If you had a CL but wanted the M6, would you?

[River Dog]

I really like my CL with Zeiss 50m ZM planar. It was a compromise as I did not have the funds for a M6, which I had promised myself. Now I have found some extra money from some healthy eBay sales. So, would you sell your CL to buy a M6 or am I just being greedy? I hate that gear feeling that gnaws!

Good excuse for another CL shot :)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5255/5426530568_b9a6c63ac2_b.jpg

[rbsinto]

It has nothing to do with greed, but keep in mind that a camera is just a fancy light-tight box for holding film.
It's what you hang off the front of it that's important.
That and what's between your ears, of course. Everything else is just commentary.
So if the lenses you use on the CL will fit on an M6, what have you gained except more space in your wallet? Leica bragging rights?
Doesn't seem worth the expense to me.
Oh. And nice shot by the way.

[shyoon]

I would, for the 50mm framelines alone.

[Paul T.]

My first Leca was a CL; later bought an M4, then an M3. But my last Leica is still that CL. Just seems to take good photos, even if it doesn't look as cool and bomb-proof as an M.

[Paul T.]

Once you upgrade, you will never look back.
Some won't. Some will. Not disagreeing, just that different people have different experiences.

[ruby.monkey]

If I could, I'd buy the M(whatever) and keep the CL as a backup pocket camera.

[Frank Version Two]

An M6 might not make better pictures but they do feel very satisfying in the hand. I think the CL feels cheap after using an M, in the same way a Nikon FM is a good camera but feels weak in comparison.

[ruby.monkey]

It has nothing to do with greed, but keep in mind that a camera is just a fancy light-tight box for holding film.
It's what you hang off the front of it that's important.
That and what's between your ears, of course. Everything else is just commentary.
So if the lenses you use on the CL will fit on an M6, what have you gained except more space in your wallet? Leica bragging rights?
Doesn't seem worth the expense to me.
Oh. And nice shot by the way.
Except that how the body fits one's hands, eyes, and brain, also has a direct effect on the results one gets. Whether or not the effect is sizeable enough to drive a change, only the person involved can say.

[nakedcellist]

I had a CL, sold it to buy an M6. I do not regret it, mostly because the m6 is a bit more accurate with a 90mm lens. But the CL was such a lovely small camera..

[af_]

I really hate the CL! ;)
I've got one with a working meter and a Summicron 40 and this thing (my only rangefinder) killed all my previous dreams about an M.

[Ronald M]

I would keep the CL and buy the M6.

Cameras are like Bar B Que sauce and money. You can`t have too much.

[rbiemer]

Given your premise--the CL was a compromise--and that you wanted an M6 and that you now can get one...yes get the M6.
I am NOT making any judgment about which camera is "better", I just figure one should have the gear one wants if possible.
Rob

[jsrockit]

There is no comparison... the upgrade will be worth it. Frank Version 2 said it best.

[Dave Jenkins]

I would do it in a heartbeat. To me, the CL is one of the klutziest, slowest-to-use cameras I've ever owned. YMMV.

[photokalia]

I was in a similar position 2 years back. I was torn at first, but made up my mind after a gentle bump caused a dent on the top plate of my CL. Since then, I've used my M6 and never looked back :) That said, everyone's reasons and experiences are different, and at the end of the day, only you know how much you want that M6!

[SonC]

The M6 is a completely different experience; the only real resemblance is the lens mount.

That said, I like both cameras a lot and only prefer the M6 now because of some arthritis in my right hand that makes the CL a bit awkward to use.

If you don't have to get rid of the CL to get the M6, then I'd say go ahead.

Funny thing, the CL is surrounded with so much mis-information that it is difficult to sell.

You get crazy questions from potential buyers, and the camera is terribly under value right now for some reason.

[maddoc]

Zeiss 50 ZM planar ? Leica M6 all the way ! :) Focusing with an M6 is easier and more accurate than with a CL. ;)

[rover]

I would also not look back and sell the CL for an M6.

[maksym]

I recently went from a hasselblad to a cl and im loving it. I have taken more pictures in the last month with my cl then a year and a half with the blad.
If your an amazing photographer and your learning process has plattoed i could see the need for a 'better camera', but if your still learning, the best camera is the one that lets you shoot most often.

[smile]

m is m
get m6

[Al Patterson]

I would, for the 50mm framelines alone.

