Toccata
Member
I have an iiic and had until recently an m9. Going over my files I found I kept almost 70% more shots from the iiic. This was the deciding, but not only, factor that lead to my decision to sell the m9. I planned to pick up the Mono, but have since decided against it and am now looking to just keep to film for my off the clock shooting.
The iiic has been an absolute dream for my photography. It has helped me to reset my style as it imposes a break from the habits I've picked up from doc shooting.
I'm looking to add 35mm back and am now considering an m2 or m4. I don't care for the extraneous framelines of the m6 and don't need the meter.
I've noticed that many prefer the m2 for a wide angle meterless body but I'm not certain as to why.
I tend to be rough with my gear (though I've absolutely babied my barnack!), and am concerned that a good knock will kill the rangefinder assembly of the m2. Not sure if this should be a concern.
Would love to read feedback from folks that have used both or made a similar decision.
Ciao!
The iiic has been an absolute dream for my photography. It has helped me to reset my style as it imposes a break from the habits I've picked up from doc shooting.
I'm looking to add 35mm back and am now considering an m2 or m4. I don't care for the extraneous framelines of the m6 and don't need the meter.
I've noticed that many prefer the m2 for a wide angle meterless body but I'm not certain as to why.
I tend to be rough with my gear (though I've absolutely babied my barnack!), and am concerned that a good knock will kill the rangefinder assembly of the m2. Not sure if this should be a concern.
Would love to read feedback from folks that have used both or made a similar decision.
Ciao!
presspass
filmshooter
I have had an M4 for years and recently acquired an M3 with M2 finder - don't ask why. The major differences are: M4 has the easy load system which truly is, has 135 framelines, and the tilted rewind knob which works well. That makes it quicker to load and quicker to unload. The M2 can be modified to do both - a crank on the rewind knob and either a conversion to the quick load system or the adapters Leica used to make and sell. I can't speak to resetting the frame counter on an M2, since my conversion kept the automatic reset of the M3. Which do I prefer? The M4 is original and nice to use. The M3 conversion doesn't get as much work. I like them both. I would probably choose the M4 unless I could have the quick load conversion done.
BobYIL
Well-known
I have been using multiple M2's, M3's and M4's since decades; they are better than any M you can find -including the latest versions- as long as you do not need built-in metering.
I service my own cameras; M2 and M4 are identical mechanically/optically and quality wise if you ignore some small details as mentioned by other posters, so I would suggest you to buy according to what your wallet tells you, both are optimum choices once you find clean samples. The M4s are generally in better condition as they were the last model of the classical Ms. I might suggest you also to buy a tiny Digisix to keep in your pocket in case you are interested in slide shooting too.
As a last note: I see you made a serious choice after the M9; so you are determined to use the classical M for long years to come, so I would be buying an excellent M4 (for around €800/$1000) and close the book to not need to ponder about film Leicas anymore until someone lends you an M3.
I service my own cameras; M2 and M4 are identical mechanically/optically and quality wise if you ignore some small details as mentioned by other posters, so I would suggest you to buy according to what your wallet tells you, both are optimum choices once you find clean samples. The M4s are generally in better condition as they were the last model of the classical Ms. I might suggest you also to buy a tiny Digisix to keep in your pocket in case you are interested in slide shooting too.
As a last note: I see you made a serious choice after the M9; so you are determined to use the classical M for long years to come, so I would be buying an excellent M4 (for around €800/$1000) and close the book to not need to ponder about film Leicas anymore until someone lends you an M3.
julescasablancas
Well-known
I have both the m4 and the m2. While the m4 loading system is quicker, i still prefer the m2 loading as it is very secure imo. And since you are using the barnack that shouldn't be a problem.
The viewfinder of the m2 has slight blue tint and some might say that shooting color film is therefore better with the m4. But the m2 has that uncluttered frames.
Price wise the m2 is cheaper than te m4. Therefore i suggest that u go with the m2
The viewfinder of the m2 has slight blue tint and some might say that shooting color film is therefore better with the m4. But the m2 has that uncluttered frames.
