Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1992/07/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> >The used camera salesman at my local photo store told me that with the M4-2, >adequate but less expensive materials were used in the top plate and also in >the innards. Was the Leica M4-2 seen as a less expensive Leica for the masses? >I know that it does not have a movable film reminder dial on the back like >my M2 has. Was the salesman correct? I always thought the M2 had originally been engineered as the lower priced alternative (lower priced?!) to the M3. I've talked to Leica dealers at swap shows who don't exactly disparage the M4-2, but don't rate it has high as the earlier cameras: some are not even particularly fond of the M4P and M6 in terms of materials. I wonder if the fact the M4-2 was manufactured in Canada instead of Wetzlar has something to do with its lack of prestige or "mystique." The person who overhauled my M3 told me that the M5, for all the raps it took about being heavy and "not looking like a Leica," was probably the best camera they made, or at least was on a par with the M4. Ken Wolman