Leica’s Legendary Craftsmanship: From Barnack’s Vision to the M5 and M6.
From the very first Leica prototypes created by Oskar Barnack in the early 20th century to the storied M series, Leica has always been synonymous with precision and craftsmanship. Yet beyond brand mystique lies a deeper story of how these cameras were actually built—and how a crucial shift from “adjust and fit” to “replace and fit” manufacturing methods shaped both Leica’s destiny and the cameras we revere today. In this historical overview, we’ll explore Leica’s journey, unpack the market conditions that doomed the M5 in the 1970s, highlight the changes leading into the M6 era, and ultimately explain why many enthusiasts still see the M5 as the “last true Leica.”
Inception: Oskar Barnack’s Ingenious Revolution
Leica’s story begins with Oskar Barnack, an optical engineer at Ernst Leitz Wetzlar in Germany. In the early 1910s, Barnack developed the “Ur-Leica,” a compact camera using standard 35mm cine film. This was revolutionary: photographers suddenly had a portable camera that produced high-quality negatives.
The Barnack Leica I (1925): Officially launched after World War I, the Leica I (Model A) set the standard for 35mm photography. Its success prompted further refinements, resulting in a string of famous “Barnack Leicas” (II, III, IIIa, IIIc, IIIf, IIIg, etc.).
Hand-Fitted Precision: At this time, Leica used an “adjust and fit” approach. Parts were machined to high tolerances, then individually hand-fitted by skilled technicians to ensure perfect alignment and function. Any slight variation in gears or levers was filed, shimmed, or adjusted on-site—making each camera truly unique and meticulously crafted.
The Birth of the M Series: Mechanical Excellence Refined
By the early 1950s, Leica recognized that combining the rangefinder and viewfinder into a single window would streamline shooting. Enter the Leica M3 in 1954, marking a major leap forward:
New M Mount: A faster bayonet mount replaced the older screw-thread.
Improved Viewfinder: A bright combined rangefinder and viewfinder with the highest magnification (0.91×) Leica ever put into a standard production model.
Brass & Chrome Construction: Built in Wetzlar with the same “adjust and fit” principles that defined Barnack-era craftsmanship.
Continuing the Tradition: Leica extended this approach through the M2, M4, and later variants, each adhering to a mechanical design that was serviceable and built for longevity.
The result? M cameras became legendary for their robustness, unparalleled feel, and near-silent shutters—earning Leica an iconic reputation worldwide.
The M5: A Bold Innovation Amid Shifting Markets
By the late 1960s and early 1970s, Leica faced increased competition from Japanese SLRs (Nikon, Canon, Minolta). While Leica’s rangefinders remained revered, the market demand shifted toward cameras with TTL metering and versatile lens systems. Leica responded with the M5 in 1971—a daring camera that introduced a built-in TTL light meter.
Why the M5 Should Have Been a Triumph
Integrated TTL Light Meter: First time a Leica M offered through-the-lens metering with a swinging “spot” metering arm.
Adjust and Fit Construction: Still hand-assembled in Wetzlar, maintaining the mechanical excellence of previous Ms.
Refined Ergonomics: A larger shutter speed dial accessible from the front, and a match-needle readout in the viewfinder.
The Market Conditions that Sidelined the M5
SLR Dominance: Photographers increasingly gravitated toward SLRs for their flexibility, interchangeable focusing screens, and telephoto ease. Nikon F, Canon F-1, and Minolta SRT were major competitors.
Conservative Leica User Base: Many Leica loyalists found the M5’s size and styling off-putting compared to the sleek M4. Some complained the camera was “too big” or “not the classic M aesthetic.”
Economic Struggles: Leica (Ernst Leitz GmbH) was losing market share, resulting in pressure to curb production costs and modernize. The M5—expensive to produce—did not sell well enough to keep Leica afloat.
Despite its technical brilliance, the M5 was discontinued by 1975, after only about four years of production. Today, that short run has made it a cult favorite among connoisseurs. More importantly, it’s widely seen as the last M built to Leica’s traditional “adjust and fit” standards.
Wetzlar to Midland: A Change in Method
Leica’s financial woes forced a restructuring. Production of certain models moved partially (and then largely) to Midland, Canada. This began with the Leica M4-2 (1977) and continued through the M4-P and M6. The shift also signaled a turning point in how Leica cameras were manufactured.
Cost-Cutting Necessities: To survive, Leica needed to reduce the labor-intensive and expensive “adjust and fit” process.
Replace and Fit: Over time, more camera components—especially in metered models—became standardized modules. Rather than precisely hand-filing or shimming to fit mechanical parts, Leica used entire sub-assemblies that could be swapped in or out.
Electronics: With the introduction of built-in meters (the M6’s LED readout, for example), electronics and circuit boards replaced some purely mechanical components, meaning a fault often necessitated replacing a circuit board, not fine-tuning it.
This evolution was necessary for Leica’s business survival, but for traditionalists, it undermined the mechanical purity and meticulous craftsmanship that had made Leica famous.
“Adjust and Fit” vs. “Replace and Fit”: Why It Matters
Adjust and Fit
Customization in Production: Craftspeople individually match mechanical components for perfect alignment, ensuring the highest possible build quality.
Repair & Maintenance: If a part wears out or is slightly off, a technician can adjust or replace the specific piece and recalibrate. The camera can be kept at near-original spec for decades with proper care.
