[Leica] Re:M4 variants

[jsmith342 at cox.net (Jeffery Smith)]

The M5 begins to approach medium format in body size. My meter keeps going
belly up (a solder wire keeps coming loose) so I have to carry a handheld
meter just in case. 

Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA
http://www.400tx.com
http://400tx.blogspot.com/



-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Frank
Dernie
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 1:21 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re:M4 variants


the ultimate quality M was of course the M5 but most didn't like the  
styling GDR
Frank

On 24 Dec, 2006, at 17:53, J. Newell wrote:

>> M4, M4-2, M4-P. I haven't been able to get any Leica book that
>> says that one
>> was superior to another, but have heard anecdotal information that  
>> (1) the
>> M4 was best built of all Leica M bodies [I think the current MP  
>> gets that
>> award], and (2) either the M4-2 or the M4-P is not up to M2, M3,  
>> or M4
>> quality. The M4 seems to be the most coveted of the three, but  
>> that might be
>> because it is a better "collector".
>
> The M4 is most coveted because it was the last of the classic M
> bodies assembled by the post-war workers in Wetzlar (although there  
> are some Canadian M4s as well).  Many Leica users and Leicaphiles  
> view everything that followed as lesser quality.
>
> The M4-2 was a somewhat economized version, production of which was
> moved to Canada.  There were early teething troubles, but note that  
> this has been the case with almost every Leica M body.  After the  
> earliest production, the finder was modified sightly to reduce  
> costs but the result was that the finder is more subject to flare  
> than the M4/M2 finder.  The M4-2 was the first that would take a  
> motor without factory modification, but the steel gear in the  
> geartrain makes it feel less smooth.  The M4-2, like the M4-P,  
> eliminated the self-timer of the M4 and earlier bodies.  For a  
> variety of reasons, most of which I think are emotional rather than  
> objective, the M4-2 has long been a poor cousin in the M range, and  
> prices usually reflect that status.  I have gotten the sense that  
> there is a small number of M4-2s that were produced after they got  
> the bugs ironed out but before the finder was simplified.  If that  
> were true, that would be a great user body at a great price, relative!
>   to oth
> er meterless M bodies.
>
> The M4-P introduced 28mm and 75mm framelines.  It is generally
> regarded as better made than the M4-2.  Whether that is really true  
> or true only because it didn't have the early problems that the  
> M4-2 had, I don't know.  Very late M4-Ps had zinc alloy top covers,  
> like the M6, with flush windows.  It is essentially an M6 without a  
> meter.
>
> IMO M6s are a better user than any of these and recent pricing is
> very good on M6s, but YMMV.
>
> Season's cheer
> John Newell
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information