Price wise the m2 is cheaper than te m4. Therefore i suggest that u go with the m2
clayne
shoot film or die
M4. Classic and no weaknesses.
Toccata
Member
Thanks for all the replys. I hadn't realized that the 135 framelines were superimposed on the 35.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
And, the rewind crank in the M4 is known to snap occasionally. It can be replaced with a stronger crank from the Leicaflex by Don at DAG camera, but chances are it will continue to function for years and fail when you can least use that failure (i.e. Murphy's Law). Also, there might be a small chance on the framecounter getting dirty and clogging up in the M4 (my M3 had this several times, framecounter failed to reset after removing spool) while the framecounter in the M2 is more failsafe and might even be user-servicable.
I have a nice M4 awaiting repair but once it gets CLA'd I will put in a request to block the 135 lines.
Shutterspark
The perpetual new guy.
I think the M2 vs M4 argument is pretty straightforward.
It boils down to 2 of the best built Leicas; the M2 being the most simple "traditional" non-metered M with clean 35/50/90 frames, and the M4 being the most feature packed "traditional" non-metered M with the rapid load, faster rewind and an extra frameline.
I don't consider the M4-2 and M4-P to be traditional Leicas, although they're great cameras in their own right. Leaving the non-rangefinder coupled Ms out of it too.
For me the ideal camera would be the M2R, the best of both worlds for someone who doesn't need the 135 framelines, but I make do with a quick load spool in my early M2.
I guess the appeal of the M2 is in the simplicity, and implicit reliability which can be associated with it. The early models are even more bare-bones, as they don't have a self-timer and the button rewind is quite elegant albeit a little less convenient.
If you plan to have modifications/parts swapped out or added to the M2, then the differences between the two can be almost entirely mitigated.
There's nothing in the M4 that can't be added to the M2 except the internal frame counter. Much easier to obtain an original black paint M4 though.
Oh, and knocking a M2 rangefinder with the original deteriorating balsam is a valid concern.
If it separates it can be fixed with no problems during a CLA by most Leica specialists, but it does add to the cost of the job.
Once fixed it'll be good for many decades, and many M2s have already had the cementing redone.
It boils down to 2 of the best built Leicas; the M2 being the most simple "traditional" non-metered M with clean 35/50/90 frames, and the M4 being the most feature packed "traditional" non-metered M with the rapid load, faster rewind and an extra frameline.
I don't consider the M4-2 and M4-P to be traditional Leicas, although they're great cameras in their own right. Leaving the non-rangefinder coupled Ms out of it too.
For me the ideal camera would be the M2R, the best of both worlds for someone who doesn't need the 135 framelines, but I make do with a quick load spool in my early M2.
I guess the appeal of the M2 is in the simplicity, and implicit reliability which can be associated with it. The early models are even more bare-bones, as they don't have a self-timer and the button rewind is quite elegant albeit a little less convenient.
If you plan to have modifications/parts swapped out or added to the M2, then the differences between the two can be almost entirely mitigated.
There's nothing in the M4 that can't be added to the M2 except the internal frame counter. Much easier to obtain an original black paint M4 though.
Oh, and knocking a M2 rangefinder with the original deteriorating balsam is a valid concern.
If it separates it can be fixed with no problems during a CLA by most Leica specialists, but it does add to the cost of the job.
Once fixed it'll be good for many decades, and many M2s have already had the cementing redone.
mojobebop
Well-known
m4
m4
i've used both. owned both. i much prefer the m4.
tho i shoot w/a 28, i use a viewfinder. i find i love using a rangefinder but
the viewfinder gives me a more real view. i need a diopter. cannot figure out the strength. i usually use nikon.
the extra lines in the rangefinder obviously don't bother me then. i only look to focus on occasion. mostly street shooting.
i prefer the internal exposure frame counter. i also prefer the look of the m4 over the m2.
tho i don't mind the manual rewind of the m2-3, the m4 is quicker.
oh, one more thing. i've used the m2-3-4-6-7.
the m4 loads incredibly quicker. all the other cameras. even the m7 i had a lot of problems.
