The Perfect Leica

[UPDATE: Camera is sold; lens is available at $3,100.]

Want John Sandford's Leica?

I'm selling this Leica M7 and 35mm Summilux ASPH. for our friend John Camp, who writes thriller novels under the name John Sandford. He's a superstar author, whose books can be seen at virtually any airport and most supermarkets. I could live for the rest of my life on one of his advances. Not that I'm jealous. (Okay, I'm jealous.)

I would argue that this is the perfect Leica.

Of all. Of every Leica ever made.

The price is $4,800, which might seem high until you realize that the finder is the .58X magnification type that's perfect for the 35mm lens...the 35mm lens being the perfect focal length for a Leica M (and preferred by more Leica RF shooters than a 50mm, the only other close contender).

This camera, while lacking the patina of brand new, has absolutely no issues and no blemishes that you can see with the naked eye. It's in essentially perfect condition as long as you're a user who's willing to actually utilize the extraordinary physical robustness you're paying for and not an anal-retentive collector who examines every camera with a magnifying glass and white cotton gloves. I mean, to each his own, but film Leicas are built for wars, not for glass cases. It's why they got famous in the first place. Why not use the ruggedness you've paid for? Just try to use it up; go ahead, make its day.

Here's why this one's the perfect Leica:

First, if you're going to have a Leica, you want an M Leica. The M Leica is to the manner born. I know, I know, Leica is a company, and companies make a range of products, and yadda yadda yadda. I'm not saying anything against your favorite Leica product, so calm down. But the M Leica is the core of the legend, full stop. Can't be argued, really.

Second, the film M's are best M's. I don't need to start an argument: the current digital "M" is a fine camera that gives excellent results...but the M was designed for film; it was a film camera for 53 years. Everything about it is right for film. The digital M is a replica, in my opinion...it's a digital camera specifically made to harken back to the form factor of a camera designed for film, like a replica old-fashioned car or a modern house made to look Victorian. Am I being controversial? If you want a digital M I have no quarrel with you at all. But if I wanted a digital Leica I'd personally prefer the S, which was designed to be digital just as intelligently as the M3 was designed to be a film camera back in 1953.

Now that we've established that (ignore that noise on the horizon...it's not a noisy freeway, it's the distant howling of outraged Leicaphiles  :-), why is the M7 and 35mm Summilux perfect as a Leica kit?

Because to a user, the M7's AE option adds a crucial feature that makes the camera better. And that trumps all the fastidious notions of classicism that might otherwise make me prefer the best-built Leica, the M4. For those who claim that the M isn't an AE camera, well, it wasn't a metered camera either until the M6 came along, and the M6 was by far the most popular Leica of the part of the 20th century that came after the SLR took over. That is, post-1962 more or less.

Everything about this kit is right for a user. Perfect lens for a Leica. Perfect finder for that lens. The lens is fast and shows every quality in pictures that made Leica lenses renowned. The focusing tab is in just the right position and has just the right amount of throw. It has the larger shutter-speed dial that can be changed with one finger. The aperture changes easily with one thumb. It has the right rewind knob (not the slower M3 type). It has the AE you will want if you actually take lots of pictures. And it's built ten times as well as a brick sh*thouse, with the shutter than won't quit and just the right feel to everything, from the buttery advance lever to the proper "snick" on exposure to the absolute ideal damping of the focusing helical.

Perfect.

There are Leicas that are more fun (a IIIg with a collapsible lens, for instance); there are Leicas that are prettier; there are Leicas that make digital files. But if you want to get right to the heart of what made Leica Leica in the first place, and have a camera to grow old with and expose 200,000 photos with and then leave to your child, this is now and forever shall be "the best user."

(All just my opinion of course! And please bear in mind that our Comment Guidelines do not allow personal insults. :-)

And it's fun to own a camera with provenance. Did I tell you I owned Jack Lemmon's M6 once? True story.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Marek Fogiel: "You need to remember that the M7 at a certain point upgraded the VF to the MP style, and this modification alone is worth about 500USD. Apparently it happened around a 3.100.000 serial number. A plain 0.72x M7 in good conditions is changing hands around 1.500 USD nowadays, but if you add the 0.58 VF and the upgraded VF style (if this copy has one), this price could look like a bargain. (I won't be buying, because I have the exact same camera already, and I can confirm it is great)."

Mike replies: This camera is 2,943,xxx.

Randy: "Best info is that the MP finder was installed on M7's from: #2,885,000. Between 2,85x,xxx and 2,88x,xxx there could be some that had it, but it was probably an upgrade."

