best camera body next to a m6ttl

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I have been shooting with my new m6ttl for a while now, after working mainly with a Nikon f100. I love the quality of the shots I get with the leica enough to put up with the quirks of the M system and am thinking of adding a second M body to my arsenal. Main reason would be to carry two focal lengths at the same time. I don't want to change lenses that much and consider te tri-elmar to slow for my needs.

My question is what would be a good body to add. I would love to have a used m2/3/4 or even a used m6 classic preferably with a .85 viewfinder since I think the 2nd body will have either the 75mm or the 90mm attached permanently.

Does anyone have such a combination of M3/M6TTL and how do they experience the different speed-dial directions for instance. I think that alone would/could be a huge inconvenience and drive me to a new m6ttl? Please advise

-- Bas Wip (bas@baswip.com), September 27, 2001

Answers

If you don't need a TTL meter, IMHO the best body for lenses 50mm and longer is the M3.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), September 27, 2001.

I would have always given this answer, but I'm even more positive of it now. Buy a second M6TTL 0.72x...and get the soon-to-be-released 1.25x viewfinder magnifier for it. That will give you complete standardization of controls and total interchangeability should one or the other body malfunction.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), September 27, 2001.

I mostly use my Leica Ms for street photography and when doing that use two M bodies; M3 for 50mm and M2 for 28 or 35mm. I think the M3 is the easiest to focus because of the larger magnification, so if you get a M6ttl I would go for the .85.

As to what other bodies if cost is a factor then a M4-2 or M4-P. If you get a M3 I do not think the the different-directions for the shutter speed dial would be any hinderance.

-- Steve LeHuray (icommag@toad.net), September 27, 2001.


I second Jay. I have an M6TTL 0.85 with 2lenses, the 35mm/f2 ASPH 'cron & 90mm/f2 ASPH APO 'cron. I am going to get a second body when finances allow and it will be the M6TTL 0.58. I too had been thinking of the M3 for nostalgic as well as classic reasons, but deep down I know the reverse direction usage between the two bodies will irk me, and probably drive me to getting a ttl anyway. I have heard the loading on the M3 is slower then the TTL, though I could be wrong. But remember the larger dial on the TTL is so intuitive and ergonomic. I intend to have the 35mm on the 0.58 body and the 90 on the 0.85 permanently and will hopefully not get the urge to buy a third lens. I hate changing lenses and would like to limit my usage to two lenses and two bodies. Bas, why dont you go down to a Leica dealer and play around with the two bodies, switching between them and see which combinatio you feel is best. All the best!

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), September 27, 2001.

Bas:

I have a M6 TTL 0.72 and two M3s. I always have a 35mm Summicron ASPH mounted on the M6 while the M3s have 50, 90 or 135 lenses. The 90 and 135 lenses, and the Noctilux, are easier to focus and use with the M3s. Film loading with the M3 takes a few more seconds than with the M6, but what might slow you down is the absence of a light meter. I use a handheld Gossen LunaPro SBC, a Leica MR meter, or the M6 TTL as a light meter. I usually take one reading, and then adjust exposure if needed by 'guesstimation'! M3s in user condition can be obtained for half the cost of a M6. If money is not a problem, then a M6 0.85 might be the best compromise, since you plan to use the second body with a 75 or 90 lens. You get a higher magnification viewfinder plus a built in light meter. I too thought about getting the Tri-Elmar, but f4 is too slow for me......................

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), September 27, 2001.



A couple other things to consider: the M3 wouldn't have framelines for the 75mm lens. On the other hand, if you use a 90, you could enhance the M3 rangefinder accuracy beyond that of the M6 0.85 by adding the above-mentioned magnifier. As with all of these opinion-gathering exercises, it's your own opinion and manner of working that really matter. Either the M6 or the M3 could be just the thing for you. An M3 (and M2/M4) "feels" different from the M6, in ways that may or may not be important to you. I agree with the advice above to just try them out and compare.

-- Tim Nelson (timothy.nelson@yale.edu), September 27, 2001.

My choice for a second body as companion to the M6TTL .72x is an M4-P. Reasons:

- Same viewfinder magnification and frame lines ... I use the same lenses I use with the M6TTL so I want the same VF capabilities.

