If you were to buy your first Leica... [Archive]

znapschatz

08-25-2003, 21:04

Although I started doing photography in 1954 and am well accustomed to hand-held metering, I would advise looking for an M6. The M5 was too bulky and mechanically complex. While screw mount Leicas are great, they only work well with the 50 mm lens and if you want interchangeable lens capability, they are clumsy to use.

Leica got it right with the M 3/2/P etc. size and shape. All their other attempts were off in one way or another, IMHO. Even though the M6 does not have the ultimate mechanical finesse of the earlier Ms, it is the best of them for street photography because of the built-in meter. Yes, separate and no meter has worked for lots and lots of photogs, but it is a handicap to not have one inboard all the same.

My first Ms were a 4 and a 2. I, too, used them with an accessory meter. The M4 came with an outfit that included an MR4 clip-on meter, which speeded things up a bit but added bulk. I preferred my hand-held Sekonic to it. In 1968 I added a Pentax Spotmatic to the kit for long lens use and immediately learned the value of being able to set the exposure as I composed the photograph. For a long time I used SLRs in place of Leicas for most of my photography on that account. Even today, I consider the built in meter the most significant technical development in the evolution in camera design and all the rest merely incremental improvements. This, of course, is based on my preferred subject matter and way of working.

At first I considered the 50 mm lens as just about perfect. After years, I thought the 35 mm was the bee's knees. I think the M6 works best with these two, although it's entirely your call. Nothing is more subjective than how you view things.

The M6 with its meter represents the best 35 mm "candid camera" available because it is fast (er) and focusses more accurately than an SLR. I believe its reputation among "slice of lifers" is well earned.

rpsawin

08-25-2003, 21:30

I have to echo
znapschatz's advice. I'm new to the rangefinder world and am enjoying it more and more. I have two rf's: a Konica Hexar RF and a Leica M6. I use the 35mm a bit more than the 50mm but never leave without both of them.

BTW....do yourslf a favor and shoot some B&W with the Leica. I'm sure you will come away with a renewed appreciation for black and white.

FWIW....the lsm lenses are less expensive and seem to be more plentiful than the m's. I picked up some adaptors for lsm-to-m on the CameraQuest site. I have no complaints with the results from these lenses.

Bob

SolaresLarrave

08-26-2003, 08:44

Thanks a lot! You confirmed my initial choices... I am planning on getting myself a Leica next year (yes, must save a bunch) and even though I was aiming for a M3, suddenly I realized that if I have to meter the scene, or try to reach an EV to fit a number of shots, I'd lose valuable time.

A while ago I got myself a Contax G1 to do this kind of work... and only found out that the shutterlag and AF are the kiss of death. While the lenses are a marvel, the camera's bells-and-whistles don't help much here. Hence that longing for a Leica.

BTW rpsawin, I have done B&W with my Canonet, a Yashica and my Konica S2 rangefinders... and I decided to stock up lots of T-Max 100 and Scala rolls. For some reason, the SLRs don't cut it the same to me in B&W, but then, if Zaks's shots in the websites he quotes in another thread are done with an SLR, they will prove me wrong on this account.

I wish I could lay my hands on a Leica for a couple of hours... I have a friend who lent me his medium format gear for months as a favor, and to get me hooked into it. Too bad he doesn't have Leicas! :(

znapschatz

08-27-2003, 12:03

The b&ws were done with a Kodak Retina IIa RF camera, which I considered ideal for this situation, but that doesn't mean they could not have been taken with something else. Just about anything from lowly P&S to 4X5 Speed Graphic have been used to take great photos of life on the fly. It's just that easy portability, quiet operation, precise focusing and more useable depth of field at any given aperture than larger format equipment makes RF 35 mm best tool for that job, IMHO.

The color pix were a selection from a 35 print exhibit, most of which taken with 35 mm SLR, the rest with a Mamiya 6 and a Rolleiflex TLR. I regret not being able to get something better on the pages at this time. The print quality is much better than the posted ones convey (store bought). These days I am using the 6 a lot. Think of it as a Texas Leica.

Rich Silfver

08-27-2003, 21:08

I'd get a IIIg and a 50 Summicron and spend the rest on film.

SolaresLarrave

08-28-2003, 13:55

Rsilfverger,

Your advice sounds easy except for a couple of details:

The Leica IIIg is a relatively rare body, compared to others, and it's usually more expensive.

Did it take a Summicron or a Summarit? I tend to associate Summicron with the M mount, but then, I'm possibly wrong.

I forgot to mention that I would like to use the camera for street photography. Sure, Cartier-Bresson used the early Leicas, but I'm nothing like him, so I'd prefer an M6 instead (after Znap's convincing reply) and, in an ideal world, a Summicron 35mm (Garry Winogrand's tool of choice).

In any case, thanks for your reply! :)

Manynames

08-29-2003, 07:04

I would personally not even buy a leica because of the slow flash sync, but that is me and that won't really matter in street photography. I would buy a more modern body and a lense well know for good optics.

