Hi all,
I’m considering buying another Leica M (film) body — probably an M2, M4, or M6 — and I have a fairly straightforward question:
Assuming the same lens, film, and lab/scanning process are used, will these bodies produce identical optical results, or are there meaningful differences in the final images?
I’m not talking about metering convenience or handling (I’m aware the M6 has a built-in meter, etc.), but rather whether factors like viewfinder magnification, rangefinder base length, or mechanical differences can actually lead to variations in sharpness, focus accuracy, or image rendering.
In other words: is the choice between these bodies purely about ergonomics/features, or can it actually affect the look of the images?
Would love to hear from people who’ve shot multiple of these side by side.
Thanks in advance!
I shoot with a IIIf, M2, M4, and M5 (not an M6, sorry). They are all properly maintained/CLAed. I see absolutely no difference in optical outcomes from any of those bodies. The optical performance is determined by the ... uhm ... lenses. They bodies themselves are all just different in use.
The IIIf is the purest legacy Leica experience and I love it for its very small size by comparison. I've never found the shorter base length to be an issue, but I've not shot with anything longer than a 50mm on that camera..
The M2 is - to me - the quintessential M. Mine shoots flawlessly with 21mm (with an aux finder), 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm lenses. The transport is silky smooth, focusing is effortless, and it is built like a tank. The only negative is that it is possible to accidentally move the external frame counter and lose count of actual frames shot. Do that a couple times and you learn to handle the camera accordingly. Mine went to Greece with me this year for several weeks and was with me every single day without missing a single shot.
The M4 is probably the peak of Leica old school Ms with lots of little improvements. It takes the best of the M2/M3 bodies (moving the counter inside the body), adds a rapid film loading spool, and provides an arguably "better" film rewind mechanism. It also adds framelines so everything from 35mm though 135mm is covered. It's a superb machine. My quarrels with it are small (which is why I prefer the M2).
I find the rewind on the M4 annoying and much prefer the knurled knob of the M2/M3. I also may be the only person on the planet that doesn't care much for the M4 rapid load arrangement and much prefer the removable spool in the M2/M3 cameras. Many people have commented on the two part film advance lever on the M4, and have replaced it with an M2 style lever. I don't hate the M4's but I understand why. The M2 lever is - to my touch - a more affirmative film advance. I've not changed mine only because my M4 is just about perfect, was fully serviced by Sherry Krauter last year and I don't want to fiddle with anything other than original intent. But really, these are tiny concerns. The M4 is a simply superb machine.
The M5 is much maligned in my experience mostly by people who've only looked at it or held it, but never shot it seriously. It is NOT a legacy M, it is its own thing. Nothing before- or after was on the same planet. The metering is spot on, the overhanging shutter speed control should be required by law, and the M5's quick load is much simpler to reliably engage (at least for me) than the M4's. Although this camera is slightly larger than a legacy M, those of us with larger hands appreciate it because it fits so nicely in our paws. Note that having a needle matching meter on board with shutter speed displayed does make the viewfinder a bit busier than an M2/3/4 but not obnoxiously so. Anyone considering an M5 should just make sure it isn't one of the serial numbers that had roller transport isues early on. I am told replacement parts for this problem are thin on the ground. I solved this by buying a late model 3-lug 50 Jahre "Jubilee" edition which has been pitch perfect after I had DAG overhaul it.
With cameras after the M5, starting with the M4-2 onward, Leica began using more mass production methods, less brass, more aluminum, and plastic. This is not to say that these cameras are no good. They are Leicas, they are just fine. But in direct comparison, my older Ms feel smoother than, say, the M4-P. This may be because the older cameras had a lot of brass in them that lapped together very nicely over time, I don't know.
If you are looking at M6s note that there are a variety of models that were made over time. The very earliest ones have meters for which parts/repairs for the meter may not be easily available or at all. For this reason, I'd prefer later model M6s if I were in that mode.
ANY of these are great choices. They are Leicas. Which you select has a lot to do with how you shoot.
For ultimate portability, the Barnack bodies cannot be beat. But you're going to be at the mercy of auxiliary finders for everything other than 50mm lenses. If you use a 35mm lens a lot, the M2 is the best deal going. If you prefer the 50mm, the M3 is likely a better choice as it has a legendary finder for that focal length. If you want in-camera framing for 28mm, the M6 is the goto among the cameras you mentioned.
But talk is cheap. Here are a few examples.
Here a shot with the M2 and a 35mm f/2 ASPH Summicron - scan of silver print:
Here's one from the IIIf with a 21mm f/4 Color-Skopar - scan of silver print:
Cannot recall if this was the M4 or the M5, but this was with a 50mm f/2 Summicron - scan of silver print:
