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

[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]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

If 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.

[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.