I've been reading up on the history of M history by Brian Bower and I am sad to know that people don't regard the Leica M2 all that well. It is definitely a M3 and M4 (although M4-2 get dissed a lot) field day but somehow M2 is a nice user's camera. However it seems to me that the M2 prices aren't all that much to be honest relative to M3 and M4's.

Perhaps someone can reveal the reasons why the M2 is negelcted? :D At least the M6 has a zillion special editions which doesn't deface the value of the M2 :D

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002

Answers

Well, I'll take a small shot at this. If you move up to the next model, the M4, you get a camera with faster loading and rewind, and more frame lines (some might find this distracting, but it's considered a positive feature by most.) On the other hand, the M3 has that glorious life size 50mm view, which the M2 lacks. I don't have the numbers, [someone can supply them?] but I'll be there aren't that many M2s, compared to the large number of M3s and M4s.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), March 10, 2002.

I personally reallylike the M2's. They have the 35mm frameline that the M3 never had. And the uncluttered 35mm (without the 135) that the M4 has. I like the all manualness and classicness of it all,like the manual counter and the pop-up winder, both features people may dislike or think are 'slow' or impractical. What I dont like about the M2 is the slow and clumsy loading system (of the M3). And having the rapidload kit installed is really not a workable solution. BUT, there are M2's which do have the M4 loading system, and I rate these as the ultimate and most useable of the all classic manual M-line. These being the M2-R [civillian version of the KS15(4)(2000 units made) and the Military M2's: Olive (10 or only 100 made) and the chrome KS15(4) [900 approx made, maybe more, correct numbers inconclusive). Unfortunately, these are rarer than the standard M2's and are set at a price premium.

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), March 10, 2002.

It's not true that the M2 never got any respect. In the 70s, M3s were a dime a dozen--no one liked them because they didn't have the 35mm frame. Now with all of the other choices with 35mm frames--M4, M5, M6, M7, the M2 isn't special, but the M3, which is still unique, is more valued. If they made an .91 M6 with the M3 finder, and priced it the same as the others, no one would want M3s, either.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.

I nearly bought an M2 with Summicron 50 a few years back. Nice camera ... I don't know that it is worth going ga-ga over vs an M4- P but it's just a cheaper version of the M with mechanical frame counter.

I see plenty of discussion of them on the leica lists.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), March 10, 2002.

FWIW most M2's were used by press and pros.They are battered and marked.So no decent upstanding collector will even "touch" them! i have a M2.Its a backup.In mint condition compared to my M3.Samy's of L.A. refused to consider a trade on the M3 for a M6.So some leather is missing,and the chrome kinda golden color,plus some love dimples here and there.There are different models of M2.Mine i think is M2S,meaning no selftimer(sans= without in french)and has button for rewind.I love the clear viwfinder.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.

Phil Stiles wrote:

Well, I'll take a small shot at this. If you move up to the next model, the M4, you get a camera with faster loading and rewind, and more frame lines (some might find this distracting, but it's considered a positive feature by most.) On the other hand, the M3 has that glorious life size 50mm view, which the M2 lacks. I don't have the numbers, [someone can supply them?] but I'll be there aren't that many M2s, compared to the large number of M3s and M4s.

According to Stephen Gandy's website cameraquest.com, M production looks (in round numbers) like this:

M3: 225,000 M2: 82,000 M4: 58,000 - not certain if this includes the -2 and -P variants.

-- Craig Zeni (clzeni@mindspring.com), March 10, 2002.

The M2 is not as highly sought after by collectors as the M3 - no question about it. This, een though there were as pointed out above, only about 1/3 the number of M3s made. However, the M2 is NOT neglected by users. There are many M2s still in use; and it is a much more convenient camera to use with a 35 mm lens than an M3.

I bought a very early M2 (50th made), which is very different from the regular production camera. It has the flat (rather than serrated) frame illuminator window, just like the M3. It also has a button rewind without the collar (which the later M2's had, before the button rewind was finally replaced with a lever). It also had other early features different from the bulk production. The camera came with a nice matching 50/2.8 Elmar from the same year (1957).

This camera cost only a small fraction of what an equally original early M3 would have cost (here we're into the $ 6000-7000 rabge for the camera alone). Similarly original black paint M2's sell for several thousands of dollars less than original black paint M3's. The demand by collectors for the M2 is simply not as great as for the M3.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 10, 2002.

Well, I had our M4 modified to take out the M4 viewfinder masks and replace them with the M2 masks - - -35, 50, and 90. Its a gem! The folks at the US Leica repair did it several years ago. The framelines for rthe 90 are superb!

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), March 10, 2002.

Alfie,

I think it was Stephen Gandy who said it, but I might be wrong. Anyway, according to something I read, the M2's heyday was the early 90's. Prices soared up. In those days the M5 was the neglected Camera. Now the M5 is a hot collector's item. (I nearly bought an M5 body at K&S in Palo Alto for $800 in 1989. Instead bought an M6 for $1600. Should bought them both! --yeah, right.)

It will be interesting to see what happens after the debut of the M7.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), March 10, 2002.

Hello Alfie. The M2 or "wide angle Leica" as it used to be called,may not be so collectible at the moment but in it's heyday was as useable andpopular as the M3's.In mint condition I believe the simple,humble M2 is indeed increasing in value. Ironically there are features both in the M2 and the rare MP: manual set frame counter plus ability to accept the rapid wind Leicavit without modification. Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

In my experience, the M2/3 in same condition fetch the same price, more-or-less, even though the M2 was considered entry level and M3 the loaded model. I have both and find the M2 more usefull, as I like 35's, and am left eyed, so the M3 and its life-sized finder is not an asset. The 50 is fine on the M2; it lets me see more outside the lines for those swing-and-snap candids.

BTW Alfie, since I have an M4 I MAY be swayed into parting with my M2...

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 11, 2002.

Jason,

The "S" in M2S stands for Self timer.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), March 11, 2002.

Chris, the initial M2 was a 'cheaper' option to the M3 without the self-timer etc..but many people complained and Leitz re-released the M2 with self-timer and rewind switch. "the M2 was a huge success even among professionals not only because of its (20% cheaper) price but also for the viewfinder which was set for 35, 50 and 90mm lenses, the most frequently used for reportage"

Correction to me earlier post: only 20 Blue grey (not 100 olive) military M2's were made, along with the 900+ chrome KS15(4)'s

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), March 11, 2002.