Dan: "Did Virgil Flowers use it to illustrate some of his fishing articles? Did Lucas Davenport beat a suspect with it? Either will make it worth more."

Ken Tanaka: "You would argue that this is the perfect Leica. And as an owner of the same model M7 (0.58 finder) and an MP ('modern' version) I would agree, Mike, for most* of the reasons you cite! Although I've no plans to ever again shoot film on a regular, or even a frequent, basis, these two cameras will be mine for life. 'Cuz when I do want to shoot-like-it's-1980-again I'm going to first grab that M7...and it had better be at the ready! Your pricing is very fair for this kit!—

"*Plus one somewhat sentimental reason. My M7 was the first Leica I had ever even touched. The sharpness and clarity of the very first frame I ever shot with it simply took my breath away. Darn, it made me look good! In fact a large print of that same frame, and one other from that same first roll, hangs in the lobby of a large law firm's offices. The first roll paid for the camera and lens! What's not to love about a camera that can do that?!"

Hugh Smith: "My favorite Leica was a IIIf red dial with an ƒ/3.5 collapsible Elmar. It was so sweet and tiny. Even after I acquired an M2 (which I consider superior to the M3) I still have that IIIf and still take it out and stroke it now and again, even if I don't turn the film winder. Will I ever use it again? Doubtful. But I feel like Robert Capa every time I pick it up. Just my two pesos, amigo."

Comments

[Marek Fogiel]

You need to remember, that the M7 at a certain point upgraded the VF to the MP style, and this modification alone is worth about 500USD. Apparently it happened around a 3.100.000 serial number. A plain 0.72x M7 in good conditions is changing hands around 1.500 USD nowadays, but if you add the 0.58 VF AND the upgraded VF style (if this copy has one), this price could look like a bargain. ( I won't be buying, because I have the exact same camera already, and I can confirm it is great).

[JimF]

I don't have $4800 to spend but I suddenly think I need this camera. Will you write my eBay item descriptions for me?

[Randy]

Best info is that the MP finder was installed on M7's from: # 2885000. Between 285xxxx & 288xxxx there could be some that had it, but probably an upgrade.

[Bruce Mc]

To the manor born, not to the manner born. I'm guessing that's an error the computer made, not you.

[Roger Botting]

Oh, how can you overlook the most unloved Leica of them all, the M5?
Big, bulky, with its inability to use some lens. With the semaphore meter cell flipping in and out?
But it is a Leica, built like a Leica, rather like the Leica's big not so bright second string guard used to sitting on the bench type of Leica.
Probably the one to appreciate most for the collectors.

[dierk]

dear Mike,
this has been one of my camera dreams long time ago.

"and have a camera to grow old with and expose 200,000 photos with and then leave to your child, this is now and forever shall be "the best user."

I thought like this 20 or 30 years ago - today I have a problem of getting the film developed - what will your children do with this camera in 20 years from now?

dierk

[Ranjit Grover]

Mike,
This is the very best sales pitch I have ever heard or seen or read.
Did you over do that a bit? Nope, not a bit. Just perfect. But I am thankful to you for not claiming that camera to be the best camera. Only just the best Leica.Thank you for that.

[Dan]

Did Virgil Flowers use it to illustrate some of his fishing articles?
Did Lucas Davenport beat a suspect with it?
Either will make it worth more.

[Fazal Majid]

Feh. The perfect film Leica is a MP with the 0.85x magnification, suitable for 50mm lenses. 0.58 or even 0.72 are not accurate enough for a 90mm lens. Even better would be a M3 with the 1.0 magnification.

I don't understand why Leica hasn't made alternative magnifications an option on the M240.

[Maggie Osterberg]

All of your points are valid Mike, but really, the perfect Leica is the one you have in your hand.

Says the woman who wants to buy the M7.

[Tony Rowlett]

Around the time that the M7 came out I wrote a quick summary of it on photo.net (http://photo.net/equipment/leica/m7/) where I mentioned that it would likely be the best loved Leica M to date, but I got a bit of disagreement from the audience. But I did really enjoy the camera for the couple weeks that I had it.

[ZZPhoto]

Now you are just sounding like a Steve Huff wannabe.

[Dennis]

Boring.

[Dennis]

Ok, not boring, more like tedious.