SolaresLarrave

08-29-2003, 09:23

But, manynames, the flash criteria is moot in this case. Who wants to use flash in street photography? And what else can be better for it? I'm departing from a universally accepted premise: that Leica is the best camera for this purpose. What gear would you suggest that can be easily pocketed in a coat, unobtrusive and silent? What lens brand is know for their superb optics? Can you provide any useful answers?

Manynames

08-29-2003, 10:30

Solares, Read my post again, I noted that. I'm not an expert on leicas so I kno moot about the lenses. Thus I stated buy a lense known for great optics.

SolaresLarrave

08-29-2003, 19:06

Re-read post and understood what you said. Now... what lens would you recommend if you were to buy a Leica?

I have to plan for a loooong time of lean photographic cows... :(

back alley

08-29-2003, 20:44

i once had a leica m4p.
lovely camera but i sold it. i could not get used to not having an on board meter.
i guess i'd rather have a bad meter than no meter.

i would go for an m6 and start with a 35 mm lens and then a 90 mm. or visa versa depending on your picture preferences.
these 2 lenses could likely account for 80% of all your shooting. 100% if you don't care to go longer or shorter.

rpsawin

08-30-2003, 09:35

The choice of lenses is driven by "style". Personally, I bought a 50 f/2 Summicron followed by a 28 f/2.8 Hexanon. I like street shooting and these have been excellent choices.

I just picked up a 35 f/2.8 Canon Seranar and I think this is now my normal lens. I like the 35mm view best for street shooting.

Bob

SolaresLarrave

08-30-2003, 21:10

Gipsy, why the additional take-up spool? Just wondering... :confused:

SolaresLarrave

08-31-2003, 16:15

So, gipsy, you basically have the set up ready for insertion, right?

But, isn't that's more applicable for old M-mount Leicas? From what I've read, the M6 has a built-in spool and you put the film a bit easier than in the screwmounts and other M-mount bodies... Am I right?

SolaresLarrave

09-01-2003, 12:25

Wow! Thanks for the confirmation, gipsy. I'm slowly becoming a Leica connoisseur. Now, if I only had one to play with... :(

Anyway, I'm planning on getting one sometime, but not too soon. And a 35mm Summicron as well!

SolaresLarrave

09-01-2003, 18:15

Gipsy, you're definitely right. Let's see for how long (and how much!) I can hold the moulah in my savings account. Fast lenses can become an addiction... I remember when I started toying with my Canonet: finding out I could shoot without a flash was a real thrill! :)

But yes, the 'Cron f1.4 does warrant a lot more wiggle room. Now, I've thought of using Tri-X film for this kind of shots. It seems the favorite of a lot of streeters because of its grain structure and apparent ease to develop. I have no clue about the latter, but I'm decided to learn how to do it... as soon as my Comm. college advertises its extension courses! :D

back alley

09-01-2003, 20:23

i prefer ilford delta 3200 for fast shooting, hell i like it for most everything. and with my slower mamiya lenses it works out well.

joe

SolaresLarrave

09-02-2003, 08:23

Isn't ISO 3200 way out of the Leica M6 meter range? I'm not sure about your being able to use that one, unless pulling it (which wouldn't make much sense in street photography, for instance).

back alley

09-02-2003, 15:55

i ususally rate it at 1600.

don't know about the range on the leica.

joe

Rbernst929

09-05-2003, 14:24

Hi all. Don't diss the Leica M5.... a truly unique and functional camera. The meter is first rate and its analog scale along the bottom allows easy settings. You can use it as either a aperture or shutter priority. Also, its NOT mechanically complex. It operates as the other Leicas. It IS a bit bigger, but i dont have the largest hands and find it operable. Mine is a new old stock M5 i bought via Shutterbug magazine about 10 years ago. I guess it dates from 1972 and operates 100% today. I use it for B&W abstract work and develop and print my own photos. Plus, to me, it is the most beautifully/ugly camera in the world, and is lighter weight than most SLRs.

kajabbi

09-05-2003, 17:19

No one has mentioned starting with the M3. Add a 50MM lens, any one that you can afford and start teaching yourself the "basics". The "sunny" 16 rule should come with a hand -held meter.and a roll of film. Go from there. Learn to see in the 1X1.5 format. That is the hardest pa.rt

SolaresLarrave

09-05-2003, 21:57

Actually, the M3 was my first choice when I started thinking about a Leica...

Now, how do you meter with it? Do you briefly put the meter on top of the camera as if it were a flash? Do you point the meter to the subject? If shooting b&w do you take a reading of the shadows, set f-stop and shutterspeed and shoot? Inquiring minds...

BTW, I have a Sekonic L-208.

kajabbi

09-06-2003, 04:03

Henricus

09-06-2003, 17:10

Originally posted by SolaresLarrave
Thanks a lot! You confirmed my initial choices... I am planning on getting myself a Leica next year (yes, must save a bunch) and even though I was aiming for a M3, suddenly I realized that if I have to meter the scene, or try to reach an EV to fit a number of shots, I'd lose valuable time.