The CL has 40 and 50 framelines. Upgrade for other reasons, like maybe 35 framelines.

[wlewisiii]

I had a CL and it was a fine cameras. I used it with a 28/3.5 (whole area of frame), 50/2 Collapsible Summicron & 90/4 and it made a very fine kit. That said, it went along the way after awhile and I'm certainly happier with a IIIf & a 50/2 Summitar instead. Only you can decide what you want so if that's an M6 I'd say grab & run. The only suggestion I'd make is to try to swing the M6 without selling the CL as it would make an excellent backup body to your M6.

HTH,

William

[stompyq]

I went from a CL and 40mm summicron to a M6 and 50mm ZM. The only thing I missed about the CL is the small size. The M6 was better in every other way.

[Frank Version Two]

I might not like the CL or CLE but I am a big fan of the 40mm Rokkor, it is the best Leica lens value ever. It seems silly to spend 3-4x for a 35 Summicron. And unlike the VC-ZM lenses, it doesn't wobble!

[filmtwit]

Instead of a M6, get an M5. BEst all all world.

[River Dog]

Instead of a M6, get an M5. BEst all all world.

Funny you should say that, I have my eye on a well-worn cheap one that works and is warrentied. Don't you find it a bit big and heavy? I haven't tried one myself but I like aperture priority.

[River Dog]

I might not like the CL or CLE but I am a big fan of the 40mm Rokkor, it is the best Leica lens value ever. It seems silly to spend 3-4x for a 35 Summicron. And unlike the VC-ZM lenses, it doesn't wobble!

My ZM 50 doesn't wobble. I do not have the 40mm but I am keeping my eyes open for one.

[Cagliostro73]

Hi! First of all: i love my CL (and CLE too).
I'm recursively looking for an M6 and i cannot find any good reason to spend those more money (i have not that much money anyway).
These are the reasons why i would buy an M6:
-longer EBL
-Look
-Framelines
And these are the reasons why i will not buy it:
-I do not use long and fast lens. Focusing with my 85mm f2 is still sharp and it's enough form me. Focusing with my summicron 90 f4 is easy
-It's lighter than an M6
-If I shoud use widers lenses than 40, I already have an external finder...
So, now It's up to u
D.

[corefunk]

I would just because i made the switch myself and never looked back. The Leica M6 is so much better in terms of handling, feel and resale value.

go for it!

[Palaeoboy]

I take the opposite view to most. I wont deny when your fondling the camera the M does have that certain something but when it comes to actually carrying a kit around the M stays home. I started with an M3 which literally stayed in the cupboard (still does) for years. Never have been big on 50mm lenses really. Then one day I picked up a my first CL with a 40mm Summicron and it was a revelation! The focal length was perfect and the lens itself wonderful. The compact size of the CL was also extremely appealing and the quality of a CL to hold isnt what you would consider poor by modern plastic fantastic standards just not quite M. The compact nature and 40mm framelines feel better in my hands and in my brain as a previous poster put it. This to me outweigh fondling an M at home. From there the logical 2nd body was not an M it was the CLE. What a great compact 2 camera kit. I think your decision has more to do with what you need from your camera and how you prioritise what you want most from it. So in reverse as others have put it, I went from M to CL/E and will never look back. Certainly doesnt look like you have trouble focusing a 50 on the CL, very nice.

[filmtwit]

I have big hands, so the slight largeness of them is OK in my book.
But the reason to buy one is the meter and over sized shutter wheel. Nothing better then being able to change shutter speeds and not have to take your eye away from the subject.


I've owned all three and a Minolta CLE, sold the CL about 2 months ago as it felt redundant to me and wasn't being used. The CLE is still my favorite while the M6 is generally the most versital (all those frame lines and a meter). M5 is the easiest to use on the move though.
Funny you should say that, I have my eye on a well-worn cheap one that works and is warrentied. Don't you find it a bit big and heavy? I haven't tried one myself but I like aperture priority.

[raid]

I might not like the CL or CLE but I am a big fan of the 40mm Rokkor, it is the best Leica lens value ever. It seems silly to spend 3-4x for a 35 Summicron. And unlike the VC-ZM lenses, it doesn't wobble!

I agree. I sold my CL and kept the 40mm Summicron-C. I now use it on my M6. The CL was small and fun to use. It felt less assuring than the M6. I alays had that feeling that one day the film advance mechanism would fail. I did not, but the camera is gone. In my case, I sold the CL and got a Hexar RF instead (same cost to me).

[River Dog]

Thanks for all your advice. I have slept on it and decided to keep the CL. I will spend any spare cash on wider glass. The CL works, I can work with it, it is compact and built well enough for my needs.

If it can keep taking photos like this one from the other day, we will be very happy together.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5139/5451654750_4179741403_b.jpg

[wlewisiii]

As I mentioned before a 28 works well, I felt, using the whole area of the view finder.

Enjoy!

William

[kbg32]

I would definitely take a M6 over a CL. The M6 is more robust and you would not have to worry so much about the meter.

[Paul T.]

I take the opposite view to most. I wont deny when your fondling the camera the M does have that certain something but when it comes to actually carrying a kit around the M stays home. I started with an M3 which literally stayed in the cupboard (still does) for years. Never have been big on 50mm lenses really. Then one day I picked up a my first CL with a 40mm Summicron and it was a revelation! The focal length was perfect and the lens itself wonderful. The compact size of the CL was also extremely appealing and the quality of a CL to hold isnt what you would consider poor by modern plastic fantastic standards just not quite M. The compact nature and 40mm framelines feel better in my hands and in my brain as a previous poster put it. This to me outweigh fondling an M at home. From there the logical 2nd body was not an M it was the CLE. What a great compact 2 camera kit. I think your decision has more to do with what you need from your camera and how you prioritise what you want most from it. So in reverse as others have put it, I went from M to CL/E and will never look back. Certainly doesnt look like you have trouble focusing a 50 on the CL, very nice.

I know I"m coming back and repeating myself, but I feel compelled to point out that the meter on the CL is far better than that on the M6.

Not only is it a semi-spot, but the needle display is far more intuitive than the M6's clunky LEDs - you can see instantly if you're one stop below or above the meter reading, etc. I happen to be a big fan of the Summicron C, too, I like the FOV and the look - which I preferred to the V2 Cron 35/2 I used on my M4.

My M4 was black paint, a beautiful thing to handle, it was a pleasure to use - but ultimately, my CL always seemed to give me better photos, so I learned to be proud of my (relatively) budget beastie.

[raid]

I also prefer the meter in the CL over that in the M6. I am used to using a spot meter.

[underbyte]

I'll chime in even if a little late. I started with a CL. After two years shooting the CL, I moved to a mint condition M6 TTL. I ended up selling selling the M6 TTL while keeping the CL.

Here are some observations after using both cameras. First, my Summicron-C didn't focus as well on the M6. After shooting a few rolls, I noticed that the 40mm wasn't always acceptable. I then shot a tightly controlled test roll with focus targets every 2 inches and found that it was indeed off. My 90mm Elmar-C lined up perfectly and my 50mm Jupiter 8 was more out of focus than the Summicron-C. So, I had the choice to either get lenses better designed for the full-sized M's or sell the M6 TTL.

In terms of using the M6 TTL, it was a nicer camera than the CL. But, I never bonded with it. The 3 LED meter wasn't intuitive to me at all. Honestly, I preferred using an SLR to using the M6 (no flames, please!) :) I wanted to love the camera because of how nice it looked, or how expensive it was, or how great of a picture it should take, but in the end I didn't really mind letting it go.

I shot my CL over the weekend and I'm excited to see what the images look like. I would like a full size M to shoot with again, but not a $1700 body that doesn't work with my lenses. It's a shame too because the Summicron-C can be stunning, and the 90mm Elmar-C is beautiful thing as well.

[filmtwit]

This is the best reason for the M6 (see below).
On the otherside, the layout and lightmeter readings on the CL are almost divine. Nothing worse then fumbling with the shutter speeds.

Best compromise, M5.


The CL has 40 and 50 framelines. Upgrade for other reasons, like maybe 35 framelines.

[heatherselkie]

Well...if I ever get the CL, I'll still be thinking about an M6 for a very very long time. Keep both. CL could be a back up or you could have colour film in one, black and white in the other, get the best of both cameras. That's my dream anyway!

[slantface]

I love both, but if it were up to me, I'd go for the M6, and pass on holding onto the CL. I love the CL, mind you, but the M6 is far more versatile, well-built, and has much greater resale value.