Time & Cost: This method is labor-intensive, driving up production costs and slowing throughput—but results in an unparalleled tactile feel.
Replace and Fit
Modular Manufacturing: Components are standardized. If a part fails, you replace the entire module.
Electronic Dependencies: Faulty circuit boards or light meters can’t be “hand-tuned;” the entire board or assembly must be swapped.
Efficient for a Global Market: It’s faster, cheaper, and meets the demands of a higher-volume market—but can reduce that old-world sense of craftsmanship and may complicate long-term repairs if parts become scarce.
In essence, “adjust and fit” cameras (like the M5) represent the culmination of decades of Leica’s artisanal approach. “Replace and fit” gained dominance as Leica moved into the M4-2, M4-P, and M6 eras, heralding a modern, more pragmatic philosophy.
The M6: Leica’s Revival with Cost Savings in Mind
Released in 1984, the M6 is often credited with rescuing Leica’s rangefinder lineup. It integrated a simpler light meter system (two triangles and a dot) without adding much bulk. However, several cost-saving measures distinguished it from earlier Ms:
Zinc Top Plate vs. Brass: Later M6 variants (especially the M6 TTL and onward) frequently used zinc alloy. Earlier Ms often had heavier brass top plates.
Simplified Internals: The new electronic meter system was a self-contained circuit board rather than a mechanical arm.
Manufacture in Midland: While some M6 production was in Wetzlar, a large portion came from Midland, Canada, continuing the more modular approach started with the M4-2.
Less Hand-Fitting: The move to electronics meant fewer mechanical parts to calibrate. This streamlined production and cut costs, but also meant less of the “old-school Leica” assembly.
Enthusiasts often debate whether these changes detract from the M6’s character or simply represent necessary modernization. What remains indisputable is that, in purely mechanical and serviceable terms, the M6 differs significantly from, say, an M3, M4, or M5.
The Last True Leica: Why the M5 Holds That Title
Many Leica aficionados argue that the M5 was the “last true Leica” because it was:
Entirely Mechanical + Integrated Meter: A final flourish of mechanical ingenuity before electronics took over.
Wetzlar-Built: Created in the birthplace of Leica, with all the old-world attention to detail.
Hand-Crafted “Adjust and Fit”: Reflecting the traditions dating back to Barnack’s original workshop practices.
Short Production Run: The M5’s fate was sealed by market pressures, not by any failing in its design or build.
Ranking M Series Build Quality (Mechanical)
While subjective, many collectors and technicians loosely rank Leica M build quality as follows:
Leica M3 (1954–1966): Widely considered the pinnacle of mechanical engineering, with a 0.91× viewfinder, brass gears, and obsessive hand-fitting.
Leica M2 (1957–1968): A slightly simplified M3 with 35mm framelines, but still similarly robust.
Leica M4 (1966–1975): Modernized winding lever and frameline selector but kept the same fundamental build philosophy.
Leica M5 (1971–1975): Despite the controversy over size, it remains an extremely well-built camera, fully mechanical with an integrated meter. Many would place it near or even above the M4 in some respects.
Leica M4-2 & M4-P (1977–1987): Introduced cost-saving measures and, while still strong cameras, they began the shift to more modular production in Midland.
Leica M6 (1984–1998): Another partial shift in materials and the introduction of more electronics. Still a solid camera, but less hand-fitted than its predecessors.
Barnack Leicas vs. the M Series: Timeless Craft vs. Modern Refinement
Before the M system, Barnack Leicas (III, IIIa, IIIf, IIIg, etc.) set the stage:
Compact Mechanical Mastery: Entirely mechanical with separate windows for composing and focusing. They were made with the same “adjust and fit” mindset—some even say the tolerances were tighter because of the smaller body size and precise screw-mount.
Different Shooting Experience: Slower to operate, but built to last indefinitely with proper servicing. A well-calibrated Barnack remains legendary for reliability and quiet operation.
Transition to M: The M cameras brought more convenience with a combined viewfinder-rangefinder and a quicker lens mount. Yet Barnacks remain a benchmark for pure mechanical camera design.
Comparing Barnacks and Ms boils down to user preference: if you want the absolute original form of Leica’s mechanical invention, Barnacks rule. If you prefer a more intuitive, single-window system, the early M cameras capture that quintessential Leica experience—none more so than the M3 through M5 era.
Concluding Thoughts: Preserving Leica’s True Soul
Leica’s odyssey—from Barnack’s workshop experiments to the multi-decade M series—reveals a tension between tradition and innovation. The “adjust and fit” method embodied the old Leica: a slow, deliberate process yielding cameras with near-faultless mechanical harmony. Market realities, however, demanded modernization, leading to “replace and fit,” electronics, and cost-effective mass production.
Within this evolution, the M5 stands out as a remarkable culmination of everything Leica once was—hand-fitted mechanical brilliance plus modern TTL metering—just before austerity measures and the SLR revolution forced Leica to pivot. Indeed, the M6 revived Leica’s rangefinder line in the 1980s, but at the expense of some of that handcrafted ethos. For many purists, it’s undeniable: the M5 represents the last camera to truly embody Leica’s founding spirit, placing craftsmanship above all else.
As we look back, what emerges most powerfully is that Leica’s identity rests not merely on the red dot or a storied name, but on the way these cameras were built and serviced—cameras meant to last a lifetime under the care of skilled hands. And in a world of increasingly disposable technology, that remains a timeless ideal worth preserving.