<snip> :(

Francisco,
You get used to operating without a built in meter. I have actually come to prefer it. I'm not saying that having a built in meter is bad, just different. You actually use the meter less when you have a handheld meter than with a built in meter. It turns out that you depend more on the best calculator available, your bean. ;)

Henricus

09-06-2003, 17:19

Originally posted by kajabbi
To be honest, I have, since 1952, had the habit of metering the area where I am BEFORE I start looking for pictures. I keep the variables in my head and set the camera accordingly. I use negative film exclusively so the film latitude saves me when I make an error. I still have my original M3 but mow use the M5. Though the M5 has a great built-in meter system, I still choose the exposure before I look at the scene though the viewfinder. i'm not bragging, mind you, but i'm 80% within 1/2 a stop of the final meter reading.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. This is how I basically use my M4-2. When I get ready to shoot, I'm ready and can make changes on the fly using my head. When I do use a camera with a built in meter I find I use the same technique, but start to second guess it and often ignore it. I've gotten to where I prefer not having it in the viewfinder it gets in the way of my composition. YMMV.

SolaresLarrave

09-08-2003, 21:09

I don't know what was it that got hold of me, but this afternoon I just went and placed a bid on a Leica M3 body. I don't think I'll win but... it's a weird thrill nonetheless.

And I need some reward. Last night I lost a neat Canonet 28 to some auction sniper. :mad:

I'll keep you posted.:)

scoop

09-09-2003, 16:52

A screw mount Leica with a collapsible lens is in a special category. Particularly with an Elmar (or Industar-22) the camera is tiny and can be easily carried in a pocket or one of those small belt pouches sold for a digital camera.

Not as elegant in use as a M series Leica, but it is a camera which you're more likely to have with you.

paul

09-11-2003, 16:29

Having gone through IIIC, IIIF, IIIG, M3, M2, M6ttl & R5 -- I have returned to a mint++IIIF RD ST with mint+ Red Scale 50mm 1:3.5 Elmar. I guess exposure (just got a little Sekonic L208 for security), and my photos delight me. It's a classic, wonderful combination. There is no finer photographic instrument than a IIIF (see Steve Gandy's article)

Paul, 9/11/03

Josef Brugger

09-11-2003, 19:08

The M2 uses a detachable spool instead of the 'magic fingers' take-up of the later models. In fast-moving situations, it was customary to have a spare roll of film clipped into the spare take-up spool so all the photographer had to do was pull the baseplate, grab the used roll and spool, and slot the new one in. If I was buying another Leica, it would be a 2, a 4, or a 4-2.

scoop

09-12-2003, 14:57

Paul is close to the mark with his IIIf/3.5 Elmar combination. If you shoot indoors at all though, the collapsible Summicron f2 is a delight.

vizioneer

09-13-2003, 22:27

If I were to do it again, either an MP or and M7 (probably the M7), and a 35mm f/1.4 asph. Good luck...

Rich Silfver

09-13-2003, 22:44

So Solares..did you win the M3? :-)

SolaresLarrave

09-14-2003, 14:33

rsilverberg, thanks for asking. I can tell you something: had I won that Leica, you would have heard of it for sure, as I would have posted a triumphant thread on the matter.

But no, I didn't win that and neither did I win the next one I bid for. The first went wildly high (somebody went for a bidding war) and the second... was ended even BEFORE I could bid for it (and sold for, believe this, $ 227). Granted, the lens had a slight defect (not fungus, but a bit of a scratch that didn't affect images always), but I was interested and when I went to place a bid, I saw the seller had ended the auction and sold to the highest bidder.

I'm thinking about going kinda slow here. First, I want a lens: if not a 35mm, a 50/2. Later, I'll see how to finance a M5 or M6 body. Sorry, Paul & Scoop, but I'm not feeling like wrecking miles of film on an unmetered body yet... Once I learn how to develop film, sure! Right now, I can't.

Now... what's the difference between Summitar and Summicron? Are they design designations, like Planar and Sonnar, or is it that Summitar predates Summicron? Also, I've seen Elmar collapsible lenses for the M mount. Any comments on these things? Thanks a lot!

znapschatz

09-14-2003, 19:53

<<Now... what's the difference between Summitar and Summicron? Are they design designations, like Planar and Sonnar, or is it that Summitar predates Summicron? Also, I've seen Elmar collapsible lenses for the M mount. Any comments on these things? Thanks a lot!>>

The screw mount f3.5 Elmar was a Zeiss Tessar variant . It was a very good performer for its day and quite compact, both of which helped gain a reputation for Leica. I owned several of them, plus a later f2.8 version and consider them okay, but I prefered the f2 Summicron, a bigger lens but also collapsible. It made for good enough totability, and I prefered Summicron for its wider maximum aperture and overall image quality. The Summitar was a transitional lens between Leica's first "speed" lens, the f2 Summar, and the 'cron. Its larger front element eliminated the wide aperture light falloff characteristic of the Summar. It was not bad lens, about equal to the Elmars and Summicrons at f8 on down, but not as good at wider apertures. It also lacks click stops, an disadvantage when it's necessary to set the lens opening by feel. Any of these screw mount lenses can be M adapted.

