Leica M4 or Leica M4-2?

[foolproof]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

The viewfinder optical change brightened the framelines. However, it also introduced some flare and narrowed the exit pupil of the viewfinder ocular so you have to position your eye more carefully to see the framelines evenly illuminated, which becomes problematic with glasses.

The framelines aren't "better" or "worse" to my eye: the M4-2's simpler frameline setup just makes looking through the viewfinder a cleaner experience to me. Only one frame for 50 and 90mm, a double frame for 35/135. Coupled with the wider exit pupil, it's a more relaxed view.

Thanks! What do you mean by wider exit pupil?

Also, you mention the optical change only came in for the second batch. How would you know 1st from 2nd batch M4-2's

[Godfrey]

I might not be using the correct term, but I mean the area from which you can see the entire projected image formed by the viewfinder is larger.

You can tell which production batch a particular Leica was made in by looking up the serial number in a table. CameraQuest.com has a lot of these tables, but they are available from other sites as well.

[foolproof]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

I might not be using the correct term, but I mean the area from which you can see the entire projected image formed by the viewfinder is larger.

You can tell which production batch a particular Leica was made in by looking up the serial number in a table. CameraQuest.com has a lot of these tables, but they are available from other sites as well.

So you can see more of / around the 35mm framelines on say the M4 compared to later models?

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by foolproof

So you can see more of / around the 35mm framelines on say the M4 compared to later models?

The M4 has .72x magnification finder, 35mm frame lines in the M4 will image at about the same relationship to total viewfinder coverage as all the later viewfinders with .72x magnification (M4-2, M4-P, M6, M6TTL .72x, etc).

The M9 viewfinder is .68x magnification, so 35mm frame lines appear a little smaller in the total viewfinder field of view, that is, you can see a little more around them at the edges.

[foolproof]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

The M4 has .72x magnification finder, 35mm frame lines in the M4 will image at about the same relationship to total viewfinder coverage as all the later viewfinders with .72x magnification (M4-2, M4-P, M6, M6TTL .72x, etc).
.

If the mag of the viewfinder is the same then I still don't quite understand your original sentences on the matter -

''...more eye relief. ...I mean the area from which you can see the entire projected image formed by the viewfinder is larger'' etc

Sorry to be a pain I just don't quite get it

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I've not read the entire thread but short eye relief means you eye has to be up close to the rear lens of the VF. And long means it can be some way back and still work. Glasses, obviously (?), mean you can't get so near the VF and so longer eye relief if needed.

The expression is usually used when talking about binoculars.

Regards, David

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

..
I've not read the entire thread but short eye relief means you eye has to be up close to the rear lens of the VF. And long means it can be some way back and still work. Glasses, obviously (?), mean you can't get so near the VF and so longer eye relief if needed.

David has it right. The older viewfinder design allows me to view more comfortably because it has more eye relief (my eye doesn't need to be so close to the ocular) and larger 'exit pupil' (there's more leeway for my eye to be slightly off the optical center of the viewfinder's optical path and still see the scene and the frame lines clearly). Both of these things work together to make the M4-2 viewfinder more comfortable to work with since I wear glasses.

Magnification and the apparent size of the framelines in the viewfinder field of view are unaffected by these two characteristics of the viewfinder optics, although the eye position does impact the viewfinder field of view somewhat ... as your eye becomes closer to the ocular, you can see closer to the limits of the optics' edge more easily. With glasses, there's a limit to how close I can comfortably jam my eye up to the ocular.

[foolproof]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

David has it right. The older viewfinder design allows me to view more comfortably because it has more eye relief (my eye doesn't need to be so close to the ocular) and larger 'exit pupil' (there's more leeway for my eye to be slightly off the optical center of the viewfinder's optical path and still see the scene and the frame lines clearly). Both of these things work together to make the M4-2 viewfinder more comfortable to work with since I wear glasses.

Magnification and the apparent size of the framelines in the viewfinder field of view are unaffected by these two characteristics of the viewfinder optics, although the eye position does impact the viewfinder field of view somewhat ... as your eye becomes closer to the ocular, you can see closer to the limits of the optics' edge more easily. With glasses, there's a limit to how close I can comfortably jam my eye up to the ocular.

Gotcha ..

[steveyork]

I was underwhelmed with the M4 I had for a year or so. Nice camera, but after all the hoopla I've read over the years, I expected more. Even after a CLA the rangefinder didn't come close to the clarity of a modern M.

I really liked the more accurate framelines. Why can't we get this in a modern M? It prompted me to compare an M7 50mm and 35mm lines to a Leicaflex SL with that focal length of lens attached (93% coverage) and I was startled at the discrepancy. And it's not because of slide film! What does Leica think, we're idiots? Addicts yes, idiots no.

The M4 was a smooth camera. Similar to the several Leicaflex I have from that era.