the film slipping out, & or, misaligned sprockets.
one thing i don't care for, i find w/the m4 people will compliment me a lot.
w/a black m6-7 people paid me no mind. i think it looks less flashy, cheaper to the untrained eye.
m4
i've used both. owned both. i much prefer the m4.
tho i shoot w/a 28, i use a viewfinder. i find i love using a rangefinder but
the viewfinder gives me a more real view. i need a diopter. cannot figure out the strength. i usually use nikon.
the extra lines in the rangefinder obviously don't bother me then. i only look to focus on occasion. mostly street shooting.
i prefer the internal exposure frame counter. i also prefer the look of the m4 over the m2.
tho i don't mind the manual rewind of the m2-3, the m4 is quicker.
oh, one more thing. i've used the m2-3-4-6-7.
the m4 loads incredibly quicker. all the other cameras. even the m7 i had a lot of problems.
the film slipping out, & or, misaligned sprockets.
one thing i don't care for, i find w/the m4 people will compliment me a lot.
w/a black m6-7 people paid me no mind. i think it looks less flashy, cheaper to the untrained eye.
mretina
Well-known
M2 simple and beautiful. amazing 35mm view. To someone shooting barnacks, I would recommend M2, It is almost as bright as shooting barnack + sbloo 35mm external viewfinder and you can focus in it. To someone shooting M9 I would recommend M4. Your choice, then....
Vincent.G
平和、愛、喜&#
They are both good. A user M2 is better value for money. You already get clean 35mm framelines to begin with in a M2 whereas you got to spend extra to get the same viewing experience in a M4 if the 135mm framelines bother you.
I would go for the one that gives me the better RF patch contrast and clarity.
I would go for the one that gives me the better RF patch contrast and clarity.
Shutterspark
The perpetual new guy.
I forgot to mention this earlier, but have you considered a IIIg? Ignore this comment if you wanted to move to M for the bayonet lenses or the better RF accuracy, but I think someone who enjoyed a IIIf would have a lot of fun with a IIIg. Perhaps more than with a M2 or M4 depending on what it was about the IIIf you liked.
jarski
Mentor
more M2's were made, which can explain why its cheaper. think one cannot go wrong with either. I'd concentrate of getting a good condition & price ratio, rather than trying choose the specific model.
clayne
shoot film or die
As far as the M4 goes, the 135 framelines are pretty much not even mentally registered. It's no where near the cluttered frameline setup of other Ms. My general use of it is to perceive only a single set of framelines at any given time.
Toccata
Member
Again, really insightful comments all around! Time for me to make some decisions!
As to the iiig comment-
The iiig was the first camera I thought of when I considered another body. However, it's similar in size and prize to an M and doesn't offer an advantage over the iiic with a 35mm.
As to the iiig comment-
The iiig was the first camera I thought of when I considered another body. However, it's similar in size and prize to an M and doesn't offer an advantage over the iiic with a 35mm.
froyd
Mentor
Agreed. Had to close my eyes and think hard for a few moments to even try to visualize what those 135 frames look like on the M4. I never really notice them since they are pretty subtle.
existrandom
Established
i have no experience with M2, but i can share a few notes on using M4:
the first thing that broke on my M4 was the rewind crank, i dropped the camera from about 1-1.2m above ground, and it needed a replacement (i don't know whether the older knob rewind would survive such impact though)
after 7 years of ownership, i still ocassionally misload film... it could be frustrating esp. in occasions where you want to load it fast like it is designed for
the 135 frameline can come handy as a visual aid to align the pictures' horizontals/ verticals; the frameline is not at all distracting
cheers
the first thing that broke on my M4 was the rewind crank, i dropped the camera from about 1-1.2m above ground, and it needed a replacement (i don't know whether the older knob rewind would survive such impact though)
after 7 years of ownership, i still ocassionally misload film... it could be frustrating esp. in occasions where you want to load it fast like it is designed for
the 135 frameline can come handy as a visual aid to align the pictures' horizontals/ verticals; the frameline is not at all distracting
cheers
sanmich
Mentor
try folding the tip of the film.