[Jim Simmons]

Celebrity owned gear is kind of fun, isn't it? I once owned a 90mm Summicron R and 180mm Elmar R that had been used by High Times magazine's "grow editor" Mel Frank to travel the world - Afghanistan, Hawaii, Lebanon, Northern California - photographing the techniques used to grow the world's best marijuana and make the world's best hash, published in some of the first books and magazines to show others how to grow your own. The lens optics were impeccably clean, but the body exteriors had clearly done some 3rd world living. There was something cool about shooting with these lenses and imagining the sights they'd seen.

[Godfrey]

My Leica M-P typ 240 is offended by your dissing it..

The M7 was released after I'd stopped looking at new film cameras. But of the things you love about it, the .58x viewfinder isn't my favorite. I prefer .72x as a fast 50mm lens is too hard to focus accurately with that small a focusing patch. I use 50mm just as often as 35mm, and I can see well enough for both with the .72x.

My "best film Leica M" choice differs because when I shoot film now I'm usually looking for a more minimalistic experience, meterless works well for me. I go with the M4-2 for its simplicity and the addition of a hotshoe flash terminal. But these nuances are all highly personal and subjective.

As someone else said, the best Leica is the one in your hand when you're shooting. :-)

[Richard Man]

The Leica M7 is my first Leica. It started a love affair.

It has a lovely shutter sound. Load a roll of CineStill T800 and don't look back, or Tri-X....

[Juan Flores]

Metering actually started with the M5, not the M6, and in use the M5's meter is arguably preferable to that of the M7. Also, the M5 was the last M to be hand-assembled using the adjust and fit procedure, and many users and repairers (Sherry Krauter among them) rate it as the pinnacle of the M bodies in terms of construction quality, ahead of the (wonderful) M4. There were a number of very significant improvements to handling as well. It's hardly perfect, but having used it, when I pick up any other M I find myself thinking "If only it had the M5's XXXXX", so that disqualifies all the others from being perfect as well!

[David Evans]

Synchronicity! I was just about to pick up one of John's Lucas Davenport novels - possibly my favorite crime series ever - when I clicked your site and saw his name.
I would love to own that camera, but I'm hooked on digital now. Possibly because I was never very good at darkroom work.

[hugh crawford]

"To the manor born, not to the manner born."
Nope, to the manner born is correct.

HORATIO: Is it a custom?

HAMLET: Ay, marry, is't:
But to my mind, though I am native here
And to the manner born, it is a custom
More honour'd in the breach than the
observance.

However I'd rather have an M2 for wide angle photography. So much simpler.

[Pak-Ming Wan]

I'm going to dissent here, I think the digital M bretheren are better than their film versions (at least M9 and after). I used an M6 non-ttl for 6 years or so, and now an M9 for 2 years.

On the body, the digital M allows you to shoot more freely. You don't run out of film. You don't have to process film. It promotes more experimentation. The only advantage of the film M is its slightly smaller size and quieter shutter.

On the lens, I think the 35/2 is a better lens, the lighter weight making up for the extra stop. To be honest, I haven't used the 35/1,4 on a long term basis, but the cron is pretty much perfect.

Sure I loved my film M, but I really love my digital M. Sure it isn't as perfect a digital camera (especially compared with the Japanese with their superior electronics), but it is the better M. Not perfect, but better.

Pak

[Steve]

Well, if I’m to adorn any camera with a subjective superlative, it would be my M2-R with 50mm DR Summicron. Acquisition of this combination effectively excised all desire for any other camera, except maybe one or two additional M2/50 DR sets…never hurts to have perfection backed up by perfection.

[HBernstein]

Oh my gosh....a fellah can dream, can't he?

[Chai]

Bruce, it is 'to the manner born'.

To the manor born is an old BBC comedy show.

[Larry]

( to the manor born )

[Shaun]

I have been thinking of a film Leica, because, with the blessing, I'll be heading to Antarctica with the NSF in October for 6 weeks of photography. Yes, I'll be bringing my digital camera gear, but Antarctica and film seem to go together. B&W film. Maybe its the idea of Herbert Ponting and Frank Hurley man hauling sledges of camera gear around over a century ago that makes me think this. Or the incredible images they made with that gear in those harsh conditions. The other thing is the irrational thought (knock on wood) that my digital gear might fail in that same environment. What do I do then? I pull out a fully mechanical film camera to save the day! If I had the cash available I would put down for this camera & lens toot sweet.

[Steve Jacob]

No thanks ;-)

[Rob L.]

I love my M6, but...heck, I was lucky enough to get my hands on it, of course it's my favorite!:) I have a IIIC my wife got for me one christmas - she even convinced the camera shop guys to LIE to me about the buyer. (And yes, I have the best wife in the world)

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Leica/Leica-M3/Leica-MP/MP-chrome-058x/index.htm

Has a good example of the difference in finders. Can't find the page Leica used to have showing the differences, alas.

