Leica M-A vs M2/3

[Huss]

Steel is stronger, but brass on steel is smoother, even unlubricated.

I know. I already mentioned that.

 

[Craig]

Steel is stronger, but brass on steel is smoother, even unlubricated.

It would depend on the alloys of each. "Steel" and "brass" are generic names for a whole family of alloys, it's impossible to ascribe specific properties to such a broad range of alloys.

 

[eli griggs]

It would depend on the alloys of each. "Steel" and "brass" are generic names for a whole family of alloys, it's impossible to ascribe specific properties to such a broad range of alloys.

Cheers!

I know all bronze is brass and that there are many formulas out there but, general tool steel works, as far as I know and a bronze or brass that works should no be a rare thing to find, given how often this pairing is used, even today.

IMO.

 

[Oldwino]

I’d still say the M4 is the pinnacle of the non-metered Ms. The areas that they skimped on - plastic infill of the frame line lever or self timer - are pretty minor, and the improvements in usability, particularly the rewind, are beneficial. And the VF is pretty damn perfect.

 

[beemermark]

As a long time Leica user (40+ years) I'd like to rebuff some of the comments made. I've owned the M1, M2, M3, M4, M4-2, M6, and M7. Buying an selling over the years I've had numerous examples of everything except the M7. The Leica M2, M3, and M4 are basically the same camera internally and only differ on the VF, wind lever, and other non-important parts. The cameras were hand assembled to a point not because Leica didn't understand mass production but because everything was adjustable. The idea being that a camera, like a mechanical watch, should have adjustments. Starting with the M4-2 (and Leitz was facing serious financial difficulties as the world market went to SLR cameras) they changed the VF, went to steel gears, zinc top, the use of plastics in things like the flash sockets, etc. Brass is a fantastic material for gears, it is in a sense self oiling. It absorbs oil to a degree, is incredibly strong, and gives that silky smooth feeling because the gears slide over each other. Steel is stronger but the strength isn't needed. Producing steel gears is more of a stamping and clean up operation while brass gears have to be machined on a lathe with a lot of material loss. So steel offers no advantage over brass for the application but is cheaper to use. The downside to the M3 and M2 is the knob rewind. No one shoots film anymore for sports or other conditions where you have to change film quickly but trying to rewind film with and M2 or M3 is a PIA and very time consuming. I used to shoot basketball games with an M2. Thus while the M2 and M3 look really cool, in use they leave something to be desired. I noticed when Leica brought out the MP and immediately marketed a cool little lever to mount on the rewind know to rewind film. So an M3 is great if you only shoot 50mm, based on the price of 90mm lenses I don't think many people shoot with that lens. The M2 is a great little camera, especially if you get a late one with the VF selector and self timer, but you still have that rewind knob. So the M4 has it all, same incredible build, 28, 35, 50 and 90 mm VF. And the best meter ever built as an add on to camera - the MR-4.

Now on the M4-2 (and I've made my opinion known on numerous posts) it was a piece of crap. I bought a new one, went back for warranty twice, then to Sherry K, and then I sold it. 40 years forward I think Leica fixed a lot of the issues while the camera was still in production so today the existing ones are probably working well. But crappy VF that flares badly, steel gears, zinc top. Not that those things make it bad camera but compared to the M2. M3, and M4 and given the fact they sell for the same price why would anyone buy it? 20 years people would but the M4-2 because it was a whole lot cheaper than the M2 and M3, but not today. I never owned an M4-2 but they seem nice cameras with a crappy VF that flares badly, steel gears, zinc top but all the M4-2 woes worked out.

So I tried the M5 and if you shoot the M5 and the SL (or SL2) it's tough to tell the difference so you go with the SLR. Then the M6 came out and I rushed to trade in my beat up m4 for a new M6. First thing I noticed was the VF flared even worse than the M4-2 I had owned. But it had a meter- a poorly thought out fiddly meter (or at least to me). I was used to my MR-4 that was super quick to take a ready, set the aperture, and trip the shutter. Not a lot of this had to do with user familiarity but the M6 used a similar meter that my Nikon F2 meter head and I had never gotten used to that, So lets see - crappy VF that flares badly, steel gears, zinc top, and a meter that takes seconds to use in a camera designed to a quick action point and shoot camera. OK but it has a meter and you need a meter and your willing to pay 2x or more more over a M2, M3 or M4? What Kool-AId are people drinking?

So when the M7 came out I bought a new one almost immediately. Mostly because of the AE feature, This because I believe the Leica (or any RF) is for quick action, spur of the moment shots. After 20 years I still love it. Still own my last and nicest M4.