[StillKicking]

Personally I'd go for a M3 DS or SS or if you want 35mm frame lines the M2.. The M4 is simply overpriced in comparison. Its a great camera and all that but not better than the M3.

[Bingley]

A few years ago, I borrowed an M4 for an afternoon, and was underwhelmed. The vf was no better than Canon 7 I had at the time. So I shrugged off the M4. Last year, I had an opportunity to buy an M4-2 in glorious shape, and I went for it. No regrets. As smooth as my M2, but a shade lighter in weight. A perfect travel camera. I understand that one should avoid the early serial numbered M4-2s, but otherwise they're great shooters.

[S.H.]

I did bring my M8 and my M4 side by side in a mountain trip : the frames in the M8 kept flaring/disappearing in the strong light, not the case with the M4 (I wear glasses). I does not bother me that much because I am used to it, I know where the frames should be.

Older style viewfinders are slightly better as it was already said here: better eye relief and one does not need to align perfectly the eye and the rf patch. But any M still take pictures, and better a good M4-2/P than a trashed M3/M4.

Here is mine :

[heliographer]

I have a nice M4, but I prefer my older, more beat-up M2. I don't know why, exactly.

[matt335]

Originally Posted by Tom A

The M4-2 is a good camera, but some of the earlier ones had problem with "shutter" bounce. If you pick one up today. it most likely has been fixed. The M4 is a classic, but they are all getting on in age. The advantage of the M2/M4-2/M4P and M6 is that the finders can be fixed and the mechanics are the same.
I have found that on the later M4P's and early M6, apart from having a zinc diecast top-plate ( it doesn't dent, it cracks!), the rewind knob can easily be bent out of shape and it is very difficult to straighten it out. On the M4 and the earlier M4P's it was still brass and more malleable than the cast ones.
They are all good "shooting" cameras and after a CLA (clean,lube and adjust) they should last for a couple of more decades.
Most of the chrome M4's went to non-pro's and they usually took some care of them. The black paint M4's are worn and might need expensive service to replace advance gear. Brass is smooth, but it also wears faster than the later steel gears. The "harshest" M I ever used was a pair of MP's in the 60's. The hardened steel gears felt like they were chrushing rocks! The smoothest M i have is a dead heat between a couple of M2's and the latest version, the MP. Both will click and advance like stroking silk!

Thanks Tom, I always hang out for Tom's wise words. I have an M4 coupled with a summaron 35mm. It is a beautiful easy to load/shoot camera.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Tom A

The M4-2 is a good camera, but some of the earlier ones had problem with "shutter" bounce. If you pick one up today. it most likely has been fixed. The M4 is a classic, but they are all getting on in age. The advantage of the M2/M4-2/M4P and M6 is that the finders can be fixed and the mechanics are the same.
..
They are all good "shooting" cameras and after a CLA (clean,lube and adjust) they should last for a couple of more decades. ..

Hi Tom! Been a long time since we spoke, probably since my LUG days a decade ago! :-)

Of the dozen and some Leica Ms I've had over the years, the ones that felt best to me were an M4-P that Sherry Krauter had just done a full CLA on shortly before I bought it and my current M4-2, which was built in the first production batch (I had its viewfinder cleaned and adjusted shortly after I bought it). My M6TTL felt somehow a little crude, the M9 feels more like an appliance (I guess it's the loss of tactile feel from the film wind), the first M4-P I had was a bit rough, the M2 and M3s were nice but they always felt clumsy to me with the film loading, etc etc.

I don't think the M4-2 has ever had a shutter overhaul ... it does need one as when I had the viewfinder taken care of the tech measured the shutter speeds and found that 1/1000 and 1/500 were getting a bit off the mark. Not enough yet to warrant the cost to have the overhaul done for my needs.

In the end, they're just cameras and it's nice that each one has a little bit of a personality to it! They've all made great photographs for me.

enjoy
Godfrey

[venchka]

I have lusted after an M4 since I saw the first photos of the camera in some long forgotten magazine. I was in Germany during 1969. Could have had an M4 body for $160. I was lured away by the "real" camera of the day-a pair of Nikon F bodies. Big mistake.
Fast forward.
I finally bought a Leica. An M5. I don't lust after the M4 near as much any longer.
Sure. It's about the glass. The M5 and it's fabulous meter get the most out of the lenses.

Wayne

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by venchka

I have lusted after an M4 since I saw the first photos ....
I finally bought a Leica. An M5. I don't lust after the M4 near as much any longer. ...

glad you're happy with the M5. My uncle had one and I borrowed it for a time. It felt clumsy and huge to me at the time, compared to the IIF and IIC I was using, but perspectives are everything.

The only camera I ever really 'lusted' for was a Hasselblad Superwide. First saw one in 1971, I finally acquired one in 2002-a mint 903SWC. Loved it: used it for two and a half years. Sold it. I occasionally miss the fantasy, but in the end it was just another camera... :-)

[venchka]

It is all relative. After hoisting one of these,



...everything else is svelte and stealthy by comparison.