[Michael]

Duh, batteries anyone?

[MartinP]

Shaun suggested that the Leica M7 is fully mechanical and electronics independent, but it isn't -- no battery, no workee... Just to correct the slight error. ;o)

[Andrew Lamb]

Capa used a Contax and was holding one when he was killed.

M3 is my personal fave Leica, FWIW.

[Richard Man]

I bought my M7 12 years ago.

2005, I bought an Epson R-D1, then sold it and bought an M8, then sold that and bought an M9.

M7 is better in every way except that you don't get the immediate feedback, or colors above ISO 1250. Diafine and Tri-X gives convincing B&W up to 1600.

So if I am shooting where OTHER people expect to see the shots, the M9 comes out. If it is for me, then it's the M7, the XPan, the Hassy, and the 4x5.

[Mark Sampson]

This begs the question- why is Mr. Camp selling 'the perfect Leica'?
He can't possibly need the money and it doesn't take up much space.

[Bill Wheeler]

Say, I just got hold of a F2 photimic. A camera alone might, or might not, make a difference, but how you feel about using a particular camera makes a HUGE difference. I have already taken a dozen brilliant pictures with the camera, and I've only shot a short-exposure follow! Who cares if a camera buddy thinks it's clunky. Bill

[Maggie Osterberg]

OK, THIS is the "perfect Leica" for several reasons-

1. It never needs a battery
2. The Entire rig cost $670.00US
3. It's MINE!

[chris b.]

i'm going to go ahead and respond to this more seriously than i should: nope, it isn't the perfect m. the perfect expression of the m doesn't exist; it would have to be an mp .58 with the modern shutter speed dial, which they do not make, and your choice of rewind cranks (a la carte, baby). but the closest runner-up is the m6ttl in .58, which i am fortunate enough to have. (another reason i shouldn't be writing this: it can only drive up the price of replacement copies, which currently sit at a downright reasonable level.) the m6ttl .58 has some of the same benefits you extol for the m7, only it also *actually* has the benefit of being as rugged and reliable as an m should be. the m7's are so notorious for breaking down, even leica reps have been caught advising pros to buy twice their usual number of bodies. and that doesn't count the reliance on batteries for the shutter. an all-mechanical m has to be the best m, and surely the only sort one should take on an expedition to antarctica or the like (though it should be prepped before you go with the right lubricants). as for aperture priority ae, i just don't see the point. if you are inclined to take control of your photos--which you need to do if you want to shoot well with any m--then take control already.
of course, i actually like the digital options quite well. my m9 gave me many excellent results, far beyond what most people think it should be capable of, despite its less than stellar reliability (lockups cost me some good shots, too). but then again it did get dragged around the globe unceremoniously for years and still works fine to this day. but the m240 finally brings the virtues of shooting with an m design--which are definitely not specific to film--to digital without sacrificing reliability. the new monochrom based on the mp240 should be the best m yet made. wish i could afford one or two of them, with one each of the three current 35mm lenses... lovely choices.

[Bill Wheeler]

I'm telling you, Mike, the best film Leica is a Nikon. Ok, ok: enough.

[Pedro A. Brito]

Ken Tanaka:"The first roll paid for the camera and lens! What's not to love about a camera that can do that?!"

Well, what's not to love about a photographer that can do that!?

[Daniel Stevenson]

Had an M7. Great camera.

Sold it because my Zeiss Ikon is a better camera. For me of course.

[Giovanni Maggiora]

To each their Ms, Mike...
Mine is a 6 pre-TTL, the only problem with it is the tiny shutter speed dial, not as quick in. handling and turning counterintuitivels vs the exposure arrows.
I disagree about the idea that digital Ms are 'replicas' though. I use an M9 the same way I use the M6, plus A exposure (so, like a 7!), plus postprocessing flow made much more interesting and flexible. Can't see why I would ever use live screeens and EVFs on an M. Well, then might as well move to Fuji and be done with it...
Digital Ms have one issue for me, size: too thick, especially the new generation. M240/246 are likely beyond what's reasonable for an M, I surely will not trade up from the M9/MM until forced to do so by breakdowns and such!

[BH]

This post got me to take out my M6 for a family event yesterday. It really is perfect. Except for the film.

What I'd really like to see is a shooter's version of the M60. No fancy limited edition, and maybe just try and shave a few MM's off the thickness of the body. And make it cheaper than a 240. It'd be hard to resist.