The M Summicrons, all versions, are better lenses, overall, than any of the others. Actually, I liked them all for their distinctive picture qualities. A lens doesn't have to be technically perfect to produce pleasing images.

I have no experience with the latest M versions of collapsible f2.8 Elmars, but a friend uses one and gets excellent results. It sure slims the package for carry and is acceptably fast, although I still feel a little more comfortable with an f2 or 1.4, even though I seldom shoot wide open.

The best 35 mm Leica lens I ever used was the (suprise!) Summicron, although the f2.8 Summaron is actually quite good, too. In this focal length you might consider a Cosina/Voigtlander alternative. Come to think of it, they also market a sweet 50 mm f1.5.

SolaresLarrave

09-15-2003, 15:05

First off, thanks a lot znaps. Your post was most enlightening.

Re: the Voigtlander... I know about it: it's a LTR affair called Nokton, and it does have a quite appealing virtue: speed (f1.5, almost like the Noctilux). But if I went down that route... what'd be the point? I'd like to have Leica glass on a Leica body.

It seems it won't be anytime soon... I've been lurking around e-bay and checking out camera stores. To be quite honest, at times I feel like I deserve to buy it, and at times I'm plain scared. But I'm persistent... And you'll hear me holler when I get the lens.

SolaresLarrave

09-15-2003, 15:34

Any words about the performance and/or quality of the Summarit 50/1.5 M-mount? What would you pick, a Summarit 50/1.5 or a Summicron 50/2?

Thanks!!

znapschatz

09-15-2003, 22:28

The f1.5 Summarit had a so-so reputation, but some photogs thought the lens was unfairly maligned. It was pretty good at moderate apertures, but crapped out at its widest apertures, not a good thing for a lens intended to be used there. All this is second hand, I never actually used a Summarit. However, one of our local (Columbus, OH) Leica heroes, Mike Tatum, said the performance of this lens varied a lot from sample to sample. Mike was so highly regarded a Leica-ist in the late 1950s that the Leica distributor used to send him stuff to try out. He tested several Summarits and declared the one he kept equal to the Summicron. Even if that were so, it would probably be a safer bet to go for a Summicron, pretty much a proven item.

Mike, who later became a Leica rep and then a Kodak rep, used to make up giant enlargements from his Leica negatives and paste contact prints of the negs next to them. Awesome quality, looked like from a view camera.

SolaresLarrave

09-16-2003, 07:44

znap, I can always bank on your responses.

Well, I ran a search on photo.net about these two lenses and found out pretty much what you said: the Summarit was fine at middle apertures, but not as good as the 'Cron wide open. I saw sample shots (even though some people argue the 'Cron suffers from flare) and picked one from the shelves of a New York camera store, whose manager is a splendid person: Jeff Cole.

I ordered via e-mail, and it'll be shipped today. I believe that for $435 I struck gold, considering it's a chrome lens that has both caps and a hood. :D

Gotta pinch myself... Can't believe what I did! Oh, well, the saga won't end until I find a body (wow, that sounds creeepy!)

SolaresLarrave

09-22-2003, 09:37

Well, the 'Cron came at last on Friday, and today, Monday Sept. 22, I placed an order for a chrome Leica M6, used but minty, with box, strap, batteries, body cap and manual. Should be coming on Wednesday.

You'll hear me scream... And, of course, I'll post something here: the works of Summicron!

Keep you posted...

Suspense is killing me!

paul

09-23-2003, 17:02

Scoop, is right. I've bought a beautiful -- I hope it is as described when it arrives -- collapsible 1:2 Summicron to replace the Red Scale Elmar. Just give me an OKARO & I'm set!

SolaresLarrave

09-24-2003, 09:22

Paul, you bought a beautiful --? Can I guess it was a Leica TM lens?

paul

09-24-2003, 12:53

50mm 1:2 collapsible Summicron TM.

skipcashwell

10-20-2003, 11:15

Guess I got very spoiled by a TTL metering system using Nikons for over 30 years - that is why I chose the M6-TTL! Now this is my daily, always with me camera.

The rangefinder is much easier for me to focus accurately and quickly than the SLR/Nikon systems I have - especially in low-light situations.

Although I own two Nikon F3's (which have "automatic exposure"), I still use the old set-it-myself method with help from the center-weighted spot meter that I first learned with the old Nikkormat! So that is why I did not go with the M7.

Regards to all - this is a great forum!
Skip Cashwell

vizioneer

09-08-2005, 01:39

I'm buying back into the M system- so far I've gotten a 35 lux asph chrome, 50 lux chrome. I want to get an MP (perhaps .58 with a 1.25x magnifier since I wear glasses), and maybe a 90 cron APO-ASPH. I can't imagine I need anything else! I shoot slides, so perhaps an M7 or the upcoming Zeiss Ikon are better choices.

To any newbie who reads this, good luck with your choices. It's all about what your final lens array will be in order to figure out which lens to start with. For me, the 50mm is the main lens.

richard_l

09-08-2005, 01:58

Newbies: To fully enjoy the M system it is not necessary to purchase the latest and "greatest" lenses unless you are seriously into low light (and shallow DoF) photography. The 50mm f/2.8 Elmar, stopped down to f/5.6 or so, is just as good as the 50mm Summicron. Similar considerations apply to the 35mm f/2.8 Summaron and the 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit.

Richard

richard_l

09-08-2005, 02:20

vizioneer

09-08-2005, 02:25

richard_l

09-08-2005, 02:42

Indeed, latest and "greatest" isn't always the preferred look. I like fast lenses for DOF and speed. The screw mount bodies and lenses are pretty freaking neat. I'd love to have a IIIg with some vintage lenses!I have an M6, M2, and M3, but I think a nice IIIg would cure my GAS for at least a year or so. :)

paulh

09-08-2005, 04:04

Yes, a iiig is really nice. They are sought after but not terribly rare. You should be able to find one that is used at the US$800 range.

hth

09-08-2005, 05:40

I think I would actually get a Leica II with a 50/3.5 Heliar. Then maybe add a 35/2 UC-Hexanon and a CV 28/3.5 with a CV 28/35 minifinder. An alternative to the 28 would be a CV 21/4.
This would be my small film camera, and a Mamiya 7ii would be my large camera.

The alternative would be an M2 with a 50/3.5 Heliar. Then add a 35/2 UC-Hexanon or Summicron IV. Finally a Hexanon 28/2.8 with CV finder.

/Håkan

What exactly would you get? A metered body like the M5-M7, or a meterless one? Would you go for the LTM kind or the M type?

How about lens? A 50mm? A wide-angle?

I'm curious about what you guys would do. Why? Well, I want one, but I don't know what to look for. Besides, I'm not adept at the Sunny 16 rule, but I do have a handheld meter.

Input? Thanks a lot!! :)

Graybeard

09-08-2005, 06:18

To be honest, I have, since 1952, had the habit of metering the area where I am BEFORE I start looking for pictures. I keep the variables in my head and set the camera accordingly. I use negative film exclusively so the film latitude saves me when I make an error. I still have my original M3 but mow use the M5. Though the M5 has a great built-in meter system, I still choose the exposure before I look at the scene though the viewfinder. i'm not bragging, mind you, but i'm 80% within 1/2 a stop of the final meter reading.

I agree entirely with Kajabbi here about the necessity for on-board metering.

For most shooting situations, the range of required exposures in narrow and visual estimation of exposure serves quite well, particularly with negative film . Outdoors for example, with the shutter speed set to 1/(film speed in ASA) a typical range is f11 in bright sun, f8 with cloud cover, f5.6 in open shade and either f4 or f2.8 in deep shade. ( I've checked this many times with a calibrated meter and the f16 in "sunny 16" seems to be for the beach or desert). So for a city street, the choice becomes f11 on the sunny side of the street and f4 on the shady side. If you're using a camera with on-board meeting, or a hand-held meter, check this; you will find that the range of exposures falls in this range. It is nice to have the exposure confirmation that a built-in meter provides, but by no means is the meter essential.

Indoors, with artificial lighting and ASA400 film at 1/60th, the range of exposures will fall between f2 and f4. This is probably a consequence of most artificial lighting being set to a range where people are comfortable.

I have, and use, cameras with built in meters, even an automatic one (R4), but find it more engaging to be my own meter.

As to a camera preference, my choice is either a Barnack Leica or an M3 with a collapasible Summicron - one often needs f2 indoors. Either camera can be carried easily in a coat pocket or belt pouch.

If you prefer the on-board meter, a interesting (and clearly quite off-topic) choice might be a Leicaflex Standard. It certainly has the Leica "feel", is just slightly larger than a M2/M3/M4, and has an on-board meter (which can be adjusted to use a silver oxide battery). These are available, with a 50mm Summicron, for less than the price of a used Summicron M. If you are used to focusing with a rangefinder patch, you shoul have little difficulty with the central microprism spot on the Leicaflex.

dreilly

09-08-2005, 08:48

I'm going through similar equations in my head, too. Do I want an M3 and really teach myself sunny 16, and the inside version: flourescent 2? Or do I want to keep that Leica CL for its diminutive size, relative economy, and the nice 40mm cron, which to me negates my need for both a 35 and 50mm.

That way I could have the TTL if I needed it, and then meter manually when I wanted. But I know myself, I'll revert to staring at that tiny needle all the time out of laziness.

