Re: M5 an inferior Leica?

[James J Dempsey <jjd@bbn.com>]

> Now my first question for the Leica users gurus: Is the M-5 an "inferior"
> Leica?

The reasons that some leicaphiles consider the M5 inferior is mainly
due to: (1) fragile metering mechanism and (2) large size.

Some consider the M5 to be large enough that it goes against the basic
idea of the "inconspicuous" 35mm rangefinder.  I believe it was larger
than some of the SLRs of its day.

I own a CL that I purchased new in 1980 or so which uses similar meter
technology.  The CL also has a bad rap for fragile meters.  My
personal experience (knock on wood) is that the meter has worked
perfectly since day one.  I still use the CL more than any other
camera I own.

The M6's solid state metering system doesn't have the fragile arm that
swings out of the way at exposure time and doesn't have the fragile
analog meter.  In fact, the M6's metering system has no moving parts.
I consider this a big advantage, despite the fact that I haven't had
trouble with my CL meter.

> So why
> did Leica drop the continous readout in favor of the >< (following the F3's
> example?)

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.

I think the M5 was a great camera, especially in its day.  It was the
first leica with built-in metering and the first with through-the-lens
metering.  I consider these big plusses.  I think the design of the
controls on the M5 with the large protruding shutter speed dial around
the shutter release to be superior to the M4/M6.

If you can live with the size and have a working meter, then the M5
should be a great camera.

		--Jim Dempsey--
		jjd@bbn.com