Why was the M5 so vilified?

[parisian]

To my admittedly fading memory the pages of the (then) journals were full of vitriol when this model was announced. Again from memory only, the key objections seemed to revolve around a couple of millimetres on the height of the thing which apparently was necessary for the exposure meter.
Anyone enlighten me?

Sorry found this on Wikipaedia click
just after posting which explains a lot.

[El_Sid]

I was going to say "Because starts in West Bromwich"................... but then I realised you were talking Leica........

I hadn't even realised until you posted that there even was an M5... I always get the impression from the used dealers that the range went straight from the M4 to the M6. Having looked at the short piece on Wikipedia I now realise this is actually down to there not being many about......

Why was it vilified?... Looking at it from a non-fanboy outsiders PoV it rather looks like an extreme incidence of the conservative reaction that seems to accompany any deviation from a rigidly defined 'norm' that seems to exist in the perception of some Leicaphiles......

[parisian]

I think you are right Nigel and again dipping into memory the M4 (replaced by the M5) was resurrected as the M4P to calm those shattered nerves.
Tim will pop in shortly to put us right

[Benchista]

I think the answer is an awful lot more complex than Nigel's suggestion, although up to a point there's something in it. The M5 was the first rangefinder camera with TTL metering, and undoubtedly a number of the more stick-in-the-mud Leica owners didn't like that. However, far more important was the fact that the ergonomics were very different. Not only was the size and shape different from any other M camera, but the carrying strap lugs were on the side of the camera, which certainly didn't suit everyone. Not all lenses were compatible, because of the design of the meter.

And then there was Leitz's approach to selling the thing. They didn't discontinue the M4, so that undermined M5 sales somewhat. Then they introduced the CL, which gave many of the advantages of the M5 in a much smaller, cheaper body. No wonder it was a flop!

Leitz then actually stopped production of rangefinders, only to be forced to produce the M4-2 by customer pressure.

[TimF]

There's not actually a vast difference in size between the M5 and other M series Leicas - it's about 1cm longer, and pretty much the same height. In any event, how would objection to some difference in size explain why the much smaller CL didn't apparently meet the same resistance?


picture from the Leicashop Vienna website.

The Lenses which could not be used were the first version 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit with serials before 2314920, and the 21mm f/3.4 Super Angulon before 2473251 due to the deep rear element which would foul the swinging metering arm. Lenses from these serials were modified so the swinging arm would not come up, so no metering with them. Older lenses could be modified to work safely. Other lens restrictions included the long-discontinued 21mm f/4 SA and any collapsible lenses should not be retracted.

There has been more recently a growth of interest in the M5 - especially in Japan I believe - and prices for ones in good condition are correspondingly high. Probably the principal drawback these days is that the camera was designed in the age of 1.35v mercury cells, so it's necessary to either use short-life Zinc-Air batteries, one of those converters to reduce 1.5v cells to the correct voltage, put up with 1.5v batteries, or have the thing converted to work with the higher voltage.

One Leica Forum enthusiast for the M5 is William Lamb - pic of him using the camera here. He has I think been a user since the camera came out, and is of the opinion that the M5 has the best frame lines for the 50mm lens of any Leica, and co-incidentally the best metering for that focal length.

[Benchista]

There might not be a huge difference, but it feels very different - the ergonomics just feel wrong to me. The CL feels right - different, but well-balanced. Don't get me wrong, I rather like the M5, but I can see why people used to the M way of doing things didn't much care for it's handling - and as we always say, that's one of the most important aspects of any camera.

[parisian]

Thank you gentlemen. The M5 certainly seems to have perhaps bought too many changes to the table at one time. Dyed in the wool users would have found it disturbing but from Leica's point of view I suspect they were aiming at new users who wouldn't have known any different. Long term users (as Leica must know) would simply carry on with their older gear - it does tend to be the one make where the 'upgrades' to the flagship model are not chased blindly by the customers.
They were also being hammered in the market at that time by the big SLR makers and perhaps rushed the introduction to show that they could 'modernise'.
Once more, thanks to all for your input

[TimF]

There might not be a huge difference, but it feels very different - the ergonomics just feel wrong to me. The CL feels right - different, but well-balanced. Don't get me wrong, I rather like the M5, but I can see why people used to the M way of doing things didn't much care for it's handling - and as we always say, that's one of the most important aspects of any camera.

Perhaps. Remembering to keep your finger <u>off</u> the shutter release while metering is the biggest thing! I like mine anywho.

[Fen]

Really interesting reading, thanks for posting folks

[Benchista]

Thank you gentlemen. The M5 certainly seems to have perhaps bought too many changes to the table at one time. Dyed in the wool users would have found it disturbing but from Leica's point of view I suspect they were aiming at new users who wouldn't have known any different. Long term users (as Leica must know) would simply carry on with their older gear - it does tend to be the one make where the 'upgrades' to the flagship model are not chased blindly by the customers.

Not so sure about that. Remember that at that time, an awful lot of PJs were still using Leicas either exclusively (although a decreasing number), or at least heavily. They could be relied on for repeat sales, and they were also vocal in criticism of anything they didn't like. Give them a choice of M4 or M5 - the choice of tried and trusted technology, and 100% standard handling, against metering that insulted their manhood (remember that TTL metering wasn't really trusted at that time by an awful lot of photographers) and handling that wasn't quite there - and there was only likely to be one outcome.

I think the CL was very much aimed at new owners, but the M5 was in a classic squeeze - existing Leica owners largely preferring to stick with the M4, new ones going for the cheaper CL.

They were also being hammered in the market at that time by the big SLR makers and perhaps rushed the introduction to show that they could 'modernise'.
Once more, thanks to all for your input

Yes, that may very well be the case.