Dear all,

I have the oportunity to buy a mint M4p as a second camera to my M6TTL. I'm in no rush and can wait for another model if necessary.

I know the M4p was the last of the M4s, has a 6 position finder and apparently fewer internal adjustments. Some claim the quality is down a bit (comparatively speaking of course. The M4p is usually cheaper (from what I've seen) than the M42 and certainly the M4 which attracts collectors and users alike.

My question is; just how desirable is the M4p and is it as I suspect a bit of a bargain buy?

What say you? (I'm sure Eliot and John C will know, to name a few)

Cheers, Tim Gee

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), April 10, 2002

Answers

You can think of it as an M4-2 with M6 frames! (or a meterless M6!). Someplace in the middle of M4-P production they went to zinc topcover - if that matters to you. They also have a non-vulcanite covering (which to me is more desireable for a shooter anyway, vulanite is getting to be a pain in the butt). The build quality... I dont think it really matters, as the camera you get will need anything from a CLA to an overhaul. Sherry's CLA _is_ and overhaul BTW, so consider about $200 into getting it into top shape as part of the price you'll need to pay. From what I hear, delamination in the viewfinder is beginning to be a problem for M4-2's and M4-P's. Price to fix adds $200 to the overhaul (for parts). Shutter curtains may need to be replaced due to curling (add about $150 to overhaul). So, you may have a bit of an !$$ouch$$! unless you can wisely select the individual camera. If buying on Ebay, I'd want to get DETAILS and full return privs.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), April 10, 2002.

Well firstly, the M4-P is as well built as any Leica. And would under similar usage outlast an M4,M3,or M2 without needing adjustment. The mechanisism is built to be used with a motor, and as such the materials, while not being the soft brass cogs of earlier models, do last longer. The percieved difference is that the harder metals don't give the same 'smooth' feeling of earlier models. The relative cheapness I think is simply because it was built until until 1986 and overlaps the M6, but has no meter, and was often the choice of professionals. So it takes a price hit. I think it is a big bargain, 6 frames, tough construction, what more could you want? It is definitly not a 'budget' model that Leica produced.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), April 10, 2002.

If you don't need an in-built meter and want the best built of the "modern" Leica's it is an excellent choice. IMO all M's since have been inferior. The zinc top plate models did not come in the middle of production but right at the end and are relatively rare.

Therfore you have a brass top plate, non-battery dependant, fully mechanical and fully USER controllable, six frame finder with the universal and best .72 finder and no plastic parts - it was the last body before cost-cutting measures of materials etc were introduced.

The covering is not vulcanite but it is much more tactile and substantial than the "thin" M6 covering. The M4-P is fully mechanical and despite not having TTL flash it is better equipped for flash (IMO) than the modern M6TTL's and M7 which will not allow flash use if the camera batteries are flat - a major design flaw!

I have owned five M4-2/P's none have ever been serviced and all worked fine. This obsession with CLA's on this forum puzzles me - I have spoken to various technicians and many share the opinion that the mechanical Leica's should simply be *used* - if it ain't broke don't fix it! No M has ever broken down on me.

This week's AP has just reviewed the M7 and it is not exactly glowing - problems with exposure and the rear film dial being easily accidentally moved during use. It also despairs over the flash/battery dependancy - if your batteries give out the back-up 1/60 is too fast for flash sync besides the fact it will not allow the flash to fire anyway if the batteries are dead!

This is the problem with the newer M's - gradually Leica are taking control away from the user.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 10, 2002.

The myth about the M4-P and even the M4-2 is that they are not as well made as the M4 or earlier M cameras. Leica has stopped making rangefinders due to lack of sales for a few years, and then they came out with the M4-P and M4-2. The cameras were made with less expensive material than the M4, but both cameras function just as good as any other M.

-- chris a williams (LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net), April 10, 2002.

there are fine cameras, but there is no question that the m4-2/p are economy leicas. leica was set to discontinue the m due to poor sales of the 5 and general poor performance of the company generally in the mid to late 70s. the thought was to put all the money into the r line (slrs were/are certainly where the main ation was/is). internal and external pressure convinced leica to retain the m, but only if significant cost reductions could be achieved. the edict on the m4-2 was to produce the camera at at 30% mfr cost reduction over the straight 4. this was achieved largely by reduction in labor costs. the idea was to machine parts of steel rather than brass, make them to higher tolerances, and avoid lots of the time-consuming fine adjusting that made the 4 such a silky beast. other cost savings included makingthe camera in canada (except for the first 100 or so) where labor costs were lower than germany, simplifying the rf (which is why every VF after the straight 4 flares more than the 2/3/4), reducing the quality of the plating, changing the body cover material, losing the ST, etc. the concept worked, the m ine was saved, and now we have the 7. the m4-2 is certainly a great bargain today -- it is a fine quality mechanical camera that will last forever, is motor ready, and is often available in mint condition for around $1000. an m4 in mint would cost double that. however, the market is not totally irrational, you do get something for your money when you buy a 4.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 10, 2002.

Lots of good opinions on the M4-P and it is a fine camera but let's look at the original post. Tim wants a second camera to an M6TTL. The shutter dial on all M's prior to the M6TTL is numbered in the opposite direction. Will that be a problem? If so, considering the M7 is now out and some people are dumping their M6's, why not scout around for a used M6TTL at a good price? If the shutter dial rotation is not going to be a problem, then before bothering with an M4-P why not scout for a mint used M6 Classic? Prices not that much more, plus you get a meter. Tim, have you used an M without a meter? Do you know for sure it won't irritate the heck out of you? These are crucial issues to consider, moreso than the folklore surrounding the history and build-quality of the M4-P.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 10, 2002.