Wayne

[Range-rover]

I had a M4 their beautiful camera's I think their made a little better than the M4-2's.
I was talking to Jim Lager one day* about it at Ken Hansen's And he agreed the early
M4-2's had problems till that got them straighten out, plus I felt the rangefinder was not as
clear, someone said above that the rangefinder patch flares out when you don't
have your eye centered in the M6,M4-2, but in the M3 and M4's which I had they where
really clear no flare if you eye moved from side to side and when you focus a lens
with a M4, M3 the pictures seem sharper to me their's more details there, when I
had the M6 sometimes I missed the sharp focus on some shots.

Range

* Years ago

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Range-rover

I had a M4 their beautiful camera's I think their made a little better than the M4-2's.
I was talking to Jim Lager one day* about it at Ken Hansen's And he agreed the early
M4-2's had problems till that got them straighten out, plus I felt the rangefinder was not as
clear, someone said above that the rangefinder patch flares out when you don't
have your eye centered in the M6,M4-2, but in the M3 and M4's which I had they where
really clear no flare if you eye moved from side to side and when you focus a lens
with a M4, M3 the pictures seem sharper to me their's more details there, when I
had the M6 sometimes I missed the sharp focus on some shots.

The M4-2 is the camera that saved Leica from going out of business. The CL had cost them a bundle on warranty and rework (immensely popular, they sold like crazy, but Minolta's QA didn't meet Leica's spec very well). The M5 was a dismal failure on the market, and the R series at that point in time didn't generate enough revenue to keep the doors open. The Ms up to the M4 were manufactured a very old fashioned way, which was becoming increasingly too expensive and too inefficient to manufacture at a salable price.

So they took the M4 design and re-did it to be manufactured in a more modern production line manner. They made the M4-2s in three production runs. The early output from the first run were the ones that had most of the problems. It makes sense that they would because it was a) the first time Leica manufactured a camera on the new line, and b) a greatly redesigned camera with many different and simplified parts compared to the M4. They seemed to get the line sorted out by the middle of the first production run. Mine is from the end of the first production run.

The viewfinder optical assembly through the first run and into about half of the second was directly the original one out of the M4, so they're identical. An in-production change changed the optics as Leica was responding to customer requests that the framelines be brighter. They removed one element from the finder assembly, which had the effect of brightening the framelines at the expense of introducing a bit more flare and tightening up the position your eye had to be in to use it effectively. This later design of the viewfinder optics is what is in all the later models. Mine has the earlier, M4 optical design.

Some of the changes made to the M4-2 to simplify it and make it less costly to manufacture also lend it a bit more durability (like steel gears in the film transport rather than bronze or brass) and a rangefinder assembly that has fewer parts to fit and shim to tolerance. But the differences are all relatively minor. A well taken care of example of any of these cameras is a delight.

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Used this beautiful 'Wetzlar' M4-2 for a while but sold it after I found the difference in brightness of the viewfinder between the M4-2 and my other M's to big (the M4-2 was quite a bit darker):



btw never have used a M4 so didn't vote....

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Ron (Netherlands)

Used this beautiful 'Wetzlar' M4-2 for a while but sold it after I found the difference in brightness of the viewfinder between the M4-2 and my other M's to big (the M4-2 was quite a bit darker):



btw never have used a M4 so didn't vote....

It probably needed a cleaning. They're old cameras now ... maintenance is important. Mine is now just as bright and clear as my M9, but the framelines are a bit dimmer, by design as has been stated already. :-)

G

[maddoc]

That is a nice copy of a "First type" M4-2 (I don`t know if that classification officially exists...), easily to distinguish from the later M4-2 by the old-style (silver) lens-lock release button and the slotted screw. Later type has cross-head screws and red-dot release button.

Originally Posted by Ron (Netherlands)

Used this beautiful 'Wetzlar' M4-2 for a while but sold it after I found the difference in brightness of the viewfinder between the M4-2 and my other M's to big (the M4-2 was quite a bit darker):



btw never have used a M4 so didn't vote....

[philipus]

Originally Posted by Tom A

The M4 is a classic, but they are all getting on in age. The advantage of the M2/M4-2/M4P and M6 is that the finders can be fixed and the mechanics are the same.
(...)
On the M4 and the earlier M4P's it was still brass and more malleable than the cast ones.
(...)
The black paint M4's are worn and might need expensive service to replace advance gear.

Is it not possible to fix the finder of an M4? I thought for instance CRR Luton could service M4 viewfinders.

My BP M4 was very dinged and worn...

Then Ton Scherpenborg in Nijmegen serviced it and managed to beat out all dings. The top plate is now perfectly flat, not a trace of the dings (photos here and here). I couldn't believe the difference when the camera returned.

Following service it is very smooth to operate.

[gsgary]

I have an M4-2 and love it but just picked this up with all paperwork mint