Oh, tough choices. If i had the money, I'd get the M5 and never look back. Doesn't seem much bigger to me and seems made for aperture priority style shooting with the well placed shutter speed dial.

chug

09-08-2005, 17:43

Just do what I did and get an M6 ;) I missed out on a black one, but the chrome one looks sexy as well :D

richard_l

09-08-2005, 18:47

That way I could have the TTL if I needed it, and then meter manually when I wanted. But I know myself, I'll revert to staring at that tiny needle all the time out of laziness.Nothing wrong with looking at the needle as long as you understand that centering it by adjusting the aperture and shutter controls will adjust the image to to a weighted average of 18% grey, the weighting depending on the metering pattern. TTL is extremely convenient for filter use. It is not 100% accurate for filters (because of varying sensitivity to the wavelengths of different colors), but it is usually better than using the filter factors supplied by manufacturers.

I was out yesterday shooting my M3. My old beater is just getting smoother and smoother. It must have been unused for a long period of time. Anyhow, the controls are almost buttery smooth now, and using it is getting to be a very pleasant sensual experience. Alas, my M6 is collecting dust.

Beniliam

09-09-2005, 07:49

Francisco,

Creo q el modelo mas equilibrado, por precio-prestaciones es la M6 clasica. Tienes un buen cuerpo, con buenos acabados, buen visor, facil de cargar en comparacion a otras leicas... Y con fotometro. Si, no tendra el visor de la M3, pero tiene fotometro. No tendra la construccion de una M4, y q, si es tambien muy solida. Las leica de rosca, no son practicas en muchos casos... son bellas, curiosas, pero t aseguro q un fotografo de esa epoca, ahora si tuviera posibilidad usaria otra camara.

CZeni

09-09-2005, 08:07

I started with an M4 and a 50/2.8 Elmar...the lack of meter was a slowing factor in my shooting. I traded it on a nice M6 - what a difference in useability. The M4 was a jewel but the M6 is more practical, especially if one does a lot of low light shooting.

Lens? 50 is still my favorite focal length, but the 35/2 'cron I bought a while back is spending more and more time on that M6...oh yeah, in the interim I bought a user M3...still miss the meter. The M3 is getting 'pimped' with a repaint and recovering job. Should be quite a shock to the purists when I'm done :)

richard_l

09-09-2005, 15:25

Guess I got very spoiled by a TTL metering system using Nikons for over 30 years - that is why I chose the M6-TTL! Now this is my daily, always with me camera.I suppose you know that the plain vanilla M6 also has TTL metering, as does the M5 and the CL.

Richard

xcapekey

09-09-2005, 16:53

easy choice...M2 with timer and rapid load...elegant VF and silky smooth....and a 35/50 summicron

if u want to go the LTM route, get a iiia on the cheap, have it CLA'd and track down an orange contrast filter to put on the RF...collapsible summar for the glow...summitar/summicron for everything else...aux finder works best...i have a kieve turret finder that appears to be pretty accurate....today i have a 28mm ultron on my iiia, nice sweet combo...

merciful

09-09-2005, 18:27

I had an M6 and sold it to get an M3. It's easier to meter with a hand-held incident meter than it is to make sure you're hitting middle-grey with a reflective meter. My most-used lenses are the 50 and 85.

Tri-X rules: but I'm about to try Efke.

existrandom

09-12-2005, 07:54

hello all,

my 2 cents:

at first it was a Canon P on some internet site that attracted me to the whole RF thing... poisionous beauty...um, and then i thought about a Bessa R2, which was then the current model... and then i stumbled on a Canon VI-L at a good price in a local store, which both the proprietor and i mistook as a P, it was fine until it broke down... and then i got a Canon L-1 as a replacement... but somehow it was that all manual M2 that i lust over all through the while.... and after a long research (lust build up) and the GAS kicked in and i got myself a M4 of 1968 vintage as a birthday present for myself... so that is my first M... almost a year after i first handle a M2 in a store for "fun".... it is easier to load and it is relatively more new than its precedors, and i was told the optics in M4's RF is less prone to seperation; but like they say, that filmsy rewind crank is the first thing to break! (US50 for a replacement!)

as for glass, it all started with a CV 35/1.7, and then i got a Canon 35/1.8 to replace it... it is smooth but... but there is always a "but"... i reckon it is lacking some bite... and so i sold it and just make do with the Canon 50/1.8 at the moment, its results are VERY nice

but it was that Canon 50/1.5 sonnar that i always thought i should get one and try it out one day

LTM lenses is just so nice and open up a lot of choices when one got a M body, you can go M and LTM... but then you start checking out those M lenses...

do these make sense?

cheers!

lee

Doug

09-12-2005, 10:37

I really wish there it were possible for a camera to have auto exposure controlled by an onboard meter taking incident readings from the direction opposite to that of the lens's view. Some inventor might design a photographer's beanie hat with incident light receptor on the back? :D But that wouldn't be particularly convenient... without, say, a Bluetooth wireless communication connection between the beanie and the camera!