My 2 cents

 

[TomR55]

As a long time Leica user (40+ years) I'd like to rebuff some of the comments made. I've owned the M1, M2, M3, M4, M4-2, M6, and M7. Buying an selling over the years I've had numerous examples of everything except the M7. The Leica M2, M3, and M4 are basically the same camera internally and only differ on the VF, wind lever, and other non-important parts. The cameras were hand assembled to a point not because Leica didn't understand mass production but because everything was adjustable. The idea being that a camera, like a mechanical watch, should have adjustments. Starting with the M4-2 (and Leitz was facing serious financial difficulties as the world market went to SLR cameras) they changed the VF, went to steel gears, zinc top, the use of plastics in things like the flash sockets, etc. Brass is a fantastic material for gears, it is in a sense self oiling. It absorbs oil to a degree, is incredibly strong, and gives that silky smooth feeling because the gears slide over each other. Steel is stronger but the strength isn't needed. Producing steel gears is more of a stamping and clean up operation while brass gears have to be machined on a lathe with a lot of material loss. So steel offers no advantage over brass for the application but is cheaper to use. The downside to the M3 and M2 is the knob rewind. No one shoots film anymore for sports or other conditions where you have to change film quickly but trying to rewind film with and M2 or M3 is a PIA and very time consuming. I used to shoot basketball games with an M2. Thus while the M2 and M3 look really cool, in use they leave something to be desired. I noticed when Leica brought out the MP and immediately marketed a cool little lever to mount on the rewind know to rewind film. So an M3 is great if you only shoot 50mm, based on the price of 90mm lenses I don't think many people shoot with that lens. The M2 is a great little camera, especially if you get a late one with the VF selector and self timer, but you still have that rewind knob. So the M4 has it all, same incredible build, 28, 35, 50 and 90 mm VF. And the best meter ever built as an add on to camera - the MR-4.

Now on the M4-2 (and I've made my opinion known on numerous posts) it was a piece of crap. I bought a new one, went back for warranty twice, then to Sherry K, and then I sold it. 40 years forward I think Leica fixed a lot of the issues while the camera was still in production so today the existing ones are probably working well. But crappy VF that flares badly, steel gears, zinc top. Not that those things make it bad camera but compared to the M2. M3, and M4 and given the fact they sell for the same price why would anyone buy it? 20 years people would but the M4-2 because it was a whole lot cheaper than the M2 and M3, but not today. I never owned an M4-2 but they seem nice cameras with a crappy VF that flares badly, steel gears, zinc top but all the M4-2 woes worked out.

So I tried the M5 and if you shoot the M5 and the SL (or SL2) it's tough to tell the difference so you go with the SLR. Then the M6 came out and I rushed to trade in my beat up m4 for a new M6. First thing I noticed was the VF flared even worse than the M4-2 I had owned. But it had a meter- a poorly thought out fiddly meter (or at least to me). I was used to my MR-4 that was super quick to take a ready, set the aperture, and trip the shutter. Not a lot of this had to do with user familiarity but the M6 used a similar meter that my Nikon F2 meter head and I had never gotten used to that, So lets see - crappy VF that flares badly, steel gears, zinc top, and a meter that takes seconds to use in a camera designed to a quick action point and shoot camera. OK but it has a meter and you need a meter and your willing to pay 2x or more more over a M2, M3 or M4? What Kool-AId are people drinking?

So when the M7 came out I bought a new one almost immediately. Mostly because of the AE feature, This because I believe the Leica (or any RF) is for quick action, spur of the moment shots. After 20 years I still love it. Still own my last and nicest M4.

My 2 cents

I own two M4-P and one M4 cameras. I use these several times a week--preferring the M4-P when I need flash, and/or the 28mm finder, and the M4 for anything else. I know next to nothing about machining and metals, but I have a slightly related question: Given the same usage, does the M4P allow for a longer period between CLA's because of its components?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I own two M4-P and one M4 cameras. I use these several times a week--preferring the M4-P when I need flash, and/or the 28mm finder, and the M4 for anything else. I know next to nothing about machining and metals, but I have a slightly related question: Given the same usage, does the M4P allow for a longer period between CLA's because of its components?

For any camera a CLA is needed when it is showing problems. Buy and shoot more film and enjoy.

 

[TomR55]

For any camera a CLA is needed when it is showing problems. Buy and shoot more film and enjoy.

Words of wisdom!

 

[dave olson]

I've never shot an M-A so I can't give a comparison to an M2 or M4. I can tell you my experiences with both my M2 and M4-P. My M2 was one of the limited military run that Leica did for the US Army. The big change was faster loading then the M3 or other M2's. It was CLA'd before I bought it, it is a wonderful image maker. The M4-P, the third version of the M4 is a solid, well crafted machine. The only feature it does not have is a built-in light meter. You can preview all six lenses. The M2 was handmade, like the M3. I'm not worried about it being "old" for parts.