That's only a small part of the problem, and no one was ever "paid off" not
to reveal that reason. Jeez, is there a conspiracy theory EVERYWHERE?
There are many reasons why it didn't succed, and foremost was it was
"different" and Leicaphiles did not accept it. The company had genuinely
good intentions at the start, but lots of things got ignored along the way to
the production phase. It happens everywhere, autos, etc. (remember the Edsel?
a few ground breaking innovations there, but it was an utter failure).
Leitz goofed big time with the M5, plain and simple.
The CDS cell was on an arm that had to move out of the way prior to exposure,
causing motion problems.
The same CDS cell was in the way and prevented some leica wide angles from
being mounted, or you would damage the CDS cell.
The M5 body itself was of a different shape. It was heavier, longer, and was
more expensive than the M4 it was designed to replace.
The viewfinder was in the center of the body, not all the way to the left
like the other Ms,
The rewind lever was moved to the bottom of the body, and, I believe, the M5
could not take a winder.
George S.
williams@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
"The M5 was the first M to offer a built-in light meter. A CDS cell was
mounted on a "semaphore", and offered TTL metering. Alas, the M5 was not a
commercial success, and nearly ruined the company."
The reason for this failure has not been publicly discussed. It's an
interesting story.
In the late '60s, some years prior to the introduction of the M5, Leitz ran
a series of ads proclaiming that it would never put an exposure meter in
their M-series cameras "until creativity can be automated." That's an exact
quote.
Leitz has a reputation for honesty and integrity. So, when the M5 with its
integral meter appeared, everyone quite reasonably assumed that Leitz had
solved the problem of "automated creativity," and all one had to do was
press the M5's shutter release to get -- at a bare minimum -- an
aesthetically pleasing photo.
When buyers discovered that the M5 could not do this, they angrily returned
their cameras for a refund. Leitz was stuck with a huge pile of unsellable
camera bodies.
The reason you've never heard about this is because the leading photo mags
were paid off by Leitz not to reveal that the camera could not do what they
had promised it would be able to do.
|