- Less to no rangefinder patch flare (simpler optics since there are no metering indicators in the camera to manage)

- Relatively inexpensive (I traded a Rolleiflex 3.5F Xenotar for the M4-P body in EXC++ condition, valued at about $900.)

- Same easy to load mechanism as the M6.

The difference in shutter speed dial size and rotation is inconsequential since I set it while looking at the camera at waist level, not while looking through the lens.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), September 27, 2001.


Bas if you´re used to the handling of your M6ttl then your best choice should be a similar body with another magnification (if needed). the 1.25 magnifier can be a great choice.

I have been lately tempted to buy a M6 classic that some friend owns and wants to sell, I tried it and find exposimeter arrows disturbing, took bateries out and it was the same M4P and M3 I´m used to, so I decided to wait and think better about a next body (in case I really need it). With you it can be exactly the oposite if you´re used to your M6 and meter. Good luck.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), September 27, 2001.


Bas

If you don't have any experience with earlier M cameras, there is much more to consider than the direction of travel of the shutter speed dial, which is probably not as big an issue as you may think.

1) The M2 and M3 are wonderful cameras; I don't think there was ever a better viewfinder designed than that of the original M3. However, neither of these cameras (except for a few very late M2s such as the M2R) have the rapid loading system, which was introduced with the M4. It is very much slower and more annoying to load an M2 or M3, unless you have them converted to rapid load.

2) The film rewinding knobs of the M2 and M3 are inconvenient and annoying to use. leica corrected this with the canted rewind lever introduced on the M4.

3) Those cameras are over 35 years old, so they will have to be adjusted to specs.

I use the M4P, which is still a terrific camera: essentially an M6 without a built-in lightmeter. I like the Leicameter MR4; it is coupled to the shutter speed dial, very reliable, and gives readings identical to my Gossen Luna Pro meter.

Hope this helps.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), September 27, 2001.


Bas:

Assuming your current M6TTL body is a .72, I would redommend you consider the .58 as your next body, while adding the new 1.25 magnifier as previously suggested. With this set-up, you will have all possible baes covered, and get maximum flexibility from your system, should you decide to add wider lenses to your Leica stable.

The .58 body works very well with 24, 28, 35 and 50 lenses WITHOUT the need for an auxilary finder. The .72 body (or the .58 + 1.25 configuration) is great when you're switching between 35, 50, and 90; while the .72 + the 1.25 (.85) would be super for 75, 90, and 135. Of course, if you are SURE you'll never want to use anything wider than a 50 on a .85 body, it would also be an outstanding choice - it's just that it won't be as good of a back-up should your .72 body become disabled at a critical moment.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 27, 2001.



If you use your M body the way it was designed to be used, intuitively and by touch, there is only one choice and that is to stay within the family of newer TTL bodies. Any pre-TTL body will give you a smaller shutter speed dial with, to the point, a "backwards" action.

I am continually amazed that the advent of the TTL, with its "improved" shutter speed dial, did not precipitate an uprising from M afficionados. What were the Solms product planners thinking? How did this pass the design stage? "Oh, let's improve this by reversing the direction of the action..." Sheesh. Were they unaware that they have a huge installed base of die-hard users, many of whom have owned 10 or more M bodies through the years, and have perfected their art to the point where they can use no other camera? I'm not talking about the collectors here. I'm talking about the street shooters, the PJ's, the artists and the poets of photography.

I've never met an M photographer (note: _photographer_, not collector) that did not handle their M body by feel, unconsciously, and usually at waist or chest level. Mike Johnston has written of this phenomenon often and far beter than I could. But it is true. The design of this 1954 classic lends itself to "melt" into one's hands. It's pure brilliance, and anybody who has used an M for any length of time knows what I am talking about.

Then to take one of the key controls on this minimalist body and change its operation 180~, well.... I just don't get it. I know, I know, it now matches the LED in the viewfinder. Big whoop. IMO, it precludes using an M6TTL along side, say, a beautiful old M2 or one of the great M4 variants. To me, trying to work quickly, unobtrusively, and intuitively with two camera bodies, with one shutter speed dial working the opposite of the other, would not work. But hey, that's just me. I'm one of the old dogs who has the real estate of the top of that camera burned into the back of his brain. I would find it impossible to concurrently use both old and new.

Sorry to rant, but I have (obviously) been thinking about this for a while, and your question illuminates the conundrum perfectly. It's not that I have anything against the M6TTL --- I don't. If I used one, I'd be happy with it, and would be sticking within it and its TTL siblings. But to me, the TTL is an unhappy event in Leicaland, as we now have two distinct families of M cameras: pre-TTL and post TTL, and that's not a good thing.

-- Kent Phelan (kent@phelan.org), September 27, 2001.


Kent,

I use both M4-P and M6TTL. I handle them both by feel a lot of them time. The direction of the shutter speed selector motion is inconsequential ... on the TTL, it's very intuitive since you push the selector with your finger in the direction the meter's indicator is pointing. On the M4-P, you move it as per a glance at the camera. Since the dials are located differently and have a totally different feel, there's no way to mix them up in use.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), September 27, 2001.


Get another 0.72 M6TTL.

If you have viewfinder envy, buy the 1.25x adapter. The 0.85 vf isn't a substitute for an M3 vf.

If you have build-quality qualms, buy an older lens -- say an old chrome 90 Summicron. They have the same feel as the early Ms and won't depress you about the current Leica bodies.

If you're not used to their full-disassembly loading technique, early Ms will depress you; if you don't have a handheld meter yet, it's another gadget to buy and calibrate; and M3s are incompatible with the motors, rapidwinder, modern flash connections, etc.

I like my M3. I'll probably get another to back it up eventually.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), September 27, 2001.


Bas:

I have a pair of M3's and an M6, .72 non ttl. I have thought about the M6ttl .85 but I not sure about the rotation of the shutter speed. I have had my M3's for 30 years and use them by feel and the M6 matches the feel. I still find myself prefering the M3's over the M6 for the rangefinder on the 50 and longer lenses. I detest the flare of the M6 finder. I enjoy the meter on the M6 and use a Luna- pro, MR or MR-4 meter on the M3's. I do not use TTL flash so that is not an issue. I agree the rewind knob on the M3 is slow and cumbersome, but I am used to it. Try handling an M3 or M2 before you decide, but don't plop down the cash without at least shooting a roll through a used body.

Good luck and enjoy.

Mark J.

-- Mark A. Johnson (logic@gci.net), September 30, 2001.


I laughed when I first read about a TTL M6. What are they trying to do, I thought, turn it into a snapshot camera? Who the hell uses flash for anything serious with a Leica?! I could almost hear the wheels turning at Leitz: "Let's appeal to all the rich amateurs out there who use Leicas for their vacation and holiday snaps!" Grotesque.

And for my money, even a built-in meter is contrary to the Leica approach. And the problem it apparently causes, with viewfinder flare, is an indication of just how tacked-on this feature is.

No wonder vintage Leicas are commanding high prices!

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), September 30, 2001.



Peter, not every snapshot opportunity takes place in the studio with a willing babe and two hours to take the picture. Sometimes TTL and lightmeters are very useful. Funnily enough, this seems to be the consensus among pro snappers who mostly use Nikons and Canons, not because they're amateurish dweebs who can't focus without help, but because they need the speed and precision of modern equipment to do the job. The Leica M is still a thousand miles behind the competition in this department - but it has some advantages, which is why I for one use them. I'm happy for you if your subjects don't require a modern feature set in your camera, in my case I also choose my subjects and the way I want to photograph them, that doesn't mean that everything else is shite. And please let's not cite the famous snappers of the 50's as the ones who did perfectly well with an M3 thank you very much, they didn't shoot slide or do highly skilled corporate photography.

What is this talentless rich amateurs thing you've got? It's getting boring.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 30, 2001.


Of course, you could just be winding us up, but the absurd thing is that plenty of people actually believe this nonsense.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 30, 2001.

TTL flash is very useful in any camera but 1/50 sec. sync. may be a little slow for fill.

Bas, If you really don't "need" a second body to warrant that kind of investment I highly recommend the Bessa-T. I use it for long and short lenses outside the ideal 28mm to 50mm range.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), September 30, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