Old 05-29-2017   #41
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,534
Here is a portrait of the friend of mine who owned the black M5 which I used on occasion. The camera was indeed so terrible, awful and ugly that I totally misfocused. Or - could it be that I was a clumsy M5 user without knowing it ? The film was made in England, though.





Leica M5 - Summicron 35mm f/2 V4 - FP4+ - D76 1+1

__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-29-2017   #42
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,006
Highway, I think you focused quite well. What a lovely girl. And those two glasses, four actually! Such pictures you can only get with an M5.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-29-2017   #43
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
 
Flat Twin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 450
I think your focusing is spot on! Exposure isn't bad either... What a clumsy camera!

Simon
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-29-2017   #44
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 44
Posts: 698
unless, of course, if your intended to get a picture of the guy on the foreground instead of the girl and the glasses

Regards

Marcelo
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-29-2017   #45
harvester
Registered User
 
harvester's Avatar
 
harvester is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: melbourne, au
Posts: 76
i find the AF on my M5 to be equally unreliable.
if only i had the 1992 model - perhaps i could send it back for repair under warranty ?


AP
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-29-2017   #46
dreamsandart
Registered User
 
dreamsandart's Avatar
 
dreamsandart is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 517
Can’t remember who is was exactly, some Japan Leica Club if I remember right?, that got them to make the 20 cameras in 1992. I think this may have been the start of the Japanese M5 frenzy that saw the M5 come back to [somewhat] respectability. At least it made used prices jump up!, and made the M5 fashionable here.

I saw 2 consecutive numbered 1992 M5s in chrome on the shelf for sale in an Osaka camera shop years ago. I was tempted, but being a non-collector the thing that put me off was the newer M5 frame-lines (including the meter areas frames) which were much thicker than the original frames I had in other M5 cameras. Wonder if the ‘new’ frame part is a run from that time?

And yes!, the Leica M5 rocks! The best meter, the best finder, the best loading/rewind, the best… but yes, the size and weight… oh well, can’t have it all I guess…
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-29-2017   #47
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Highway, I think you focused quite well. What a lovely girl. And those two glasses, four actually! Such pictures you can only get with an M5.
Nah... Eventually he's going to fess up and admit he shot the picture with a K1000 - that he bought at a thrift store.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-29-2017   #48
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post

Devotees of M5s either were not attuned to "real" Leicas (screw mount and previous Ms) or were hopelessly clumsy -- like the camera.
.
Or, perhaps they found the M5 design to be perfect for their working style. Perhaps they liked the M5. Is that conceivable?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-29-2017   #49
ktmrider
Registered User
 
ktmrider is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: el paso, texas
Age: 64
Posts: 892
What, how can anyone like such a big, heavy, clumsy camera? Oh wait, it has replaced the M2 as my favorite film M.

Have been doing photography on and off since 1966 but hey I guess I don't know what I am doing or what I like no matter what the "expert" says here on this site.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-29-2017   #50
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 65
Posts: 692
Well, compared with my humble Canonet, most any Leica is oversized, heavy, and clunky. That's why the Canonet and other compact RFs I have had were so perfect for travel.

I remember when the M5 came out and all the uproar about its size. It had an ingenious metering system, even if a bit subject to mechanical failure, but the camera always fascinated me.

- Murray
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-29-2017   #51
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 4,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpaniagua View Post
Seems someone played with battery cap for a while

Wonder if they took mercury batteries, since banning of mercury batteries started on 1991 and ended on 1998.

Regards

Marcelo
Are you thinking that the 1992 run of M5s must have been modified to use something other than the PX625 mercury batteries of the earlier M5? That would of course make sense.

Seems to me that the PX625 wasn't as harmful to the environment as CFL light bulbs, for which there is no collection or recycling. People just throw them out. We turned in our used PX625s to the camera store.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #52
John Lawrence
Registered User
 
John Lawrence is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post

Most people that do not like the M5 never used one.
How do you know?

Have you asked them all?

Presumably you have some verifiable data that supports your statement above?

John
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #53
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,298
I would have loved the M5 if my nose was on the left side of my face and not stupidly stuck right between my eyes.
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #54
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 44
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
Are you thinking that the 1992 run of M5s must have been modified to use something other than the PX625 mercury batteries of the earlier M5? That would of course make sense.

Seems to me that the PX625 wasn't as harmful to the environment as CFL light bulbs, for which there is no collection or recycling. People just throw them out. We turned in our used PX625s to the camera store.
Totally agree about the CFL light bulbs. They are being dumped like there is no tomorrow nowadays.

Don't really find the logic in that. Fortunately seems led bulbs are being used more.


Regards

Marcelo
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #55
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lawrence View Post

Have you asked them all?
No. Is that necessary?

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #56
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,393
Erik,
Haters gotta hate.
Even after all these years, the M5 is polarizing. Lots hate it.
Whether or not they have used it is irrelevant, because they've already decided that they hate it.

