Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,856   Posts: 1,583,039   Online: 900
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 68
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    681
    I recommend the three lug version which has a 28mm frame. That's what I use most often.

    I am surprised by this statement. According to the sales brochure the M5 has 35/50/90/135 framelines. There is no control or internal configuration difference between the 2 and 3 lug versions.
    RJ

  2. #32
    Chaplain Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    172
    Hello,

    Be surprised all you want by it. It's the truth.
    Jeff M


    M3, M5, CLE, Minolta XE7, Minolta Maxxum 9, Minolta Maxxum 9000, Nikon F3HP, etc., etc.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,309
    It may have had the Rf replaced. I've seen another camera with the 28 & the fellow who had it was insulted when I suggested it had been serviced.
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    681
    Any M5 with a 28mm frameline has been altered. The original camera only had 35/50/90/135 frames. We don't want forum readers to get bad information.
    RJ

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    692

    I have both

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Jepsen View Post
    Any M5 with a 28mm frameline has been altered. The original camera only had 35/50/90/135 frames. We don't want forum readers to get bad information.
    Yup, DAG installed the 28/90, 50/75, 35/135 frame lines on my 3 lug M5 before I bought it. My other M5 was orginally a 2 lug model. Sherry K. installed all of the 3 lug updates, again before I bought it.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA., U.S.A.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    228

    all the Leica snobs, disapprove of the CLE

    Quote Originally Posted by Venchka View Post
    What are you talking about? How does one go about getting this effect? I can't make Bigfoot or Bubba do that.

    Those who own and use the M5 love it.

    Those who neither own nor use the M5 seem to dislike it.

    Go figure.

    Wayne
    Who left Louisiana and found Texas on August 29, 2005.
    " One can say the same thing about the Minolta CLE,
    the best m camera that Leica never made."

    And it took how many years for Konica to attempt the
    same camera.

    About the same time as the Konica, Leica came out with their version of the same camera.

    So why do all the Leica snobs, disapprove of the CLE,
    when obviously, it was ahead of it's time.

    Don't believe me, go to Steven Gandy's camera quest
    http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm

    Also here's what he has to say about the m5.
    http://www.cameraquest.com/m5.htm

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,529
    The M5 in use is pretty similar to a M4 or M3, apart from size which most people could ignore.

    It canot meter with the early lenses e.g. 21mm SA but that is similarly true of the other metered M cameras, and you also cannot collapse lenses completely. You need to be carefull what you mount on a M5, during camera outings...

    It does not accept the concentric cassettes (IXMOO) and needs cassettes to the DIN standard (for rewind). Some of the later Ms also cannot accept IXMOO - unless you change the baseplate lock.

    But other than that it is an M.

    It was really expensive when it was new, and Leitz caught a cold. All the later M's have a different build standard which annoys lots of people, which is why they use antiques.

    But it is a nice camera for photos...

    Noel

  8. #38
    thomasw_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Langley, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    42
    Hi,

    I had a M5 and the biggest knock against it was the match needle metering in low light. As I have big man hands, the M5 was a nice ergonomic fit.
    "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." W. Durant

    flickr

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bari - East Southern Italy
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    71
    I own a M5; it's a true Leica M camera, the last built in the true old "Wetzlar style". Work as silk, the meter is accurate, sensitive and reliable, if you know the inside defects/features of the CDS cell (memory and laziness) and how to overcome them.
    Forgotten Leica M? Maybe, by the seventhies Leica users, full of absurd prejudices. The much criticized metering system work very well in mine M5, from 1974, without any problems or repairs. The Leica M5 (and also the Leica CL, that i own and that have a similar TTL metering system) work perfectly with my CV 15/4.5VM.
    I was truly and hopelessly bewitched by this camera...
    Ciao.
    Vincenzo

  10. #40
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Seeing as I'd rather not have a meter in the camera my M4 fits the bill for me quite well. No love for the M5 here.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin