M was already a heritage design in 1980 when I bought it - I loved it, but my MX was faster. Faster in use as well (compared to M2-M4, MA, MP), with simple TTL metering.

(For balanced comment, the M was obviously more rugged, had better lenses, and other aspects in its favour).

 

Edit. The Pentax MX rewind crank was not angled. I didn't notice any inconvenience.

Edited September 16, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Anbaric]

On 9/16/2023 at 8:42 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

But not with the new M6 or MA?

Otherwise I agree with you. When I shoot film I'm not shooting for speed these days - that's for digital.

But even when I shot exclusively with film, the M was not fast to reload compared to my Pentax MX which had a single big back door (no base plate to remove and hold in one hand while opening a separate small back door), fixed take-up spool the leader just slid into (no spool to be removed and attached with your third hand; even with the tulip you had to slide the film and leader into the gate, not just drop it in).

No, I agree. The MA is squarely aimed at the heritage market, probably more than any other M, and while the M6 is perhaps targeted more at the Instagram generation than the tweed jacket demographic, it's obviously still a deliberately retro camera (perhaps disconcertingly to those of us who still think of something made in the 80s and 90s as modern!). They didn't restore the M4-style rewind crank and wind-on lever because they are more practical, but because the M6 had become cool. The irony is that part of its recent popularity came from it being an affordable Leica with a meter. Now the secondhand price has about tripled, and the new version goes for double that.

Apart from finding somewhere to put the bottom plate (a shirt pocket helps here) I think the later Leicas are remarkably easy to load if you do it in an unfussy way - just pull out the leader to the right length, drop in the film, and replace the plate. There's no need to open the back door or fiddle with the sprocket hole teeth - provided the rip of the leader reaches the tulip it's hard to go wrong. In use, I'd say my M6 is pretty comparable to my Nikon FM - you just have a simple LED +/- meter in each case, and the M6 RF patch is about as quick to use as the central split image on the FM, though the Nikon gives you more visual cues (overall sharpness of the image and direct display of shutter speed and aperture). My F100 is of course much faster than either of these cameras, so the AF SLR era made Leica's useful niche a fair bit smaller.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Danner]

The crank arm with outwardly angled orientation make film rewind much quicker than in prior models.