Leica M5 inferior? SUMMARY

[BWally@eworld.com]

First off, thanks to all who responded.  I tried to thank all of you with a
personal email.  Hope they arrived.  Here's the scoop:

To my original question, "Is the M5 an 'inferior' Leica?" most  responded
that too much of what made a Leica M great was sacrificed when Leica designed
the 5 around an analog meter.  And that the analog meter was too fragile to
be permanently reliable just made it all the worse. Below are the top 5
reasons not to buy an M5 (from most to least mentioned.)

1-- Delicate semaphore metering arm which may break, or from which the wiring
may come loose, due to extreme movement before each exposure.  Those who have
had this repaired report a bill ranging from $150-$250US.  In general, the M5
was thought of as too delicate of a camera, probably in all cases refering to
this metering malfunction.  Some M5 owners reported no problems with the
metering and I am happy to say that mine is also problem-free.

2-- Bulkiness of camera.  Obviously larger than any other rangefinder, most
said that the M5s bulk was counterintuitive to the notion of a inconspicuous
rangefinder and less comfortable to use.  Related comments: too big, too
heavy, too ugly.  However, large-handed folks prefered the size, saying it
was easier to grip.  Also, one user believed that its size may have dampened
the already quiet Leica shutter even further.  He remembers the M5 as the
quietest of Leicas (including the 6.)  

3-- Unavailable mercury cells used for M5 (and CL) meters.  Pablo Mendoza
explained this problem well: "[B]oth the M5 and the CL used the now
unavailable Mercury cell, which provided 1.35 volts of power consistantly.
 Because the M5 and CL do not have voltage capacitors in the metering system,
the replacement alkaline cells do not provide consistant voltage to the
mechanism, which means that the metering will vary in accuracy over time.
 There is a new  Zinc/air cell by Wein that seems to provide the same
benefits of the 
Mercury cell, but these are hard to come by still." Thanks Pablo, hope you
don't mind being quoted.   I have solved this problem by purchasing the
mercury cells from a Seattle-based Leica dealer, who deep-froze all these
batteries he could find before they were discontinued.  They still test well,
but I don't know how long they will last.

4-- Akward manner of carrying.  Apparently most of the M5s came with only two
lugs positioned on one end of the camera, so that the carrying strap hangs
the camera in an unusable position.  One user reports that some M5s came with
three lugs, allowing it to be carried in a more traditional position.

5-- Certain lenses (some 21 mm Super Angulons) cannot  be mounted on the
camera because of the short distance from the
rear element to the film plane. 

However, M5 owners or would-be owners, don't despair.  A couple of us
prefered the 5 and one, at least, deserves to be quoted:  
"[B]ased on comments from a very trusted repairman, one of the best, local.
the M6 is bad, the M5 is maintainable and usable. so there."  You gotta
appreciate the short, sweet opinion of a repairman.
Also, a couple of users mentioned that they preferred the larger, protruding
shutter speed dial of the M5.  One mentioned that the M5s ability to meter in
very low light was a big pulse. And another preferred the smaller metering
area of the 5.  

Other notes of interest that came in:

>From Jim Dempsey: "Actually, the M6's meter shows somewhat of a range: the
arrows glow dimly if you are something like 1-stop away from the exposure in
either direction.  Leica could have put a set of LEDs in the viewfinder to
show a larger range, but I think they were trying to design within the
constraints of the existing M4 rangefinder housing. Two LEDs take less space
than 5, and probably a lot less space than the analog meter in the M5."  He
also points out that the M6s meter has no moving parts and is highly
accurate.

>From Fred Ward: "I once had a good friend at Leitz who told me that the M3
was the last great camera made by them (or by anyone else for that matter)
where money was no object. Their designers had no constraints as to what to
use in its construction. Therefore, there are no plastic parts. It was
traditionally German-design all the way. Every piece made as perfectly as it
could be.  The M2 and M4 that followed began to have some corner-cutting, for
price and weight reductions." 

Also from Fred: "The downside, Leitz has never to this day learned a thing
about lubrication and aging. All the 20 or more Leicas I have owned always
stick at slow shutter speeds unless they are used (and even so will stick
after a few years between lubrications). This is not the case with other
makers. Leitz says it is because they use better lubricants. Perhaps.  But
plan on firing the 1 second speed a few times every other month, or losing
it."

Again thank you to all who responded.  Hope this summary is short enough to
hold attention and long enough to inform.  Take care.

Thomas Epting.  (BWally@eworld.com)