HI, can anyone tell me what is the difference between the M4 and M4-2 and witch one is more expensive on a used market? Thanks!!

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), April 14, 2002

Answers

The M4 was first and the M4-2 was brought back after Leica had stopped making rangefinders for a few years due to poor sales. The M4 goes for more used. Chrome M4's are the less expensive, while the black M4's can cause you to get a small loan. The M4-2 is similar to the M4 with some internal changes due to using less expensive parts. Both have frames from 35-135 while the later M4-P has 28-135 frames just like the M6.

-- chris a williams (LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net), April 14, 2002.

Ah, but let's not forget the most important part: M4's are made in Germany (for the most part; Canadian ones are rare and therefore collector's items) and M4-2's are made in Canada. ;)

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.

The major functional difference is that the M4-2 (like all the later Ms, too) doesn't have a self-timer. As Chris notes, the M4-P is essentially the same as the M4-2, with more framelines. The M4 finder is less prone to flare than the later finders, except that the early M4-2s have the earlier M4 finder. From a practical standpoint, if I wanted something like an M4, I'd buy the cheapest of the three models, whichever found me first. I have an M4-2, myself.

As far as claims that the M4-2 is Leica's low quality model, if you adhere to that line, then the all the M6 models and the M7 are trash, too, because they're essentially updates of the M4-2, not the M4.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

The M4-2 was the first Leica RF with a hot-shoe. Cheers, Pat.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), April 14, 2002.

I'd like to share some info I got from Sherry K on the M4-2. According to her, the fit inside is noticalby poorer on ALL M4-2's. She calles them the "grind and file" cameras. To fit and adjust items, the pieces are filed, or ground down if they don't work right.

Having said that, she just got done with my M4-2, and I'm awaiting its return. (maybe Monday! woohoo)

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), April 14, 2002.

Charles, is grind-and-file necessarily worse than pound-into-place, which was supposedly the way they handled the same problem with the M3? This may be a problem of philosophical elegance rather than actual functionality. I know Sherry does good work, but some of her pronouncements have a bit of the sound of philosophical problems rather than real ones. Which is fine--that's the type of person I want working on my stuff, though it's not a rule I want to apply to my self. :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

it's always the same. suggest that the m4 (and earlier) cameras are better built than the later cameras, and blood pressures go thru the roof. the simple fact is that leica required leitz midland to build the m4-2 with a production cost 35% below the m4 cost. this savings was achieved largely through reduction in the amount of time spent hand adjusting the cameras -- as well as a reduction in quality of the chrome finish, covering, and the rf. in addition, the st was deleted. if you want to pretend that these cost cuts and changes had nothing to do with the ultimate quality of the camera. fine. just make sure you never compare examples side by side.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 16, 2002.