Just my 2 cents!

[sanmich]

Both cameras are great in their ways.
For me it comes to ergonomics.
for a compact camera, I would take the CL with the 40mm, or with a collapsible summicron.
To sport the Planar, no doubt I would chose the M6.
Small differences too:
I dislike the vertical CL handling and I like the ratcheted M film advance (with the all metal lever please)
I also find it difficult to be limited in the choice of wides with the CL. No 35 lines is a problem for me.
BUT, Since you have limited cash and your choice is the M upgrade or a wide lens, in my opinion there is no doubt the more important leap is the lens. I would go for a small 28 (CS or canon 3.5) and a VC finder.

Good luck

[Ronny]

CL and........ after the M6........You would like to have M2 or M3.

[huntjump]

M2* + M6** = all you ever need.

*you can substitute with M3
**sub also for M4-P

[k__43]

I have a CL and I will sell it for a M6 or maybe M7 .. as a M2 owner I know about the size and ergonomics of a M-body and the CL is just too small for my big hands. It's brilliant for picture taking especially with it's 40mm lens.
but I have the hands of a butcher rather than the hands of a violin player

[David Hughes]

Well, you could buy a Summicron 40mm and the 90mm for the CL. Then put some film through it and then decide. 50mm on a CL is OK for testing a new lens but otherwise I'd stick to the CL's lenses. In fairness, I sometimes wonder about the Minolta 28mm but I had a CLE for a week and went back and (gasp!) my CL was still on the shelf...

One point about the CL is that the entire outfit is two lenses and a body (and perhaps a case) and that's it. Nothing more to buy or worry about.

Regards, David

[David Hughes]

M2* + M6** = all you ever need.

*you can substitute with M3
**sub also for M4-P

No Olympus OM ? No Olympus mju-II? No Contax Tix?

Regards, David

[jippiejee]

I would always keep the Leica CL as secondary camera. It might not be as solid as the M's, but it's still such a fun quirky little *******. I love having it with me in my bag with just another speed of film in it. And it never disappoints.

[jippiejee]

Today I learned: we can't type ******* here... :)

[jippiejee]

In the series: I love my CL...

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6103/6363293315_39687d253f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aad_b/6363293315/)
boats-nepal1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aad_b/6363293315/) by aad_b (http://www.flickr.com/people/aad_b/), on Flickr

[d_c]

Aside from the size & weight I think the M6 is a far superior camera.

- the M6 meter can deal with EV -2 to 20 as opposed to the CL's 3 to 18 - that's 5 stops difference in low light situations, and if you're using 100 ASA film you'd be surprised at how often that becomes useful.
- the rangefinder base length means much more accurate focussing, particularly wide open on longer lenses which are great for portraiture.
- you get the extra frames for wider lenses (28, 35).

Also, I think ergonomically the M6 is a much better camera.

If you'd started with a 40mm lens then I could understand that there would be issues about using it with a camera that didn't have the frame lines for it, but that doesn't apply here. If it was me then I would definitely sell the CL and get the M6.

[kbg32]

The CL was my first Leica. All I had to do was take it out of the house and it dented, scratched, whatever. Once you handle the real thing, you'll never go back. I sold it for a M3.

[redisburning]

No Olympus OM ? No Olympus mju-II? No Contax Tix?

Regards, David

as an owner of an M2 (and the previously mentioned ZM Planar) and 3 OM cameras (two 1, one 2sp) the only thing keeping me from fireselling my OM stuff is that 2 of the bodies were given to me by a relative.

I would, I suppose, keep the 50mm f3.5 macro and one of the OM-1 bodies, but if I had to those would go before the M2, as would the SRT-101 and rokkor 58mm f1.2. I guess we all need a macro or very precise framing occasionally, otherwise I'd be happy with just rangefinders.

I think if you have to have a secondary system that you don't intend to use often, the Mamiya 7 is a great one, or in 35mm the Nikon S system has some great glass (if bodies I cant really stand).

oh and I definitely recommend a Leica body. it's more than just bragging rights; they operate smoother than any other camera I have ever used. in fact, they are so good I can forgive that the shutter speed dial is on top instead of in the right place (lol).

