Hello to all. I recently saw a M4-2 for sale, with the Sn. 1468143, and was a black body, and had "Wetzlar" also engraved on the top plate. Above the hot-shoe was the usual Made in Canada. I checked and could not find when this was made. Nor do I see many "Made in Canada", with the large "Wetzlar" stamp. Anyone know about this piece, when it was made, and is it special? Thanks for that and cheers. PN

-- Paul Nelson (clrfarm@comswest.net.au), October 27, 2001

Answers

Hallo Paul,

the M4-2 with this No. was made in 1977/ 78. I had an M4-2 with a similar Number some years ago. It was engraved with LEITZ (and smaller underneath) WETZLAR and where made in Canada. It was no special edition.

My one developed some minor faults and I traded it in for an M4-P later. This camera doesnŽt have Wetzlar on the topplate, only LEITZ.

If you look for a Canadian LEICA- M try the M4-P. The M4-2s are the ones where they had to learn how to do it. You will like the feeling of the M4-P better.

Best wishes

K. G. Wolf

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), October 27, 2001.

The page I was looking at shows the Canadien M4-2's starting 12/7/1977 with Sn. 1480001, with the exception of the E Leitz Canada model of the M4, dated 1/16/1974. I can't find a list with the 1468143 Sn. Thanks, but sorry so say, I am still a bit confused.

-- Paul Nelson (clrfarm@comswest.net.au), October 27, 2001.

Hallo Paul,

the list for the M4-2 I have starts with no. 1468 101 and ends with no. 1468 100 for the yrs. 1977/ 78. After this M4-2s appear again with no. 1480 001 in 1978. So the No. you mentioned isnŽt actually listed.

But donŽt worry, the camera is there, thatŽs the most important thing.

Best wishes

K. G. Wolf

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), October 28, 2001.

One more try!

Sorry Paul, made a mistake with the starting No.:

Should read 1468 001.

Best wishes

K. G. Wolf

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), October 28, 2001.

The myth of the inferior M4-2 is perpetuated. REMEMBER all the last runs of the (much prized!) M4 in black chrome were also made in Canada as were some of the previous black paint models(over 2000 M4's in total). And shock horror - over 400 of the first model M3's , over 1000 second model and over 5000 third model M3's were also assembled in Canada. Leica opened a factory in Canada in 1952 for the manufacture of lenses AND bodies. Over 5000 IIIF screw bodies were made in Canada! Some of the Leica 72's were from Canada also.

To suggest that it took the entire run of M4-2's for the Canadian workforce to get their act together ("they had to learn how to do it") is totally ridiculous - did they suddenly get it right because the '2' was replaced by a 'P'?

Give the Canadians some credit - they 'saved' the M from extinction and produced thousands of ('made in Germany') screw and M bodies long before the M4-2 was even conceived.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), October 28, 2001.

It does appear that comparable M4-Ps sell for about half of what an M4 sells for.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), October 28, 2001.

Sorry, M4-P should be M4-2

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), October 28, 2001.

I fully agree with Giles. The Canadian manufactured cameras and lenses were just as well made as those from Wetzlar. Some of the finest Leica lenses of the day were designed and assembled in Midland.

I owned an M4-2 which I later had converted to an M4-P viewfinder to get the 28mm frame. It was a great camera, never had a thing wrong with it. The M6 I traded it for, made in Wetzlar, went back immediately to Leica for faulty meter calibration. Thereafter it too was perfect.

IMO there is really nothing to choose between German and Canadian assembly, but there is undoubtedly a mystique regarding the former. Now if it's cars we're talking about....

-- Ivor Quaggin (iquaggin@home.com), October 28, 2001.

Please remember that serial number lists are just a guide. Cameras in the flesh are the best proof of serial number use rather than serial number allocation lists.

The Canadian produced M cameras, before the M4-2, were assembled from subassemblies furnished by Wetzlar. They were not assembled from a individual small parts. Also the M4-2 was the first regular production camera to use the steel winding gears (I am not counting the MP, MP2, M2M and M4M as regular production). Steel winding gears take 1000s of rolls to wear in so they are as smooth as the brass winding gears of the earlier cameras. So right out of the box M4-2 cameras felt rougher than its predecessor the M4. Of course this was blamed on poor assembly.

Leica was in a very bad way in 1974, the M5 was not selling in sufficient numbers, the SL2 cost more to make than they were selling for; and, the CL was selling briskly but making more money for Minolta than Leica. As a result the M camera was CANCELLED.

Leica Midland depended on making M lenses for a good deal of their production. No M camera meant that soon there would be no M lenses. They approached Leica Germany with the proposal of moving M production to Canada with its then less expensive labour costs. The design of the M camera was rationalised. The self timer was deleted (almost all professional cameras do not have a self timer), the design of the film counter dial was changed to one stamped piece from a multipiece assembly of blacked brass (overkill) and vulcanite was dropped for the much cheaper but more durable pcv material.

We are not talking subassemblies here, all the machinery for every gear, shaft, nut and bolt was transfered from Germany to Canada. Initial production was VERY problematic. Training ONE new worker to run ONE aspect of a production line is very simple to do; and, more importantly, simple to monitor the new worker's quality control. Imagine the whole production line having new workers!! It took a few years for production to settle down and for warranty claims to settle down as well. The last cameras were very good, every bit as good as the cameras that proceeded them. However, they felt very different. Remember the steel gears and the "plastic" body covering would change the feel of the camera significantly. Naturally the same people who figured that the cows were not milking the same since they developed sliced bread also decried the new "cheapened" M.

How does this affect us today? First it makes the M4-2 the least expensive M camera you can buy. That is good news. Now the bad news, you do have to be careful. Any late production camera will be fine (though it may need a CLA of course). However, earlier production cameras, especially "Mint IN Box" examples should be viewed with suspicion. Any early camera that has seen regular use and proper maintainence by Leica repair people should be fine.

One Leica-User bought one of the first M4-2 cameras and had one strap lug pull out of the body! The camera and lens fell onto rocky terrain and were toasted. Leica replaced both the body and his old lens with new. I bought a late production M4-2 a few years back, had it CLAed and was delighted with its performance.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), October 28, 2001.

The glitches in the M4-2 were due to a switchover to new subassemblies relying on better manufacturing tolerances and less provision for adjustment in final assembly. They had nothing to do with the point of assembly (Midland, Ontario, Canada), which was coincidental. The proof is the trouble-free Midland-assembled M4's. By this time, if an M4-2 is working it may be assumed to be reliable, whether from the outset or as the result of servicing. The greatest likelihood of problems would be related to age and (ab-)use, not design or final assembly. An M3, M2, M4 would just as likely need a CLA as an M4-2 if it hasn't had one in a while. BTW, the M4-2 was covered with Vulcanite, not synthetic leatherette. So were most of the M4-P's, except those manufactured alonside the M6 after its introduction.

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

The total manufacture of the M camera was switched to Canada with the M4-2. The Canadian M4 cameras were assembled from subassemblies supplied by Leica Wetzlar. Most of the M4-2 glitches were things such as the one reported by PopPhoto in 1980 (with an early production camera). It had a film counter return spring with the "hook" spread just a little too wide which caused it to hang up and not return to "-2". There were no changes to the shutter design such as the case with the M6.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), October 28, 2001.

Thanks to all. More info is never enough, but really, I didn't want to cause a bun-fight. Thanks Jay, John, Ivor, Wolfie, et al.

-- Paul Nelson (clrfarm@comswest.net.au), October 28, 2001.

The M4-2 is an interesting camera: made only for a few years (1977- 1980) in relatively small numbers, yet there are quite a few variations in the engravings and other features. The combinations I am aware of are: Top plate "Leitz" - back "made by Leitz Canada" Top "Leitz Wetzlar" - Top "made in Canada" Top "Leitz Wetzlar" - back "made by Leitz Canada" Top "Leitz Wetzlar" - back "Canada" Top "Leitz" - back "Canada" And there may be other varaiations. It seems they couldn't get their act together when it came to the engraving. Regardless of the engraving "Wetzlar", to my knowledge, all of these cameras were made in Canada.

Another interesting variation is the presence of the Leitz red dot only on the earliest cameras (about 95 or so, all with serial numbers 1468xxx). The red dot became standard on the M4-P, but it is not clear why some M4-2s had the dot and others didn't.

There were other variations: eg., earliest M4-2 cameras had a polished chrome lens lock release button, while later cameras had a different style painted red in the middle. Also, earlier M4-2s had a better rangefinder patch. Apparently, some time during the production, Leica decided to remove one of the samll condenser lenses they thought not to be necessary (to save money), so all the later M4- 2s and subsequent cameras have a slightly less bright and contrasty rangefinder patch.

The other major variation is that about 1000 gold M4-2s were produced in 1979 (with matching black & gold 50/1.4 Summiluxes)in two batches of 500 each to commemorate the birth of Oscar Barnack.

Your camera (with SN 1468143) is a very early example, which has a serial number originally assigned to the R3. This probably makes it collectible, but less so than if it had the red dot.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), October 28, 2001.

Ref.: M4-2 versus M4-P

Hallo friends, hallo Giles,

I didnŽt want to raise the M4-2/ M4-P question again! Although IŽam German IŽam not prejudiced, espacially not in connection with LEITZ CANADA. And going into those numbers above I realized, that I really had one of the very first M4-2s, black, no red dot.

I took it on an trip to Indonesia and found one day, that a termite was walking around in my viewfinder. I quickly arranged for enough gin-tonic, took the lens and the baseplate off and 48 hours later the beast (looked really big!) had disappeared.

Unfortunately the camera had other problems as well and I got another M4-2 in exchange from LEITZ Wetzlar. This one was traded in against the M4-P, chrome, with flush windows later. I still use it along with my 1986- M6 IŽam pretty pleased with it until today.

So, please believe me, I have nothing agianst the M4-2. I just tried to tell you about my experience. The LEITZ people were very helpful then and exused the bad state of the first camera. Thanks John C. for pointing things out correctly.

We are all happy that there was an M4-2! Without it, the LEICA M would have gone forever.

Best wishes

K. G. Wolf

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), October 29, 2001.