I saw a discussion of the Canadian-made "Midland" M4 in the LUG archives. It reminded me of an issue that perplexes me. If Leica was building M4's in Canada off and on over the years and produced a short run of them late in the life of the M4 (1974-1975), why is the Midland M4 considered a fine camera while the Canadian-made M4-2, which came out of the same plant starting in 1977, is considered by many to be a piece of crap? I understand that there were some design and materials changes in the M4-2 (some purely to cut costs, apparently), but it's not as if the Canadian plant didn't know how to build the camera. Why is the M4-2 held in such low regard?

-- Robert Schneider (robslaurat@earthlink.net), March 28, 2001

Answers

It's a relative thing--the cameras previous to the M4-2 had self- timers and a more expensive outer finish and cover, so people regarded it as crap, as you say. Now the M-6 is essentially the same piece of "crap", with a meter and a few additional downgrades (batteries that discharge quickly, flaring viewfinders, which I gather the first runs of M4-2 didn't have, etc.), but since the M4-2 broke the ground the M-6 is "normal" rather than an even worse piece of crap, which would be how it would be graded if the people doing the grading were being consistent.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 28, 2001.

The Midland M4 cameras were assembled in Canada but the parts (probably subassemblies) were made in Germany. Due to rising German labour costs and the unpopularity of the M5, M camera production was due to cease completely! The last M4 cameras (quickly reintroduced while the M5 floundered) were being assembled from left over MDa parts. The head of the Leitz Canadian operations argued that he could continue production profitably in Canada with its then lower labour costs. Remember a significant amount of Leitz Canada's production was M lenses; no camera, no lenses. All production equipment and key staff were transfered to Canada and the camera design was simplified by deleting the self timer and using less expensive production materials in parts that were low stress or non-wearing (the famous plastic frame counter dial for instance). It was also modernised by the addition of a hot shoe and couplings for a winder. The problems arose with getting the new production up and running smoothly (training staff and what not). The early M4-2 cameras were plagued with maladjusted or misassembled parts. It only affected the early cameras and most were sorted out under warranty (beware the mint in the box low number M4-2). PopPhoto has an excellent review of the M4-2 where all these issues are discussed (May 1980 I think). I had a late production M4-2 that worked perfectly and would gladly buy another, funds and spousal unit permitting.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), March 28, 2001.

Before the advent of the internet, where the absolute truth is only a click away , there were a lot of rumors, folklore and misconceptions that, repeated often enough, have become gospel for some Leica users and collectors. The M4 was not only made in Canada, but also in the same black-chrome finish that many disparage about the M4-2. The other thing that most people notice, and then ascribe to the M4-2's supposed inferiority, are the steel winding gears (required for motorized operation)that give it a rougher sound and feel than the M4. At one time, the machinery that produced the internal parts for Leicas was not capable of turning them out consistently within the fine tolerances required, so provision was made for the final assembler to fine-adjust various mechanisms to specs. The M4-2 departed from this, and any outlier parts were to be rejected in favor of in-tolerance ones. There is some speculation, fueled by reports from some independent repairpeople, that this didn't always happen, and thus M4-2's were sold that were out of spec. IMO all coins have two sides. By now, most if not all M4-2's have had any OEM maladies remedied in service, and so they pretty much work as well as any other M. Because of the stigma attached to them, they are the bargain body of the line. By the same token, most M4's have been (or need to be) serviced by now, and due to its greater number of internal adjustments, an M4 is more dependent on the competence and dedication of the repair-person. I used to own a couple of M2's and an M4-2; currently I own an M4 and couple of M6's (about 6 years apart in age). I can not point to any one and say it is/was more or less reliable as a camera body than the others. I have yet to be convinced by any personal experience that the reputation and market prices of various used Leicas are an indication of their relative worth as a picture-making tool.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 28, 2001.

re: John's mention of the "famous" plastic frame-counter, this was substituted somewhere in the mid-to-late M6 Classic production. M4- 2's, M4-P's and M6 classics up to some unknown serial number still hade the metallic frame counter.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 28, 2001.

The M4-2 is a perfectly fine camera, but I suppose it could possibly be regarded as a downgrade from the original M4 which was, in general, made in Germany (=good in collectors minds!), and shared the same beautiful appearance as the older paragons (particularly the M3). The lack of the selftimer is the only real "loss" of feature. I still think this is a pity myself as I like them a lot. Still, I think the combination of Canada and downgrade is enough to convince collectors that this is an inferior Leica. In practical terms the M4-2 was the direct precursor of the M4-P and this gave rise to the M6, so a very good thing really. It is a very good camera. Of course, original M4s, made in Canada are rare so they are worth nore than regular M4s, the rarity over-compensating for their ("bad") origin as far as collectors are concerned.

I wish people hated M4-2s more than they do - then they would be still cheaper - they are still pretty pricey. Everything Leica is collected which is both a blessing and a curse - but Leica collectors are not necessary concerned with rational photographic matters, so all these rumours and insinuations have no practical importance to people who actually will be taking photos with their Leica. Nevertheless if you are swept up in the Leica mystique at all you will feel the weird negative vibes coming from dealers and potential purchasers if you wish to sell an M4-2. It is a bit like selling a computer that has been replaced by a later model. This kind of feeling is very rare with Leicas!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 28, 2001.

Thanks for all the info and viewpoints. These answers generally confirm what has been my long-standing, cut-to-the-chase opinion: "What a bunch of hooey!" I owned an M4-2 for awhile before I "upgraded" to an M6 for the meter and the additional framelines. The M4-2 always worked like and felt like a "real" Leica to me and I do miss that non-flaring rangefinder. I'm more than willing to perpetuate the "M4-2 is a child of a lesser god" myth if it will keep the price down so that maybe I can buy another. ;-)

-- Robert Schneider (robslaurat@earthlink.net), March 28, 2001.

The reason that the Canadian M 4-2 is considered badly is that in the Popular Photography test by Norman Goldberg, where everything was stripped down, he said that it wasn't up to previous Leica standards. Coming right after the M5 fiasco we all presumed that Leica had gone to hell in a handbag.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), March 28, 2001.

Thanks for the correctiom Jay. Sorry about that I went back and reread the article. Plastic did come with the M6 but the M4-2 introduced a single stamped piece rather than a dial made up of several individual components. BTW steel winding gears were first used on M cameras with the MP! I guess Leica felt the Leicavit placed too much stress on the brass gears (or Leica knew the press were going to put a great deal of film through them).

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), March 29, 2001.

PS: You can easily add a self timer back to a M4-2 or M4-P but not inexpensively of course.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), March 29, 2001.

Yes, the MP, M2-M and M4-M/MOT all had steel winding gears, and yet they are coveted by collectors. The attribute of "un-leica-feel" to the M4-2 and later cameras is probably due to the fact that very few Leica users ever handled the older motor-ready cameras so the feel of the steel gears was off-putting, plus it seems to me people were looking for reasons to hate the M4-2 just because Leica chose to make it in Canada--and not lower the price! PS, for anyone who really wants a selftimer on their M4-2/-P/6, the ones that screw into the cable release threads work just fine. I picked up a few over the years at swap meets and use them with Leica and Hasselblad (the latter needs some adjustment to the plunger to make sure the rear flap doesn't close before the leaf shutter at slow speeds).

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 29, 2001.

I still think it was cheap of Leica to take off the self-timer - particularly as they did not need the space freed up for anything until the M6 came along. Sure you can get a screw in type - but you have to screw it on and then take it off, find it in your bag etc, etc. This seems to me to be one of the small but annoying things about these great cameras - a bit like the R6 coming out without a 1/2000 sec top speed (even the SL had that back in 1968), but correcting this later with the R6.2. Not that I actually use 1/2000 sec much of course, but it seemed liked economizing and yet still asking an arm and a leg for the camera just the same.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 30, 2001.

Readers of this thread who don't already know it might enjoy Jim Colburn's column "Lets Kill All The Leica Collectors" which is archived at dirkhalstead.org [The Digital Journalist]. The column archive is at the bottom of the contents page. ................

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), March 30, 2001.

It seems many people, for reasons unknown to me, think that it is impossible to be a "real" photographer, but also appreciate collecting too - I don't see any conflict myself. As it happens I don't have enough money to collect anything, but I see nothing wrong with it - it probably keeps Leica afloat!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 02, 2001.

I've had my M4-2 for over two years. and it was serviced by Leica UK last year when the shutter dial played games. But reading the various lists, it makes sense to allow for an early 'CLA'on a used camera. I look on it as a good thing if the collectors are not interested in the M4-2.. what I like about mine is that it seems to take the same lenses as other M's:-)

-- alastair cowe (a.cowe@ucl.ac.uk), April 04, 2001.

My wife's Canadian, so I have a built-in respect for the quality of anything produced up north. She and I are both tickled that since all my lenses (21,35,90) are also from Midland, I actually own something very collectable and rare - the ONLY professional-quality interchangeable-lens 35mm camera system produced not in Germany or Japan but entirely in North America!! (Kodak made something in the 40's/50's, but I think it was German-built).

Salute the M4-2. It's the camera that carried the torch for rangefinder photography during Leica's years (literally!) in the Canadian wilderness. They made only 16,000 of them (half as many as the M5) If the M4-2 had died, there would have been no M6, no G2, no Hexar or Hexar RF, no Voigtlander...nothing but a sea of SLR's as far as the eye can see.

"Oh, Canada....!"

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 03, 2001.