[robklurfield]

Love the "between your ears" statement and so true, too.
It has nothing to do with greed, but keep in mind that a camera is just a fancy light-tight box for holding film.
It's what you hang off the front of it that's important.
That and what's between your ears, of course. Everything else is just commentary.
So if the lenses you use on the CL will fit on an M6, what have you gained except more space in your wallet? Leica bragging rights?
Doesn't seem worth the expense to me.
Oh. And nice shot by the way.

[bbrovold]

I've had a CL and an M6 and currently have an M4-2 (wanted purely mechanical but unfortunately it is in the shop). I would move the CL for an M6 in a heartbeat. I didn't like the fiddly film changing in the CL and the frame line thing is also an issue. Basically any M6 TTL or classic will be good for you if you need metering. If metering is not an issue consider M4, M4-2 or M4-p.
I regret selling my M6 TTL.

[Brian Levy]

I lusted after an M kit yeaars ago but ended up with the CL kit with the 40 and 90 lenses as a result of doing a favor for a friend in need. Since then I have had chances to buy about every mainstream M body and can afford to do a reasonable M kit but after holding them and caressing them for a time and considering my shooting style and what I'd put in the kit, I ended up preferring the CL. The 40 is in my preferred vof range; I generally prefer the 35-40 mm range over the 50mm but, would like a 28mm to go with the kit but, then I learned to just walk back and most of the time that works for me.

The M body feels large and bulky; the CL dimensions come close to the Barack spec'd sm bodies. I'm not into a large range of lenses as I think generally that almost any Leica beats almost any conpetitor and knowing 1 or 2 lens charactoristics well beats a half dozen lenses in the bag. As for the purported weaknesses such as denting, wind levers, etc. yes, the top will dent a bit if treated harshly. I've never seen or read where someone has actually had a wind lever problem. As for the meter, any camera with a mechanical meter of its age can exhibit the need for a CLA. The camera from my experience is as rugged as about anything out there same maybe the sm body. I've seen many a banged up M body but not sure how abused or used they were so not sure they can or can not take more of a beating and keep on ticking.

I, like some, prefer the meter in the CL and M5 over the led system in the M6 but the M6 metering can be faster but allows less flexibility directly. In comparing the M6 to the M3 and 4, I find it to be clunkier and less well made so if I were to go for an M, it would be maybe a DS M3. But, I also find the SM III series to be closer to the CL in size and concept and 1 with a collapsable lens would be maybe the only combo I'd pick up especially if it required I give up the CL.

In short the CL is as rugged and as good as almost anything out there unless you intend to use it as a substitute for a hammer. Only then do I find the M bode to be the better.

[jsrockit]

Yes, no doubt about it... I'd upgrade.

[River Dog]

Thanks for all the input. I'm keeping the CL and bought a 40mm Rokkor to replace the Zeiss 50mm. I'll give that a few months, then review things.

My biggest gripes is when the battery goes dead and you can't change it without unloading the film.

[raid]

I used to own two CL's, and now I have two M's. I would keep the CL if you feel at ease using this camera. If there is something about the CL that is bothering you, and if that something is better on the M, then go for the M.

[thegman]

I as a little underwhelmed by the M6, and quickly sold it. However, the heart wants what it wants, and if the M6 calls to you, then you should probably listen.

[boomguy57]

I have been asking myself the same question...I have an M3 and a CL now, and would like to swap one of them for the M6.

One one hand, I tell myself to trade the M3 for the M6 for the light meter, which I do miss in the M3. But, I love the finder on the M3 and 50 is my favorite lens.

On the other hand, I tell myself to keep the M3 for the finder and get the M6 for those times that I just want to bring a body and not bother with the external light meter. BUT...I do love the 40/2 with the CL (I would miss the 40 framelines on the M6) and I love the small size of the CL (but the short baselength will be an issue when I get a faster lens).

So which way to go...?

-T

[huntjump]

i think its all about personal preference. I owned the m3 and cl, among other M's, and found all the other M's sold and my M6 still around. try it if u can, or buy it and resell if u dont like it

[kennethcooke]

I really like my CL with Zeiss 50m ZM planar. It was a compromise as I did not have the funds for a M6, which I had promised myself. Now I have found some extra money from some healthy eBay sales. So, would you sell your CL to buy a M6 or am I just being greedy? I hate that gear feeling that gnaws!

