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.
Be surprised all you want by it. It's the truth.
M3, M5, CLE, Minolta XE7, Minolta Maxxum 9, Minolta Maxxum 9000, Nikon F3HP, etc., etc.
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.
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.
I have both
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.
Originally Posted by Richard Jepsen
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
all the Leica snobs, disapprove of the CLE
" One can say the same thing about the Minolta CLE,
Originally Posted by Venchka
the best m camera that Leica never made."
And it took how many years for Konica to attempt the
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
Also here's what he has to say about the m5.
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...
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
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...
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.