Absent the above marvel, and absent auto exposure, I don't have much use for a camera's built-in meter. If I'm going to meter manually anyway, I'd rather use a hand-held incident meter which I think is much more effective. Only with the convenience and speed of AE, though, I'm willing to compromise on that metering effectiveness and embrace the built-in meter. I'm just impatient for that Bluetooth beanie to be invented... :)

sleepyhead

09-14-2005, 05:47

I used to think that I couldn't live without a built in meter, so I bought a Bessa R2. Then I started using an M4 with a handheld incident meter. Now I find the little red arrows and green dot on the inside of my R2 distracting, and down right misleading if the camera isn't pointed at the "right area" (i.e. middle gray).

I also think that if you stick to one film for a while, meter handheld in order to learn what light corresponds to what settings, you can do pretty well with negative film and guessing if you're in a rush, e.g., on the street.

I often take an incident reading for the environment I'm in, set the camera, and then walk around. I make small adjustments to the settings such as if I walk into a slightly darker street or whatever. So you don't have to meter all the time.

michaelallen

09-14-2005, 06:33

M3, for two reasons (there are many others):

1 Once you've used a 1:1 finder like the M3 (or Bessa R3a for that matter), you will never be happy with anything else. The view is terrific, and the ability to shoot with both eyes open can often come in very handy.

2 It does not have a built-in meter. That's right. You will be doing yourself the biggest favour if you start to use your handheld or really learn sunny 16. The freedom of using the exposure meter in your head is exhilirating. You'll be shocked how accurate it is.

Good luck.

(OK, one more - they never built another like it until the MP, the film advance and shutter feel like silk)

richard_l

09-14-2005, 08:15

(OK, one more - they never built another like it until the MP, the film advance and shutter feel like silk)Obviously you've never used an M2 in good condition. :)

zpuskas

09-16-2005, 16:40

I agree with a number of posts stating "don't need no stinkin' meter!". I too was terrified of not having a built in meter so I bought a M6TTL. Then was seduced into buying an M3 and now I use the M3 more than the M6--at least for B&W. I use the sunny 16 rule and it works! Really works! For slides-- I'm still a little gun shy--so I'll use the M6 for them.

Trius

09-16-2005, 18:19

My first, and only, Leica was an M3. No meter, and I made great exposures with it. In fact, I can't remember a (technically) bad exposure. How? I had learned how to make accurate exposures by simply knowing the right exposure... either by knowing in my head or using an external meter.

That said, there's nothing wrong with an M with a meter. If I were to go back to a Leica, I would strongly consider an M4-P or M7. But I won't. I really want the new ZI when it comes out.

Trius

FrankS

09-16-2005, 18:22

Just wondering, why would you want a ZI ?

Doug

09-16-2005, 20:03

dcsang

09-17-2005, 05:19

I don't know Trius's motivations for desiring the Zeiss-Ikon RF cam, but it seems attractive to me too... I have hopes for Zeiss-level quality control at a modest price level, and AE, and what promises to be an impressive viewfinder. Medium magnification but a wide view. Longer baselength and better quality than the Bessa. When it finally materializes, I'm not certain to get one, but I'll be paying close attention. Might it match or exceed an M7?

I would consider the Ikon; if it ever gets released ;)

But ya, for the price and if the quality is on par then I'd look at it as well - mainly because of the AE :D

That being said, I did see a recent M7 go on the bay for a little more than $1800 USD (this looked to be in excellent shape and was from a reputable seller - although they are a dealer - "Henrys" here in Toronto).

I think the thing that stops me from considering an M7 is price. Plain and simple - plus I've got my R3A that seems to work just fine for AE. For my first Leica though, I'm looking at either an M6 classic or perhaps an M4-P or M4-2.

Cheers
Dave

peter_n

09-17-2005, 06:12

$1.8K is an excellent price for an M7. I too would be interested in the Zeiss-Ikon but only if the shutter were as quiet as the Leica's which by all accounts it is not. I just love this M7 I got, I've been using it about 1/2 auto and 1/2 manual and it is a joy to use. The main problem with the camera is that I like it so much I want another one. That won't happen till next year at the very earliest.

nikon_junkie

09-17-2005, 20:14

For the record I've owned both an M2 and M3 and found them identical. Both had age issues and the 35mm pre-lux flared. From the cameraquest website, he rates the M's viewfinders and find the M3 slightly better than the M2 and slightly behind the MP and M7. The M6 reportedly has flare problems.

I shoot mainly F100's ( having switched from F5's) and I'm shopping for a usable M2 or M3 body.

I've become addicted to my Sekonic and even meter with the F100, even with it's external meter in the LCD...

I loved both cameras and find metering with my Sekonic second nature and fast. Also there are clip on meters available.

