Hello Folks; Why is it that some people consider the Leica M4 to be "the last truly great Leica"? I am in the market for a second body (I have an M6 Classic) and am considering the M4 if I can manage to find one that is affordable. I am a user, not a collector. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), March 28, 2002

Answers

For me, it's the viewfinder. The M4 eliminated the slight hazy bluish color of the M2 and M3 (designed to make the rangefinder patch more visible, but distracting for users of color film), the frames are uncluttered (the 35 and 135mm are so different in size that they aren't distracting), and they more nearly cover the actual image to be recorded on the film (unlike the 80% of the M6). The quickload feature and rewind crank are nice, too.

-- Bill (bmitch@comcast.net), March 28, 2002.

John,

Really a difficult quwstion to answer. Not necessarily for a lack of reasons, rather the reverse.

It was the last of the models where "craftsmanship" held sway over cost cutting. It incorporated BL finders from 35 thru 135mm, which constituted the bulk of the lenses they produced.

It was assembled by individuals who had served an apprenticeship in their craft and had produced the same basic camera (including the M3 from which it evolved) for 20 years.

Subsequently, in order to respond to the perceived market and include a meter, they forgot one of the prime reasons for the Ms popularity, that being its size and shape. They learned their mistake with the M5, but in learning that mistake and producing the M4-2, they made others.

Dropping the top cover engravings, removing the self timer, zinc rather than brass top covers, shutter and flash socket problems, cheaper body covering, etc. All served in their own way to remind the affecionado that the M4 was the last in the line of the handcrafted Ms where production cost was not paid the amount of attention it is today.

This is not to say that the Ms of today (6, 6 TTL or or M7) are deficient or servicable products. They still are the best 35mm RF body being currently produced. The M4 (and M3) though, are from a different time, where considerations were different.

Hence the value many place on them today.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), March 28, 2002.

Mostly because they're nostalgic for an era they never knew.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), March 28, 2002.

It is the "last of the hand built" and crafted M's. Because back then they could afford, or should I say they didn't bean count so much and it was considered 'the golden period'. They hired Bavarian Elves, from the mountain hilltops. They had small hands, they could make these wonderful machines, they worked late into the night and they loved what they did. They were skilled craftsmen and they could engrave the Leica script with precision. With a keen eye for detail and attention to quality materials. It was a labour of love. They bestowed each Leica with a soul, because they were each handmade, a piece of art, each an individual. Then one day, the dreaded Accountants from the far lands came along and scared all the little Elves away. They were never seen again. It was a different time, a different era.

-- summicron (summicron_@hotmail.com), March 28, 2002.

Funny thing about my M4:

Shutter tore loose.

I don't like the plastic tipped wind lever or the self timer/preview levers.

The engraving on the top plate seems deeper and more crude than the fine engraving on my M3 and M2. I looked at it with a loupe because some of the blace filling is coming out.

Does that mean my M2/3 are made in Midland, even though they're engraved Wetzler?

To me the M3 is the best, but yes, the M4 is the last legendary Leica M.

I found a black enamel M4 for $700 13 years ago. They're out there - be patient.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 28, 2002.

BTW, The Black M4 is still out there somewhere other than where it should be. It was stolen out of my storage unit. I don't have the number; I was a more faithful in people person back then. It has a black chrome rewind knob (from where I dropped it - the strap slipped off my shoulder) and baseplate (to keep the orig. nice, as I used the camera). It was in storage because the Hassy went along to the Malaysia/Thailand assignment.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 28, 2002.

I have never found my M4 to be any less reliable or precise than my M6's but Bill raised an excellent and little-known point: the framelines in the M2, M4 and M4-2 are slightly larger than those in the M4-P and M6. The viewfinder magnification is the same, but to get the 28mm frame in and not have it practically touch the 35 frame, Leica shrunk the other frames a little. The result is that they show a bit more of what will actually be on film at longer distances...and the 35mm frame is a bit harder to see with glasses on. My M4 has a few woodpecker dings near one of the strap lugs and a shallow but visible scratch in the top plate...I was a college kid when I bought it second-hand. It had a DAG CLA about 3 years ago and it's like new mechanically...that's another thing about the M4: it is more dependent on the service technician vis-a-vis precision, since it has more adjustments than the M6. It also has a rangefinder prism which was cemented with UV-cure optical cement and they do not come decemented like the M2/M3 which was cemented with balsam cement.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 28, 2002.

To summarize: The 'classic' M-Leicas built in Wetzlar by people who knew (or who knew people who knew) Barnack and Ernst Leitz II were the M3/2/4.

The most convenient and practical M-Leicas to USE are the M4(-2,-2P)/ M6/M7.

The M4 is the only camera that appears in both categories. It's the most practical 'classic' and the most 'classic' practical camera.

As a user - you can PROBABLY find another M6 used for about what a decent M4 costs - and gain the meter. You can PROBABLY find an M4-2/P for LESS than a decent M4 and get essentially the same functionality (minus the self-timer). In neither case will you get the 'aura' - or the script/black paint.

None of the post-M4 bodies have been around long enough to prove or disprove that the M4's different means of construction actually translates into a 'better' or longer-lived camera.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 30, 2002.

Here's an article from the Leica Historical Society: (it's a pdf file, so you need Adobe) M4.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), March 30, 2002.

Actually I was going to say that M5 was the "last truly great Leica". It was built in Wetzlar for the last time and of course, I do love the M7 too, but the M5 size and metering are its winning points. It feels like a R8 in terms of handling.

People like to end on the M4 because the M5 seems to get dissed on its size and some of its replacement parts too. Personally I don't have a complaint.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), March 30, 2002.

I bought my first M4 30 years ago, and haven't found anything since that equals that rock solid, airtight feel. I think it's that quality of the M4 that makes it unique. I've only had two failures over years of heavy use - early in 1972 my rangefinder came apart, and in 1999 the shutter failed. My daughter uses my M4 and it STILL works. THAT says a lot!

Jim Bauman

-- Jim Bauman (jimbauma@cisco.com), May 06, 2002.

John. I think the M4-P is the best (most functional) of the non- metered Leicas, and they are not really collected. Thus, the prices aren't driven to any great extent by the collector market.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 06, 2002.

There is no question that the Leica M4 is of a different era. I happen to agree with others that say that era produced higher quality cameras. One thing to remember, there are plenty of M4's out there but even the best looking ones are still around 30 years old. If you decide to buy an M4 make sure it has received attention some time in the previous decade or you may need to spend some extra cash to bring it up to speed. I bought a nearly perfect (looking) M4 last year and needing to have it overhauled for it to function properly. I'm really glad it did, though. Collectors miss the point- Leicas are most beautiful when they're being used. ;)

-- Ned Wyss (ned@voxdesign.com), June 28, 2002.

having owned M2,M3,M4&M6,it is my opinion that the M2 & M4 were the best of that bunch. The M6 was easily the worst camera ihave owned in 50 years of leica ownership.It destroyed my faith in modern leica and I still have my original IIIF.I did not see anything exceptional in leitz lenses compared withsome modestly priced Jap lenses.LEICA is grossly overpriced nowadays and the servicing is similarly over- priced

-- rodney williams (willicwm@bushinternet.com.uk), October 16, 2002.

I own many M cameras and leicaflex SL2.I am a documentary photographer. I have been using M camera for twenty for my daily work. I found the M4 is the most robust and tough body in the world.The shutter and the mechanism of the body are still accurate today.I also use M6 and M7 for my work.The Leica M's camera is great to any street photographers.Will Leica Company manufracture a mechanic camera in future?

-- Samuel Shing-po (Zeissyu@hotmail.com.hk), December 22, 2002.