Some of us love and use it. I have two of them myself.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #57
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
The stupid move that Leitz made was the introduction of the Leica CL. That move killed the company almost, not the introduction of the M5.
While you're asking, be sure to count all those CL users who were attracted by the low price but eventually moved on to proper M models like the M4-2 and M6. Our head bartender Stephen falls into this category I do believe. A case could be made that the CL saved the company, not killed it. The few pros who hadn't already switched to the Nikon F2 and Canon F-1 - would they be enough to keep the M line afloat?
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #58
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 44
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
While you're asking, be sure to count all those CL users who were attracted by the low price but eventually moved on to proper M models like the M4-2 and M6. Our head bartender Stephen falls into this category I do believe. A case could be made that the CL saved the company, not killed it. The few pros who hadn't already switched to the Nikon F2 and Canon F-1 - would they be enough to keep the M line afloat?
umm I think CL or M5 weren't really at fault for Leica's struggling.

Its like when you are at a hamburger stand, and you get offered medium sized fries for $1 and big size for $1.25. You will go for the option that gives you more value. Same with CL and M5, they where options. people that was going to buy a Leica, was going to do so anyway; they went for CL because it was a better value (or so it seemed at the time).


Problem was that Japan SLR were a good value, so it made sense to go for them over Leica.

Regards.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #59
John Lawrence
Registered User
 
John Lawrence is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
No. Is that necessary?

Erik.
I'm just trying to work out how you know that:

'Most people that do not like the M5 never used one'

So, please tell me.

John
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #60
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,393
The failure of the Leicaflex to set the world on fire was what nearly killed Leica. The Nikon F, F2 and Canon F1 of the world had taken over. Leica had been putting all their resources into developing a competing SLR. They just couldn't compete with Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus, etc., in this field.

So, the M4 carried on with ever declining sales. The M5 and CL were an attempt to revive the RF market. CL sales did cannibalize the M5 sales. Very few people would buy both cameras at the same time. They would buy one or the other, and the CL well outsold the M5. Failure of the M5 lead to the decision by Leica to abandon the RF camera altogether.

It was only by the efforts of Leica Canada to keep the rangefinder going, by introducing the "cheaper" M4-2 that the rangefinder continued on at all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #61
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lawrence View Post
So, please tell me.
Most people I have heard about the M5 in a negative way have not worked with the camera, as far as I know. I meant to say that.

For example, I do not believe that Mr. Hicks ever worked with it, I have never seen any pictures of him, let alone I have seen pictures of him made with the M5.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #62
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Lai View Post
The failure of the Leicaflex to set the world on fire was what nearly killed Leica. The Nikon F, F2 and Canon F1 of the world had taken over. Leica had been putting all their resources into developing a competing SLR. They just couldn't compete with Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus, etc., in this field.

So, the M4 carried on with ever declining sales. The M5 and CL were an attempt to revive the RF market. CL sales did cannibalize the M5 sales. Very few people would buy both cameras at the same time. They would buy one or the other, and the CL well outsold the M5. Failure of the M5 lead to the decision by Leica to abandon the RF camera altogether.

It was only by the efforts of Leica Canada to keep the rangefinder going, by introducing the "cheaper" M4-2 that the rangefinder continued on at all.
Yes, this is all true.

Minolta profited more from the CL than Leitz. It was a stupid move of Leitz to market a camera (the CL) that was competitive (but inferior) to the M5.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #63
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,804
I'll never understand folks who think the M5 ergonomics are poor. ???
The shutter dial, wind on, and release button are concentric. How could this possibly be poor ergonomics?
Weight, size.... ok maybe people have a complaint.

One thing is certain. People who don't like the camera seem to have the time to say so again and again.
Is there a more polarizing subject on RFF ?

For what it's worth, the M5 is the only Leica product I currently retain.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #64
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 44
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
I'll never understand folks who think the M5 ergonomics are poor. ???
The shutter dial, wind on, and release button are concentric. How could this possibly be poor ergonomics?
Weight, size.... ok maybe people have a complaint.

One thing is certain. People who don't like the camera seem to have the time to say so again and again.
Is there a more polarizing subject on RFF ?

For what it's worth, the M5 is the only Leica product I currently retain.


Yeah, I guess it mostly boil downs to size. I suppose I'm used to small cameras. My most used SLR are Olympus M's (small) and Rolleiflex sl35e (again, not a big camera). Rangefinders, I mostly use M6/M4P and LTM.


I agree about shutter dial position and size, they are great. Also, OMHO, it has one of the best viewfinders. I really like it much better than the M3.

Not sure why, but yeah, every time M5 comes into a post, it spark the like it-hate it argument

It just prove its a camera that no one can ignore


Regards

Marcelo
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2017   #65
kevin m
Registered User
 
kevin m is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 2,203
Camera size is, very literally, all relative. What often escapes mention is that it's largely binary, too. You either take the camera with you, or you don't. If you feel the camera is too large or cumbersome to carry with you, it makes no difference if it weighs 400 grams or 600 grams, it's sitting at home.

In that sense, my Leica M and my Canon 5D might as well be exactly the same size: Too big to fit in my pocket.

The M5 is a beautiful camera, and I'm sure I'll have one at some point in the future if for no reason other than to satisfy my curiosity.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:56.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.