So the new M7 runs on batteries. How to kill a legend - or finally a big step forward? As an M2 owner I don't like the thought of a M camera that is (almost) dependent on batteries. But on the other hand - in the eleven years with my Nikon F3 I've run out of battery power... twice. The F3 is a very reliable camera with an extreamly accurate shutter. I will never part ways with it :-)

Now for some guessing - what if Leica releases a new model to compement the M7 - a basic M6 stripped of the electric bits and with a 35/50/90 rangefinder... I basic manual Leica at a lower price - a modern M2 to compete pricewize with Konica and Cosina..?

Reactions..? regards Fredrik Annell

-- Fredrik Annell (freann@mac.com), February 21, 2002

Answers

Well Fredrik, this was done to death a short while ago but I agree with you entirely. Throughout it's near fifty year history the NEW M model has always killed off the old - notwithstanding the ressurection of the traditional M style body after the ill-fated M5.

There always seems to be three groups, those that hark back to the all-mechanical meterless M2/4 type, those happy with the M6 as is and those who want AE, high shutter speeds, automation etc.

I can't see Leica making three M's to satisfy all of us and they aren't about to start making the M4 again so hopefully they will continue to make the M6 at least.

However, I fear the only group who will be happy in a few years are the third group, but hey! - that's progress!

Who, as a novice potential M user, when presented with the M7 or M6 by the friendly salesman will leave the shop with the M6?

Boardmeeting in Solms in 2004 - Leica MD - "Well, two years ago we introduced the M7, 80% of M sales have been this model - we must discontinue the M6..."

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 21, 2002.

This sounds like a pretty good idea and IŽam quite sure the LEICA Co. has ventilated this one already. With so many old LEICA Ms around they might fear the huge s/h market to compete with.

A stripped down M6 could cost US § 2,000 +. Would people really buy it or decise for the older s/h types for 33 % of this price. There are tenthousands of them around and would spoil this market.

I LOVE the lightmeter with my M6. Since I have it my M2/ M4 P sees only little use.

Good shooting

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), February 21, 2002.

Actually, referring back to that hypothetical board meeting in Solms 2004.....remember the 40 year anniversary M6J?...I wonder what Leica will create to clebrate the fiftieth annivesary? - re-introduction of the M3 anyone?

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 21, 2002.

> Who, as a novice potential M user, when presented with the M7 or M6

> by the friendly salesman will leave the shop with the M6?

Don't be so sure.

Lucien

-- Lucien (Lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), February 21, 2002.

Let's not forget that the R6.2 ran the entire 4-year R7 production and then 6-7 years into R8 production, selling at least as well. It has been discontinued but is still in as much demand. Leica probably has enough M6TTL's to last quite a while, and it doesn't look as if the M7 has been re-tooled to any great extent, leaving Leica a feasible back-door should the M7 be a bust. I don't see how it would, though. The M6TTL competes directly with almost 20 years of second-hand stock whereas the M7 is significantly unique to spur new sales. I also think there may in fact be *less* bugs in the M7 and overall its reliability may be better, because electronics replace the complex shutter-timing mechanisms, yet there are probably no CPU's or really complicated electronics...this is early-70's technology. Hopefully the M7 will have additional moisture seals.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 21, 2002.

To follow up Jay's point. All the Leica Rs that have kept their value seem to me to be the manuals - SL, SL2, R6, R6.2 the electronic versions depreciate a good deal. The M7 may be less desirable s/h, but the M is a totally different beast so who knows.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 21, 2002.

On the battery thing...I have used cameras dependent on batteries in the jungle and in the desert, never a problem. I know plenty of professional photographers who depend on their cameras working every day, including a guy who covers war and disaster in Latin America, not one uses a battery-less camera. I think the whole thing is dilletante-ish, who here is working for months without access to batteries? Change batteries before a trip, always carry extra sets.

The only field failures I've had were mechanical - the shutter in a Nikon FM died, and the mirror in an Olympus SLR jammed.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 21, 2002.

