Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>There seems to be a persistent notion that the M5 was a mistake made by >Leitz. Could be. But when did Leitz ever say so? Seems I've read that it >wasn't well accepted because of its looks and size. The M5 was extremely expensive to make, and, according to Denis Laney, Leitz actually lost money on every one they sold. They counted on M5 sales to generate lens sales, which is where they made a profit. >1) The M5 is an "aperture priority" manual exposure body (the M6 is "shutter >priority") With either camera, you can use either "aperture priority" or "shutter priority" with equal ease. The diodes in the M6 work the same way whether you're turning the aperture ring or the shutter speed dial. If you imagine the aperture ring rotated 90 degrees towards you, the diode triangles point which way to turn the shutter speed dial. Aperture priority is even easier on the "shutter priority" M5, because it has an easier shutter speed dial to turn, and you can see the speeds in the finder. I use an M6, and I generally use aperture priority. Because you can't see speeds in the finder, I count click stops as I adjust speed, especially as I get into the slower speeds. About the only ergonomic complaint I have about the M bodies in general is that the shutter speed dial is small, and hard to grip with gloves on. I keep a Leicameter on my M3 even thought it (the meter) is not working properly, because it makes the shutter speed dial so much easier to turn. Now that there is no need to couple an external meter, I wish they would make it taller. >5) Much longer effective rangefinder base length (68.5mm v 49.9mm) than the >M6 for focusing accuracy with longer lenses. You're confusing effective and real rangefinder base length. The M5 baseline is actually 0.75mm shorter than the M6. However, for all practical purposes, except for the M3 and CL, the rangefinder accuracy of the M bodies is the same. The M6 has a rangefinder base length of 69.25mm. They only made the angle-of-view wider, to include 28mm, but didn't change the magnification. I was very surprised when I learned this (from Marc), since I had once thought that the M6 baseline was sligthly shorter. I actually critically compared an M4 and M6 finder to see if this was true. The M5 has the same basic rangefinder module as the M2 & M4, which has a 68.5mm base. When you factor in magnification, the EFFECTIVE base length of the M5 is 49.3mm and of the M6 is 49.9mm; they both have 0.72X magnification. >It is unfailingly accurate in >metering - and far more useful since one knows precisely what's being >metered. I like the spot meter on the M5; I wish the M6 metering area was smaller. >The camera has the same Leica-type "feel" as the M3s and M4s I've >owned - the M6 certainly does not. Is there a big difference in "feel" between M6 bodies built during different periods, or do they wear less well with time than other models? I keep seeing people on this list talk about the M6 as though it doesn't measure up to other bodies, and I just don't get it. - - Paul