Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
Personally, I think the M5 would be a very useful camera for much of what I shoot. I just don't understand why, since they are so "hated", that they cost more than an M2, M3, or M4, which people rave about.
The M5 has been the pariah of the line since it was introduced, and I guess its failure on the market put the company into deep stress. This is really weird, because it is a great camera. It was my entré into the Leica system during the '70's when it was new; a dealer lent me one for a month or so, and I immediately understood what a hungry monster it was. I had to settle for an M4, though, because I got a deal on it, and an M2, both of which I used heavily for editorial work. I'm back to the M5 now, although I use an M2 also.

It has not been my experience that the M5 costs more; seems to me the prices are still lower, quality for quality. My buddy at Glazer's (big camera store in Seattle) confirmed this a couple of months ago when I asked; he's their Leica guy. The prices used to be ridiculously low, but they've come up. I think that more people are beginning to catch on to what a superb camera it is. The objections people have to it seem to center on its weight and shape. True, the other design -- M2, 3, 4, 6, etc. -- is delightful, but I don't mind the more boxy shape. The meter and the superb mechanical shutter system are as good as it gets.

I would suspect that eventually, the M5 WILL cost more, since fewer were made due to its short production life.

If I come into a pile of money, I'll be looking for a second M5 body.