I agree with Jeff. Batteries have never been a problem. I can't count the number of "back-up" batteries I've thrown away because I never had to use them. In some cases I've sold the camera before it needed a battery change. I'm talking manual focus cameras here. Auto-focus bodies go through batteries much faster.

Get an FM3a it you don't want to worry about batteries.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), February 21, 2002.

I can't count the number of "back-up" batteries I've thrown away because I never had to use them.

Hah, I have to do this too from time to time.

Auto-focus bodies go through batteries much faster.

I think built-in flash is even worse than autofocus. My Hexar (AF) has had very few battery changes and I think it is because it doesn't have a flash. Compact cameras that fire the flash on almost every shot seem to run down constantly.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 21, 2002.

"a basic M6 stripped of the electric bits and with a 35/50/90 rangefinder... I basic manual Leica at a lower price"

I think a more basic Leica could be successful. There is a caution, though. The CL was a more basic Leica and they scrapped it because it was killing M sales.

The other thing is that it probably wouldn't help to cur costs to leave off the 28, 75, and 135mm frame lines. They're already cut into the current production; so I don't think it would save ten cents to take them back out; yet it would reduce the camera's appeal. Wouldn't it? Are there enough out there who want the uncluttered M2 type finder?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 21, 2002.

RE: the stripped down M (AKA the M2-2, or M4-2-2 (!!) or even just the M4.2 (but didn't they already do that?)

Leica could save about $150 by leaving out the meter and circuitry - ADD 50 bucks to put on a specially-machined all-metal M2/3 wind lever - SPEND an extra 10 bucks per camera to put in special non-standard masks missing the 28-75 frames or some other combination. Net price reduction - $90.

So would you pay $1860.00 for an unmetered 35mm camera when you can get the metered version for $1950? Or a used M6 for $1200? Or a REAL M4.2 for $900?

Face it folks - the 'low-priced' Leica is sitting in front of you - $1950 for an M6. There is no magic formula to making them cheaper - except making them cheaper. Voigtlander/Cosina is already doing that.

Someone somewhere mentioned that the M6 'classic" might come back - but possibly only as the basis for some of the 'commemorative' pretty- pretty cameras.

I personally won't get either an M7 (probably) or a M6TTL - too big, too clanky, and I don't want to give up battery-freedom JUST for autoexposure.

I can live with a battery-dependent Hexar because 1) it gives me whole lot more for the sacrifice: AE, autowind, auto-rewind, 21mm framing, nice finder lines for the 28/35, self-timer, 1/4000th, 1/125th sync. and 2) I have 2 REALLY battery-free, compact, 'classic'-sized M bodies in addition.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 21, 2002.

Bob,

I wish my regular M6 had only the 35, 50, and 90 framelines. I don't have a 28 and the 75. I have the finder for my 24, and an old 135 brightline I purchased in the 60's.

If they were available and could be done, and it was an inexpensive mask change I might have it done, but I know better on the inexpensive part. I certainly wouldn't buy a new one to replace my M6. I've already got an M2.

Don't think a market exists for new "stripped" M. The only time they had 2 M's produced concurrently was the M3 and MP, followed by the M3 and the M2. The MP was in response from comments from pros who used the 35mm focal length a lot and it was initially produced for them. Then they simply rebadged the MP as the M2.

While production wise it was more than 150 times as popular as the MP it wasn't enough to keep it alive. They simply did the obvious and melded most of the best features from both into the M4.

Best,

Jerry

PS I know the M1 was concurrent with the M3 and later the M2. But I didn't count it as its main purpose was Visoflex use. After all, with no RF, it could hardly be counted as an RF body.

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), February 22, 2002.

Sorry! - The M2 is not a re-badged MP, the MP is based on the M3 'innards'.

The M4-P ran alongside the M6 for two years.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 22, 2002.

Giles,

I've never had an MP nor a M2 apart but, I'd be curious to know what M3 "innards" included in the MP are lacking in the M2.

While the MP shares the top cover design (exterior), double stroke advance (internal), and lack of depth of field tabs with the M3 (internal, but added to the M3 as the M2 was introduced), the MP and the M2 have internal changes in the film counting mechanism and steel gearing (for better wear properties when using the Leicavit). While much sturdier and long lasting than the M3 gearing, some of the lengendary "smoothness" in film advance for which the M3 is still revered was forever lost.

All in all then, I would still submit that when MP was dropped and the M2 began, they shared more internal points of comparison than did the M3 with the MP.

As for the M4P running concurrently with the M6, Leitz allocated only one block of 1,000 serial numbers for the M4P approximately 1 1/2 years after production of the M6 began. Leica historians doubt that all were used (produced), and the purpose was to purge inventories of M4P top plates already in existence, once production was able to satisfy the initial demand for the M6.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), February 22, 2002.

Jerry,

The M3 has a completely different rangefinder construction to the simplified M2 and all subsequent M's systems. The MP is simply an M3 modified to take the Leicavit winder and with steel instead of brass used for the gears and the M2 non-resetting counter. It uses the M3 RF system and double-stroke wind mechanism . It is not based on the M2 - it was introduced a year before the M2! In fact the M2 later killed demand for the MP.

The very rare MP2 was however based on the M2.

I believe the final batch of around 1000 M4-P's were produced in 1986 - two years after the M6's introduction, the final M4-P's use M6 top plates (the rare M4-P with M6 windows variety).

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 22, 2002.

Last winter I traveled up to the Hudson Bay in Quebec. It was a short notice trip and there was little time for planning. The temperature was -40 most days I was there. As hard as I tried to keep my camera warm after several minutes exposed to the cold the battery would quit. I even tried switching batterys with spares I kept in my pocket but that did not work either. So my all manual M6 came through for me. I did the sunny 16 thing and a lot of bracketing. I hope this does not sound too dilletanteish.

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), February 22, 2002.

Giles,

Back again...you're really making me hit the books. We'll have to agree to disagree on the M3-MP-M2 relationship. In my mind, the M2 shares more of the MP attributes than does the MP with the M3.

BTW-the MP2 is not as rare as the MP. Its close, but apparantly they made a 100 or so more of the MP2, although less than a 1,000 total of both.

The "M4P with M6 windows" appears to be an interesting situation. The estimate is around 3,000+ or so bodies with covers stamped M4P having the RF window the same as was in the M6. While the majority are in black chrome, many are known in chrome also, a finish the M6 did not see till production of the M4P had ceased.

Backing up those production totals and dates in time would seem to indicate that production of the M4P with larger windows pre-dates the introduction of the M6. While "relatively" rare in the Leitz scheme of things, the evidence that the last run of M4Ps which paralled the M6 was a "run out" of existing stocks seems to make good production and economic sense.

They made the windows larger for the last of the M4Ps prior to the M6 intro (perhaps to evaluate the new dies for the castings). Then devoted all production assets to the M6 when introduced, and when the orders for the M6 slowed enough to balance inventories, they devoted the available portion of their production assets to the purge M4P top covers.

Further evidence for this being the case exists in the make up of many of those last run M4Ps in that many of the chrome ones are of the "Panda" variety, with black shutter dials, advance levers, etc. In zeroing the inventories they simply ran out of those chrome parts. Recall that it was more than 2 years into M6 production that they made a chrome version. They used black parts on some of those chrome M4Ps as that was all they had at hand.

While "logic" and "Leitz" sometimes share only the same number of letters, the above move appears to make some sense.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), February 23, 2002.

Jerry,

As you know when two Leitz historians get together you get three opinions! :)

Whether the M2 appears to share features with the M3 is irrelevant, the MP is a modified M3 not a modified M2, as I state above the inner workings of the MP are simply those of the M3 with steel instead of brass gears and a modified spool axis to couple with the Leicavit.

My last contribution, total production for MP's was around 400, total production for the (ultra rare) MP2 is around 15 (more a test run than actual production camera), to cause confusion the MP2 designation was also used for a run of standard M2's supplied with Leicavit's - these are different models entirely to the true original MP2, and then there's the MP-SP, M2-M etc, etc.

Sources: Hasbroeck, Rogliatti, Sartorius (amongst others!).

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 23, 2002.