There is nothing like discussing the M4-P and M4-2 cameras to stir up a real hornet's nest of opinions. Great fun.

Here is the short answer:

THE M4-P IS A GOOD CAMERA.

There, go out and buy it and be done with it.

Practical advice attached to the short answer:

It may need a CLA. Mint cameras tend to need CLAs because the lack of use results in the lubricants separating and gumming up the works. Lubricants evapourate over time and need to be replaced at regular intervals. You do not have to do it as use will keep the camera working but it will wear out much sooner. I CLA my cameras every ten years. It does not seem excessive to me.

The long answer on the whole M4-2/P thing:

The M was caput, dead, discontinued, nada, no more. Production costs were such that Leica was losing money on every camera sold so Leitz pulled the plug. Leica Canada made a good portion of their profit from M lenses and it did not take long for them to do the math: no M camera = no M lenses.

Leitz Canada offered to manufacture the M camera using modern precision machining and assembly techniques. This in combination with the then lower labour costs in Canada, would make the M camera profitable again. They got the go ahead and transfered all the M machinery from Germany to Canada. This included a few of the workers too.

As you can imagine with any new from scratch production, things were an absolute nightmare. LOTS and LOTS of niggling problems. As one repair person commented in PopPhoto: " Great camera after I finished it."

Most of the cost reductions involved production rationalizations such as making the frame counter dial out of one stamped piece. The earlier dial consisted of three separate brass castings that were then individually hand finished, chemically blackened, assembled before then receiving the final chrome finishing. Pretty nutso if you ask me.

They also added winder capabilities which required the use of steel gears in the winding mechanism which gave a rougher feel to the winding. This is not the first time steel gears were used as all the previous M cameras with motors/winders also received steel gears. This included the MP cameras but not the regular M2 which could use the same Leicavit winder.

Areas that you need to be concerned about:

The body covering was vulcanite (up until late M4-P production when it used the same covering as the M6) but they had a lot of trouble getting a good lasting finish. It is easy to have the later pcv material put on if your body is peeling.

The first design of winder coupling had a wear point that would eventually allow some gears to slip. This causes more damage and can result in the shutter being ruined. It is easy to install the newer design which is very reliable. All M4-P cameras had the newer design of winder coupling.

DO NOT USE A M4-2 CAMERA WITH A WINDER/MOTOR PERIOD!!!

Have it updated first.

DO NOT BUY EARLY M4-2 CAMERAS PERIOD!!!

They are very problematic and parts do not fit as well. This requires extensive adjustments to make them work properly. It can be done and it will give you a good camera. You will need to find a top Leica tech to do the work, it will take ten times as long as earlier or later cameras and your tech will need a long holiday afterwards. Best just to avoid early M4-2s.

One final point, I have met and talked to many people who "know" what causes the dreaded viewfinder flare. I do not but it was not in all the M4-2 and M4-P cameras. I had a late M4-2 with the later finder design (the finder was not "cheapened" until later in the M4-2 production) and it did not flare at all. It performed just like my M2. I recently purchased an early M4-2 (never again) and it has the original finder and it flares just like my M6TTL.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@shaw.ca), April 10, 2002.

An M4-P/2 user with a couple of other points:

The M4-P (at least mine - relatively early production 155xxxx) has:

less intrusive/less definite 75 framing - just the bare corners, compared to M6s. Good if you use a 50 and want a cleaner view - bad if you're a regular 75 user.

The M6-style 4-line 90 frame. The M4-2 still used the M2/3/4 eight-part 90 frame, which includes real corner marks as well as the sides.

Dual flash sync connectors

red dot down where the M6 battery cover goes instead of on the top plate - easier to tape over. 8^)

Brass top - inset viewfinder windows.

The M4-P is basically a 4-2 with the production bugs worked out and the 28/75 frames. If it costs less or the same (condition being equal) it's a better buy.

But with M6s starting to bump against $1100 used I would give some thought to just getting another -6 unless you find an M4-2/P for under $900. That's what I paid for mine. The M6 is no more battery dependent than the M4-P - neither has a meter in that case, but both still shoot.

At the right price - it functions great!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 11, 2002.

Tim I bought a M4-P 3 years ago as a second to my M6classic. I use it when I need 2 bodies. Its a great camera. As Far as I am concerned its an M6 without meter . Since I only use it when I am also using the M6, it being meterless is not a problem. When I got this camera, it looked terrible cosmetically. Then I tested the shutter speeds with a calumet shutter tester; it was more accurate than my M6. It was, incredibly off by 1/3 of a stop at 1 speed only. The M6 had a couple speeds off by 1/3. Rangefinder was good and interior perfect. If you have a good deal on the camera buy it. You won't be regret it. I agree that you shouldn't assume a CLA. Shoot it and if theres no problem then no CLA. I shoot alot and my 2 leicas have only needed 1 cla in 11 years.

-- John Elder (celder2162@aol.com), April 11, 2002.

My sincere thanks to all who have contributed thus far. The M4-P in question is about US$900 and has had a recent CLA. I know the owner (who is most reputable and knowledgable) and lives about 10kms from my home. Apart from toying with the idea of an M6 (only because of the meter) I'm sorely tempted by the P as you have given it a good wrap! IMO the Leica forum at its best. Cheers

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), April 12, 2002.