Trius

10-28-2005, 11:29

Just wondering, why would you want a ZI ?
Frank: Just now saw your question, so I won't wait for the T.O. gathering to answer ... ;-)

First, the longer rangefinder base length. Second, the 28mm framelines and the way the viewfinder is set up in general.... I think. I'll have to handle one to see if I really like it.

Finally, the price. Of course, that's dependent on perceived build quality and hence my personal assessment of value.

That being said, not a lot has been said in this forum regarding the original M4. From what I've read on the web, it has smoother operation than the M4-2 and M4-P due to the brass gears.

Does anyone have an opinion on this from experience? What about general handling compared to an M3? Naturally the loading, rewind, etc., are different. But aside from those kinds of differences, what are your general impressions of the M4.

And what are the implications of long term use, since brass is softer than steel?

I know the original Midland M4s are not cheap due to their rarity. But if I ever happened on one at a good price, I'd be tempted. These seemed to be under-appreciated except for the scarcity.

Trius

Benjamin Marks

10-28-2005, 11:52

Everyone will have their favorites. I think that a used M6 and Summicron of one generation ago represent one of the all time steals in photography at the moment. I don't think that one camera is right for every job, but if you are set on a rangefinder, this one will see you through an awful lot. If you see the world in wider terms, substitute a 35 Summicron for the 50.

Ray Kilby

10-30-2005, 04:43

I started with range finders with an M6 and a 35mm lens. I only used that combination for two years as I couldn't afford any more after such an outlay. It was the best thig I ever did when it comes to buying a camera. It was and is a joy to use. I now have a 50 mm and 90 lens, but the 35 keeps beckoning. You cannot go wrong with an M6 or for that matter an MP, which I am told is better engineered. (I wouldn't know.) But you will never regret the M6 or a 35mm lens.

Also if you are looking to save money, then look at second hand Konica Hexar RF. A wonderful camera in it's own right. It has a good range of Konica made lenses, but fits the Leica M series lenses anyway. I use my Leica lenses with it and sometimes the 50mmHexanon lens (Konica).

It doesn't have the accuracy of the range finder that the M6 has, and is fully electronic, so cannot be use when the battery is flat. (The M6 you can use without any battery as it is only for the internal meter.) But it does have some other useful features, so have a look.

I envy you as you will love discovering the M6 if you get one. believe me, it will be like coming home.

dostacos

10-30-2005, 08:40

I am not very up on Liecas but I would go for whatever new one has a meter and is capable of total manual control if the battery fails and as long as I am fantasying I will take it in black with a handfull of lenses including the fastest wideangle they make.....

MCTuomey

10-30-2005, 09:13

Well, I'm new to RFs so, FWIW, my decision was easy. (Very little experience onboard to clutter my thinking ;-))

I have a Bessa R2A for the in-cam metering and AE (CV 35 and 75)

I have an M4 for keeping it simple (50 Cron, 90 TE, and just recently a Summarit)

I use the Leica more and the Bessa less and less.

Focal lengths - much more use of the 35 and 50.

Now the greatest part of my shooting (by volume) is youth sports with a digi cam, so when I'm out for myself I do crave the Leica for its simplicity. I trust my metering instincts pretty well, given the latitude of most neg films. I guess I could consolidate my RF kit by buying an M6 and selling the R2A and M4, but it's nice to have two in case of repairs, etc.

ERV

10-31-2005, 19:52

I am one of those who also favor the M5, I have two and really like their size and weight. Granted they are very unLeica like (the anti-Leica Leica) however the meter is excellent and the oversize shutter speed dial allows you to change the shutter speed without moving you eye from the finder.
Plus you can see the shutter speed in the finder as well.
I had an m3 for a short time and although it is in a class by itself mechanically, I could never get used to the .92 finder image. Shifting between a .72 m6 or m5 and the m3 was too complicated for me, and I also like to see more of what is outside of the frame as well.
Also I admit to being lazy and having an on board meter just makes things simpler.
Everyone has their own preferences, however they are all great cameras capable of making amazing images.

ywenz

10-31-2005, 20:12

Don't take any weight suggestions of how silky smooth the old Ms are compared to the more recent ones. I for one think that observation is overrated at best. You'll find out for yourself it's really a novelty idea that doesn't affect the camera's picture taking ability in one way or another... It's much better to buy a newer unit than one that is 25 years older..

Back2theFuture

12-11-2007, 05:13

My first, a gorgeous M3, bought here on RFF, and kick myself at least once a day for having to sell it! I now realize theres a lot of other crap I should have sold, but I found myself in NYC and getting broke, so, to Tamarkin it went, which also was unlucky, theyre great guys!, buttt about an hour before I walked in, they got literally the most gorgeous M3 they, and I, had ever seen haha, not only that, but a complete set, body, lenses, cases(s) strap, etc, like nothing had ever been touched! So right when he saw mine, which was in the best condition I had seen until then lol, we both laughed, mine was probably to hide the annoyance haha. But, c'est la vie!