M4-2 & M4-p

From what I remember reading on Cameraquest, the Canadian made M4 spawned the M4-2, in the mid sixties. The M4-2 was identical to the M4, but without self-timer, and I think it was made in black only. Oddly enough, the M4-2 became something like the standard for photojournalism because of its price. In fact, the "economic" versions of Leica (like the M2, which was the economy version of the M3) have become icons later. In fact, the M2 had framelines for the then recently introduced 35mm Summaron lens, while the M3 had only framelines for 50, 90 and 135mm lenses.

Back to your query... The M4-P was issued in the mid seventies, and it was supposed to be a "professional" camera (hence the P). This body looked exactly like the M4-2 (to me), but probably had more framelines than its predecessor. However, not only was the M4-P very rugged but also, IIRC, it was built to work with a motorwinder. Also, it was issued in black only. I can't remember if it was manufactured in Canada like the M4, or if it was assembled in Soln, instead of Wetzlar.

Hope this helps! :) If not, check out Steve Gandy's website www.cameraquest.com

Have fun!
 
Last edited:
I have an M4-2, purchased new in 1983. The M4-P was also available at the time.

The M4-P has framelines for 28mm and 70mm lenses, which the M4-2 does not have. Other than that, the two are pretty much identical.

I chose not to worry about the two additional framelines, since I was intersted mainly in 35, 50, and 90mm. To this day, those are the only three lneses I have. (I also have SLRs with plenty of additional focal length capability.)
 
dll927 said:
The M4-P has framelines for 28mm and 70mm lenses, which the M4-2 does not have. Other than that, the two are pretty much identical.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't one of these lenses be a 75mm instead of a 70mm? Just wondering...

Ever since I posted my very tentative reply on this thread I've been wondering... why is that these two variants of the M4 receive so much attention? dll927, why did you pick this one instead of, say, the M2? Curiosity, just curiousity... :)
 
Yes it should have said 75mm, not 70. (I don't have that lens!)

Not sure I understand your query about M-2. That was an older model around the time of the original M-3, not so? I was after a new body in 1983 when I bought my M4-2. The store at which I bought it (Frank's Highland Park Camera north of downtown L. A.) wanted $100 more for the M4-P than for the M4-2. I think by then production of the M4-2 had pretty well stopped, but I wasn't interested in the extra framelines, so went ahead and got the M4-2. The body I bought was new at the time, although it might have been sitting in the store a while.

P.S.- Apparently that store long ago went out of business, but at the time it was quite well-known and advertised quite extensively in Pop. Photo.
 
There is something more I might add to the above: what has happened to prices. I have before me my old "Minolta System Handbook" which has a page for recording purchase dates and prices for equipment. Read 'em and weep:

1. Leica M4-2 3-11-83 $800
2. 50mm Summicron f2 3-11-83 470
3. 90mm f2.8 9-06-84 365
4. 35mm Summicron f2 4-01-85 475

As you can see, the whole outfit as purchased at the time(s) cost less than a new M-7 would cost today. Yes, the lenses would still work, but I'm a retired teacher, and I'm afraid I would have a hard time justifying shelling out $2500 for a camera body today.

I still have all of the above, and maybe I could sell them for more than I paid for them, but I'm not interested in that, either. I have enough other cameras around to take care of what I need.
 
dll927 said:
Not sure I understand your query about M-2. That was an older model around the time of the original M-3, not so? I was after a new body in 1983 when I bought my M4-2.
Click to expand...

dll, I was wondering why you had purchased the M4-2 instead of the M2, but from your post I see you were after a new body, not a used one. And in 1983, you would have been hard pressed to find a new M2 body! :)

Didn't these cameras have the same framelines? I think so, but you must know. It seems to me the M4-2 added one more, possibly the 135, to the 35 framelines that came with the M2. I guess I have to go back and re-read Gandy's website.
 
Yeah, prices sure have gone up, but I remember having to really scrape for the $$ to buy a new 35mm Summicron even years ago. July 3, 1967: $164 at Olympic Camera Center in downtown Seattle. Got it new at the same time as a 10-year old M2 body for $150.

FWIW, I had paid $825 for a well-kept 4-yr-old Volvo the year before, which new had a sticker price around $2900. Times have changed, but I still have and use that M2 and 35 Summicron; the Volvo's long gone.

And I'm sorry to hear that Frank's is long gone too. Though I live 2 states north of LA, I've been in that store a couple of times and regularly shopped by mail. They carried a lot of Pentax stuff. Friendly family-run business was my impression, and deserved to succeed.
 
I hate to think of what has gone on with car prices! My first car was a 3-yr.-old '59 Chevy, for which I paid $1,600. In '94 I got a new LeSabre, and paid $26,000. What are they now??

I no longer live in the L. A. area, but I hadn't heard of Frank's for a long time before I moved. It was quite a store. The people who owned it had originally come from Czechoslovakia. I kept wondering what language that was they spoke in there until finally I got up the nerve to ask one time. (I'm a retired Spanish teacher!) I lived in Alhambra for several years, and Frank's wasn't far to get to. Then moved to West Covina, and it was a good bit farther. It's a little strange that a city the size of L. A. doesn't have more in the way of photo stores. Why should NYC have a monopoly? These days I think the main one going is Samy's, and they have three stores - L. A./Fairfax, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara, which is now my closest one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top