I was looking at a used M5 chrome at CBOP today and the manager Todd told me that Sherry Krauter believes that the M5 is the most reliable of the M series camera. Is this true or something which is more of a fantasy? After all, I would suspect that Sherry would know best since she repairs all sorts of M cameras.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002

Answers

It is difficult to see why it should be more reliable, based on the presence of the retractable meter arm, which gives it one more part to fail. Still, I suppose there could be some reason. Someone posted that Sherry Krauter is especially fond of the M5. I don't know that this is equivalent to saying that she thinks it's more reliable. Maybe you could ask her.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 26, 2002.

The M5 meter, like its cousin the CL, unfortunately is quite prone to malfunction.

-- Wilheiumn (wmitch3400@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.

The title of Best Built Leica is most often awarded to the late version M3 - serial numbers above 1,000,000. The usual reasons are 1) the long production run from 1954 to 1966 (226,000+ cameras over the 13 year period) allowed the bugs to be wrung out and the assembly line to become very expert, and 2) it was made before manufacturing economies started to force build compromises.

The M5 is one of the most interesting cameras, but its run was so short (1971-75, 33,900 cameras over the 5 year period) they never really had the chance to refine it as well.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), March 26, 2002.

The metering system of the M5 is rather fragile (unlike the M6). It is a well built camera, but cannot be considered the most reliable M camera by any stretch.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 26, 2002.

Alfie,

I don't believe Sherry believes the M5 to be the best bulit Leica M. She believes that the Leicaflex SL is the "M3 of SLR's" so by that reasoning one could safely assume that it is the M3 that is the pinnacle of the Leica M's. Quite clearly, it is, in my humble opinion.

Regards,

Tony Salce

-- Tony Salce (NadinaTony@bigpond.com), March 26, 2002.

Sherry does indeed believe the M5 to be one of the best built Leica M's. I don't know that this translates to it being more reliable. Despite the meter arm (that had some bugs early on) the later cameras are quite robust and reliable.

-- Carlin (carlinm@abac.com), March 27, 2002.

I have a M5 that has been Krauterized. Sherry advises it is one of the best Leicas built above serial #133XXX. She CLAd mine and did everything necessary to keep it going for many years. It has a reliable spot meter too. See Steve Gandy's review on his web site. It is an under rated camera and is just now being appreciated for what it is---another fine Leica.

-- C. W. Satterfield (cwsat@istate.net), March 27, 2002.

I always understood that Sherry thought the M5 to be the best of the M cameras but not necessarily the best built M. Don Goldberg told me the M5 was the first M in which some cost reduction appeared.

I cannot see how the M5 could be more reliable than my 1.1+ mil M3 or even the M2 or M4. If nothing else, the M5 is far more complicated.

In any case, I really regret not buying a new M5 when I had the chance. I passed it up for one reason...shape.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), March 27, 2002.

I don't know what "best built" means. How can we tell what is the most reliable really without the stats? Average number of repairs per lifetime, per number of exposures, how often it survives a drop from height x onto floor/ground of type y etc. etc. But my gut feeling is that it is unlikely to surpass the manual, meterless Leicas M3-M2-M4, or even M4-P, as we know the meter cell does need to be periodically replaced - but as that is an extra feature compared to the others should this really be included in a comparable reliability test?

I like the M5 actually, but I would not get one today as the M6TTL has the same or better functionality (except for the beloved selftimer!) is cheaper and easier to repair when the time comes.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

Carlin. I too think the M5 is a very well-built and under appreciated camera. The meter (as far as light metering) is very reliable, though it requires the no longer available in USA mercury batteries (or a suitable substitute).

But the meter problem I refer too is not one of construction flaw but design flaw. The swinging meter cell is just more vulnerable than the dot painted onto the shutter curtain of the M6. I'm sure there must be many satisfied M5 users who never had a problem. But ask Stan Tamarkin about his first experience with a brand new M5 whose meter failed on a trip the first time out! :-)

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 27, 2002.

Good point the mercury batteries.

I always thought the swing-out meter a Rube Goldberg solution; more moving parts. Although, the CL I had, and had stolen, produced good results.

The vibration of the arm would be less than a mirror, but against all philosophy of a Leica. I don't have a clue why buyers are paying current prices, I wouldn't, same goes for the CL. I got my mint w/40 'cron for $450 CDN.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 27, 2002.

I wouldn't call the metering system in an M5 a Rube Goldberg design. Given the technology in those days, it was a brilliant design and produced the best TTL meter available (even better than the SL and far better than the Nikon F's).

The M5 meter is more sensitive and more selective than the M6 meter. It was a true spot meter which wasn't influenced by varying exit pupil ratios.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), March 27, 2002.

Sherry often mentioned that M3 with serial number above 1,000,000 is the best built Leica M body, and M5 with serial number above 1,33x,xxx is the best body as user.

I wasn't that convinced when I first started using the M5. But the more I use it, the more I feel comfortable with it. Because it is so different than classic Ms in terms of its size and the way the camera is handled, one should use M5 alone (without mixing with other Ms) to fully appreciate its capability. When I use my M6, I usually set the shutter speed first, and then I adjust my aperture and focus before I press the shutter. I rarely adjust the shutter speed while I focus. However, when I use the M5, I could adjust both the aperture and speed dial while I focus (the large speed dial on the M5 is very convenient!). To me, the M5 provides a more flexible shoot style. The large size of M5 is also more comfortable for handling compared with M6, IMHO.

Mechanically, the shutter on M5 is different than that on the classic Ms. It sounded smother and quieter for speed lower than 1/60 sec. The M5 with serial number above 1,33x,xxx had the latest design change on the shutter and meter arm mechanisms. BTW, the Leica had worked on the M5 for thirteen years before released it on the market.

-- Cing-Dao Kan (cdkan@yahoo.com), March 27, 2002.

Best for what? I've also talked to Sherry. Her viewpoint is certainly valid in a mechanical sense, but from a practical aspect, the m6 works best for me. I do a lot of travel photography and city/people shots , thus, weight and handiness are important. When I don't need to be concerned with weight, I enjoy using the m5. It is important to heed Sherry's advise and seek a chassis no. of 1,333xxx or higher. Good shooting

-- George L. Doolittle (geodoolitt@aol.com), March 27, 2002.

Alfie,

Are you on another shopping spree?

My advice: Go slow, opportunities abound!

More power to you!

Play away. 8@}

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 27, 2002.

Eliot and all - what can I say, I'm a dedicated M5 user. I think the meter is great, I love the design...whoever said you have to use it by itself is absolutely right. It's too often compared to the classic M's, I think a little unfair. You have to take it on its own terms. I love the lack of red lights and red dots, the shutter speed dial, the black film counter and Leitz engraving. And it's a Wetzlar camera, built solid and smooth...just my opinion.

-- Carlin (carlinm@abac.com), March 28, 2002.

Yup, Leitz engraving on the top plate is like a three pointed star on the hood of a car.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), March 28, 2002.