Question to Leica M4 users

Jao

Messages
3,935
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
Yes
After years of pondering I am going to buy a Leica. I'd welcome of views from any users of M4, M4-2 or M4 P cameras on the relative merits in use of the different M4 models. From a lens point of view I will be using 35mm and 50mm glass. I have settled on the M4 rather than an M6 in that I don't need a meter in a camera. I always use a hand held meter even with my Nikon and Pentax metered cameras and my budget is £700-1000 for the body. Thoughts and observations welcome from any M4 users out there.
 
Good summary here...

https://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm

The main thing is that the original M4 is more adjustable internally (same construction philosophy as the M3 and M2), while the later ones were made with simpler parts that have to be in tolerance - if they wear, they need replaced, while the adjustable ones can be adjusted back into tolerance. And the adjustable ones can arguably be tuned more finely. Could be a factor when buying an old camera - a CLA should need less replacement parts if it's the more adjustable type of construction.

Don't know why you fancy an M4 in particular, but the M2 has framelines for 35, 50 and 90mm, so might be an option. On the other hand, it has a knob rewind rather than a crank, and the film counter is a rotating disc that you reset manually. The other main difference is film loading is done by removing the take-up spool (but no need to trim the film leader like on Barnack Leicas). I chose an M2 for its all-metal construction and the fact that the 35mm frameline doesn't have a 135mm frameline in the middle. It's also been said that the angled rewind cranks are more at risk of breaking, while the knobs basically don't break. In practice, the supposed cons of the M2 have never been an issue for me - reloading isn't exactly slow, just a bit slower. Just a thought, which may or may not be relevant.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jao
Good summary here...

https://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm

The main thing is that the original M4 is more adjustable internally (same construction philosophy as the M3 and M2), while the later ones were made with simpler parts that have to be in tolerance - if they wear, they need replaced, while the adjustable ones can be adjusted back into tolerance. And the adjustable ones can arguably be tuned more finely. Could be a factor when buying an old camera - a CLA should need less replacement parts if it's the more adjustable type of construction.

Don't know why you fancy an M4 in particular, but the M2 has framelines for 35, 50 and 90mm, so might be an option. On the other hand, it has a knob rewind rather than a crank, and the film counter is a rotating disc that you reset manually. The other main difference is film loading is done by removing the take-up spool (but no need to trim the film leader like on Barnack Leicas). I chose an M2 for its all-metal construction and the fact that the 35mm frameline doesn't have a 135mm frameline in the middle. It's also been said that the angled rewind cranks are more at risk of breaking, while the knobs basically don't break. In practice, the supposed cons of the M2 have never been an issue for me - reloading isn't exactly slow, just a bit slower. Just a thought, which may or may not be relevant.

Thanks Nomad Z, some helpful insights, it is the loading and the self resetting counter that are factors in deciding on an M4. I have used and M6 and in some respects the M4-P is almost a meter less M6.
 
Thanks Nomad Z, some helpful insights, it is the loading and the self resetting counter that are factors in deciding on an M4. I have used and M6 and in some respects the M4-P is almost a meter less M6.

In that case, I would probably be looking for an original M4, primarily on the basis that I reckon the adjustable stuff inside makes it a better long term prospect with regard to servicing. If you read through the stuff on the Cameraquest page, you'll see that the viewfinder is potentially better as well (and continued into M4-2 production for a while). Same finder optics as the M2 (ie, has the condenser), which I've always considered to be excellent (never noticed any ghosting or need to keep my eye aligned with the RF patch). Beyond that, I think it gets down to things like being made in Germany and having the proper Leitz engraving on the top (rather than a stamped logo), and no lettering or red dot on the front.

Meant to say, the M2 was in the running for me for the 35mm framelines - the M3 was originally considered, but dropped immediately when I realised it started at 50mm. The traditional build, all-metal parts, and one frameline per view, then led me to the M2 over later Ms.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jao
In that case, I would probably be looking for an original M4, primarily on the basis that I reckon the adjustable stuff inside makes it a better long term prospect with regard to servicing. If you read through the stuff on the Cameraquest page, you'll see that the viewfinder is potentially better as well (and continued into M4-2 production for a while). Same finder optics as the M2 (ie, has the condenser), which I've always considered to be excellent (never noticed any ghosting or need to keep my eye aligned with the RF patch). Beyond that, I think it gets down to things like being made in Germany and having the proper Leitz engraving on the top (rather than a stamped logo), and no lettering or red dot on the front.

Meant to say, the M2 was in the running for me for the 35mm framelines - the M3 was originally considered, but dropped immediately when I realised it started at 50mm. The traditional build, all-metal parts, and one frameline per view, then led me to the M2 over later Ms.

Thanks again for this, I am leaning towards a straight M4
 
Back
Top