Good excuse for another CL shot :)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5255/5426530568_b9a6c63ac2_b.jpgIf this is an example of your work. Why would you change. The only thing an M6 will give you is prestige. I assure you that I speak with knowledge on this subject

[anjoca76]

I did just that. I started with a CL and recently picked up an M6, with the idea in mind that the M6 would replace my CL. It eventually will, but I haven't gotten around to putting it up for sale yet, mostly for sentimental reasons.

There is a lot more the M6 has going for it than "prestige" over the CL. The film loading is MUCH easier, it has more frame lines, and its build quality is more robust.

That said, there is not a huge difference as far as picturetaking ability between the two. My CL has served me well and is a pleasure to use. Its rangefinder patch never flares, unlike my M6, which flares far more often than I care for, and the CL is lighter and stealthier (if that sort of thing matters to you). And perhaps it's most underrated feature is the placement of the exposure dial, which is far better than the Ms and make so much more sense.

Probably the main reason I got the M6 is because it can be serviced by any number of technicians, whereas many don't work on the CL (Youxin comes to mind, among others). For that reason, it's arguably costlier to own the CL in the long run.

There are definitely differences between the two, but the CL gets a bad rap. It's a wonderful camera, nitpicking aside.

[redisburning]

lots of cameras are good cameras.

shades of subtlety separate their quality; and each subsequent value costs more than the previous.

if you really only enjoy photography for the photographs (which is a fine, and noble, outlook) then it's probably not the right choice. some of us, and around here maybe even most of us, enjoy the entire process from shooting, to processing, as well the image itself. Having a camera that you personally feel is better and nicer, but not the point that you use it less, is worth it if you belong to that second group.

I got a new OM lens so I have been spending some time shooting my OM-1 lately. It's a really nice camera, and one I will keep always. But it just reinforces how my M2 is better in so many, yet so subtle, ways. The smoothness of the film advance, the moment of absolute confidence when the patch hits MAXIMUM contrast, the lack of extra knobs and dials, the comfortable lozange shape with no self timer. Whether that is enough to make it worth it, to me it was but to my father and his father before it wasn't.

[River Dog]

I have been living with the CL and 40mm Rokkor for a while and I have no ambition towards the M6 anymore. Selling the ZM 50/2 and buying a X100 as my main digital instead. The CL/40mm combo is just fine for me.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5322/6935345354_5621e332f7_c.jpg

[Peter_S]

Of course the CL can take as good photos as the M6. The differences are subtle but to me they are:

- Most (I do anyways) will focus the M6 faster, with less back-forth focussing going on. Of course that is not an issue with static objects.
- the film advance lever is smoother and faster on the M6. This may or may not be an issue for you. It is for me.
- film loading. Surely it can be done with the CL. But it is faster and esier with the M6. Does that matter for you? Perhaps. For me it does.
- I find metering is easier with the M6, my eye needs to wander of the subject to read the CL meter, but can stay locked on the subject with the M6.

That said, the CL feels super nice and has its advantages. I appreciate its weight and form and I am glad I bought one (after much information here on RFF). I would almost argue that M6 and CL are different enough that they go nicely together.

I would not want to only use the CL, but for quite a while I used the M6 for 90% of my photography and quite happily so. Get one if you can. Of course if budget is low there is always the stellar Contax G2...another story but one worth reading into. My M6 had to go in the end because I missed some of the swiftness of the G2. Perhaps CL + G2 makes sense for you?

Good luck with your decision!

[splaash]

I love the CL but am looking for a 11F both seem about the same value in price but the CL is a very good leica with meter
The 11F is a classic very compact Leica id love to use in place of my Russian 111C

[k0vic]

I was in the same spot a while ago and here's how I played it out.

I think the problem with the CL is that it isn't an M. It's a great camera in its own right but it will always have that basic fact hanging over it. If it's an M you want then unfortunately the only solution is to buy an M. Yes a Zeiss Ikon or Bessa or even Hexar may do things better or be cheaper but the fact is that they also are not M's.
I'm afraid it's basically the clever glamour of Leica M cameras, until you've had a "real" one then you'll always wonder what you may be missing.
They'll all create the same images but it's how they make you feel whilst doing so it what you essentially pay for.
Well to me it is. If that's important to you then get an M6, it won't make you a "better" photographer, but it might make you feel like one. :)