Where are the well-used Leica M's?

To preface, I recently sold my very nice 1955 M3. I liked how it felt and worked and the images it could make, but it didn’t get as much use as it should have. One big reason is it was just too nice. I couldn’t bring myself to treat a shiny 70 year old Leica the same as my Nikons, which have sometimes been rode hard and hung up wet. Believing that I shouldn’t be too precious about little chunks of metal, I let it go.

So where are the beat up film M’s? Is everyone today being a little too careful like me? Is the whole point to collect and invest and CLA endlessly such that the marketplace only presents shiny Veblen goods? Did they all become parts cameras or expensive black repaints?

Actual beaters show up now and then, but they are few and far between. Honestly though, that’s kind of what I want. Not an artificially and incorrectly relic’d (oh how I dislike that spelling) poser camera, or expensive brass-under-black-paint faux-tojournalist prop, just a ratty chrome M that otherwise works fine.

As is often the case, I suspect disappointment is in store. So what have you seen, and where?

It seems you have to luck into them. Same with Nikon F black paint.....all too many collectors' closet queens...

Yeah, there you go. That’d do nicely.

Actually, some time back I saw a very rough looking black chrome M4 on Etsy of all places. Price was good. I messed the seller (or, I wondered, image poster?) who responded, but mentioned the “low shutter count”. That kinda put me off since it’s not really a film camera term and impossible to verify even if it was. Too bad, it would’ve been perfect.

Have you ever noticed that all the '67-'69 Camaros you see are Z-28's, Rally Sports or Super Sports?
Where are all the base-model grocery-getters?
Same issue....

AZD said:

Yeah, there you go. That’d do nicely.

Actually, some time back I saw a very rough looking black chrome M4 on Etsy of all places. Price was good. I messed the seller (or, I wondered, image poster?) who responded, but mentioned the “low shutter count”. That kinda put me off since it’s not really a film camera term and impossible to verify even if it was. Too bad, it would’ve been perfect.

Click to expand...

It takes a lot of effort to wear a black chrome M. They're pretty resistant to wear.

AnselMortensen said:

Have you ever noticed that all the '67-'69 Camaros you see are Z-28's, Rally Sports or Super Sports?
Where are all the base-model grocery-getters?
Same issue....

Click to expand...

Yes. Just like all ‘57 Chevies were apparently Bel Airs instead of lowly 150 sedans (which actually look better to me, especially in black. Eeeevil, in a good way).

I suppose that’s the essence of it: collectibility and resale potential vs real world usability likely drives what is commonly available and how it is treated after purchase.

For comparison, I recently bought a Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 on this forum, spotless glass but exterior well used. Perfect. Exactly the kind of equipment I need and appreciate. No worries when it inevitably gets knocked around.

I guess I’ll keep my eyes open for an M that’s already been devalued by enthusiastic picture taking.

GregY said:

It takes a lot of effort to wear a black chrome M. They're pretty resistant to wear.

Click to expand...

True, chrome is quite durable. I could do it though!

AZD said:

Yes. Just like all ‘57 Chevies were apparently Bel Airs instead of lowly 150 sedans (which actually look better to me, especially in black. Eeeevil, in a good way).

I suppose that’s the essence of it: collectibility and resale potential vs real world usability likely drives what is commonly available and how it is treated after purchase.

For comparison, I recently bought a Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 on this forum, spotless glass but exterior well used. Perfect. Exactly the kind of equipment I need and appreciate. No worries when it inevitably gets knocked around.

I guess I’ll keep my eyes open for an M that’s already been devalued by enthusiastic picture taking.


True, chrome is quite durable. I could do it though!

Click to expand...

You got that one? I hesitated.... but i have a 105 to match...

GregY said:

You got that one? I hesitated.... but i have a 105 to match...

Click to expand...

Excellent, I see we have similar tastes in lovingly used equipment.

Yes, I picked up that 35mm a while back because I needed something wider than my 55 f/1.2 but always end up in the dark so faster is better. It required de-yellowing with a UV LED lamp but it cleared up nicely.

The reduced file size does not show all the detail that’s in the scan. 35mm f/1.4 @ 2.0 and 1/15 second, USA Fuji 400. The ghost flames on his pants leg were caused by the clear protective filter, oops.

A genuinely beat-up M would likely have rangefinder problems that would be too expensive to fix. Other than the flaking off skin, a bit of brassing, and maybe a dent or two, there's not much beating up I'd expect to see on a usable M. My M3 looked like crap when I bought it but looks practically new after replacing the skin.

The one in the ebay listing linked above has a fairly nasty dent in the top plate that could have caused some problems in the camera. But other than that, cleaning that camera would make it look almost new. The lens is worth $25....



Also looks like someone had pliers on the viewfinder ring.

... or this M3 belonged to Hans Scissorlashes.

Or this guy:

A couple years ago I got a just CLAed M2 for $1200 on eBay. It has a ding or two and some wear marks but works flawlessly. M2s in decent user shape seem to be generally more available.

If you dont feel comfortable using a pristine M body, buy a pristine and CLA's M body and sandpaper it. Then you at least know that there is a decent camera underneath that rough skin.

brbo said:

... or this M3 belonged to Hans Scissorlashes.

Click to expand...

got a photo?

Perhaps 7 -9 years ago, well before the most recent price spike on M cameras I found this beat up beauty of a Chrome M4. It was listed in a Middle East country that most would avoid purchasing from, but the serial number indicated it was made same week as a BP M4 I have that was made the same week as my birth, and the price was astoundingly cheap, especially compared to what any M4 is going for these days. As you might see, the shutter button chrome has been worn to brass, which I have never seen before, clearly the shooter kept his finger on the button all the time! The rewind lever has also been worn to brass. The film pressure plate has razor marks, most likely from marking the frame to cut while in the dark so as to not waste any frames (frugality). It also came with a M3 baseplate and a curious metal clip that functioned as a sort of 'more foolproof' Rapid Load system, I've never seen that in any other Leica and it may have been a custom solution to a former M3 shooter. Given the location that it came from and the extreme wear I surmised it was a news or photojournalist camera that had seen many years of continuous use. I shot with it for at least 1-2 years until a slight application of gravity required a rangefinder align. I sent it to YYE and he commented that he had never seen such wear on any M4 ever but the internals were good and the shutter was still very much within spec (which I knew from my own use). Align of the RF, a very basic CLA and its still good to go. It is the smoothest of my M4's, another Chrome and the BP and it rivals or bests any m3 or m2 for smoothness, and it makes the two modern MP's a friend has feel very rough. Enjoy.

Christiaan Phleger said:

Perhaps 7 -9 years ago, well before the most recent price spike on M cameras I found this beat up beauty of a Chrome M4. It was listed in a Middle East country that most would avoid purchasing from, but the serial number indicated it was made same week as a BP M4 I have that was made the same week as my birth, and the price was astoundingly cheap, especially compared to what any M4 is going for these days. As you might see, the shutter button chrome has been worn to brass, which I have never seen before, clearly the shooter kept his finger on the button all the time! The rewind lever has also been worn to brass. The film pressure plate has razor marks, most likely from marking the frame to cut while in the dark so as to not waste any frames (frugality). It also came with a M3 baseplate and a curious metal clip that functioned as a sort of 'more foolproof' Rapid Load system, I've never seen that in any other Leica and it may have been a custom solution to a former M3 shooter. Given the location that it came from and the extreme wear I surmised it was a news or photojournalist camera that had seen many years of continuous use. I shot with it for at least 1-2 years until a slight application of gravity required a rangefinder align. I sent it to YYE and he commented that he had never seen such wear on any M4 ever but the internals were good and the shutter was still very much within spec (which I knew from my own use). Align of the RF, a very basic CLA and its still good to go. It is the smoothest of my M4's, another Chrome and the BP and it rivals or bests any m3 or m2 for smoothness, and it makes the two modern MP's a friend has feel very rough. Enjoy.

Click to expand...

I have probably shot more with an M2 and then an M5. Last year I snagged an M4 that Sherry Krauter had just CLAed and man that thing is smooth to use. My problem with it is that it is so clean and unblemished (I got really lucky and did not have to pay a fortune for it) I hate to mess it up. I know that's dumb but I rather put another ding in my M2. I have had the M4 on a short trip from the US to Canada last year and it was a joy to use.

Funny enough I use the more beat M4 more that the other two since the wear is already there, my black paint m4 was near mint when I got it 20 years ago and I shot many many weddings on that and I'm proud of the brassing I put on it.

AZD said:

Excellent, I see we have similar tastes in lovingly used equipment.

Yes, I picked up that 35mm a while back because I needed something wider than my 55 f/1.2 but always end up in the dark so faster is better. It required de-yellowing with a UV LED lamp but it cleared up nicely.

The reduced file size does not show all the detail that’s in the scan. 35mm f/1.4 @ 2.0 and 1/15 second, USA Fuji 400. The ghost flames on his pants leg were caused by the clear protective filter, oops.

View attachment 401640

Click to expand...

That's a stunning shot!

Thank you @miha, though dumb luck plays into these things more than I’d like to admit. The bellows on the fire really lit the place up dramatically. Open the aperture wide, set the shutter slow and hope for the best.

@Christiaan Phleger, your M4 is exactly the sort of thing I’d like to find. Perfect. It would be interesting to know exactly what happened in its previous life. I’m strongly leaning towards an M4 on the next round.

My M3 has a nice dent on top, so it probably qualifies as a beater. The leather is still in good shape. I think it's a '63 model.

As a teenager I had a '72 Nova 302 I got from my uncle who was an equipment mechanic at JFK. The vinyl roof was picked off by monkeys at Great Adventure Safari, there were some minor parking lot dents, the sky blue faded over the years, but under the hood it was purrrfect, and the seatbelts doubled as bottle openers... my M's are like that.

Saganich said:

As a teenager I had a '72 Nova 302 I got from my uncle who was an equipment mechanic at JFK. The vinyl roof was picked off by monkeys at Great Adventure Safari, there were some minor parking lot dents, the sky blue faded over the years, but under the hood it was purrrfect, and the seatbelts doubled as bottle openers... my M's are like that.

Click to expand...

I would never use my Ms as bottle openers ...

AZD said:

To preface, I recently sold my very nice 1955 M3. I liked how it felt and worked and the images it could make, but it didn’t get as much use as it should have. One big reason is it was just too nice. I couldn’t bring myself to treat a shiny 70 year old Leica the same as my Nikons, which have sometimes been rode hard and hung up wet. Believing that I shouldn’t be too precious about little chunks of metal, I let it go.

So where are the beat up film M’s? Is everyone today being a little too careful like me? Is the whole point to collect and invest and CLA endlessly such that the marketplace only presents shiny Veblen goods? Did they all become parts cameras or expensive black repaints?

Actual beaters show up now and then, but they are few and far between. Honestly though, that’s kind of what I want. Not an artificially and incorrectly relic’d (oh how I dislike that spelling) poser camera, or expensive brass-under-black-paint faux-tojournalist prop, just a ratty chrome M that otherwise works fine.

As is often the case, I suspect disappointment is in store. So what have you seen, and where?

Click to expand...

It’s often said that cameras fall into two camps: the “shelf queens” — pristine but unused — and the “well-worn tools of the trade,” with scars to prove their worth. But in reality, that dichotomy misses something. There are at least four quadrants:

1. Well-used and well-maintained — the daily companion, polished, functional, loved.
2. Well-used and beat-up — dented, erratic, perhaps romanticized for the wrong reasons.
3. Pristine and functional — cared for, sparingly used, but always ready.
4. Pristine but non-functional — the true shelf queen, sometimes beautiful, sometimes sad.

Too often we assign moral value to wear, as if brassing equals virtue and mint means vanity. But condition is only one layer — maintenance, intention, and respect matter just as much.

Sometimes the most soulful camera isn’t the ugliest one — it’s the clean, quiet tool someone trusted for 30 years and kept in working order. Not all scars tell meaningful stories. And not all polish is for show.

Your descriptions bring to mind something of an inverse bell curve of pricing. The exceptionally clean and highly abused (with provenance) attract attention and high prices. Ideally the bottom of the curve should include practical users at “reasonable” prices. Leica being Leica, things can be different.

I suppose everyone approaches this differently. A related anecdote which somewhat parallels my thinking on M’s:

Back around 2000 or so I decided it was finally time to get a good acoustic guitar, something nice. It took a couple years to save up, being practically broke most of the time. After looking at all options I identified the Gibson J45 as my preference. Having access to a dealer, a brand-spanking-new J45 arrived direct from Gibson. It was so new the lacquer hadn’t fully cured yet and opening the case smelled as good as it looked. I highly suspect Gibson picked a really good sounding one (various reasons too long to explain) and it was always a bit magical. I had several people ask to buy it, but I was never interested in selling.

Anyway… it was so nice that it spent much of its early existence in the case where it retained its perfect looks. But on a busy day it was too much effort to remove and use. As with cameras my thoughts were that a perfect but unused instrument is a waste. So, it hasn’t been in the case for most of a decade now. It gets used often. It has user wear and a few unfortunate scars. It doesn’t smell like it did. However, with regular use and freedom to breathe it sounds better than ever. It has a distinct personality among similar instruments. One friend told me “it sounds like The Great Depression”, which is as good a description as any.

I suppose that is my philosophy: Damn perfection, just give me something I can use without concern. Only through use is an object allowed to create or become something other than itself as manufactured.

Perhaps the point of divergence is… maybe I was never convinced the M3 was “it” as with the J45, so there was hesitation to allow it to breathe, so to speak. It felt too new, and I couldn’t use it without concern… sold.