This is NOT a rant about the automation of Leica Ms with the M7. I've read a few posts about worriers dumping M6s, which I believe some may regret later. There is a bigger issue here than meets the eye. As with many people, I've observed that modern life in general has become increasingly complex. One needs a degree from MIT to operate a can opener anymore. The inherent charm of the M system was (and is) that once mastered, it is simple, and remains so model to model. I believe that the Ms evolved far enough for what you use them for with the M-3. The addition of a meter and TTL were pluses for those in need of that degree of information feedback, thus making the camera self contained. In that regard, the M6 TTL , IMO, is the pinnical of the Leica philosophy. For others it may have been the M3. I may want AE but I don't need it. If I DO want it, there are other more accomplished choices. But they are more complex.... leading me back to my original point. The M6s I own and use are something of a haven from all the other complicated do-dads I have to use in my work. They are just enough, and not more or less than I need for what an M is suppose to do. I also have a M7, and it's a fine camera. But it ain't an M6 from a philosophical point of view. Personally, I'm never giving up the 6s. In fact, I'm now considering a M-3 so I can become more adept at careful observation and metering of light . I need to be brought closer to the awareness of light, not have stuff get in between it and my senses. Just a note, this isn't protectionism of my M6 investment. I lost more money on digital junk last year than my Leica stuff cost in total. Just a thought.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 14, 2002

Answers

Amen, I'm just happy that people are dumping their M6's left and right so that I can pick up a few of those at dirt cheap (not totally but 1200-1400 price range is very good) prices. I am still getting the M7 for those action shots however.

M6 rules. We can't simply forget what is a lovely classic by now.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

Marc Williams wrote:

"In fact, I'm now considering a M-3 so I can become more adept at careful observation and metering of light . I need to be brought closer to the awareness of light, not have stuff get in between it and my senses."

This line of thinking is part of what brought me back to Leica photography. I feel there is a direct connection between learning to evaluate the *quantity* of light and the *quality* of light.

Most of us, I think, are cursed with inertia. I know I am. But forcing myself to evaluate the quantity of light, first by educated guess, then checking with a meter, preferably of the incident type, helps break the inertia. Once in motion, I find it easier to go on to evaluate the quality of the light as well, and to think about how I might best use whatever light is present.

An electronic device can read the quantity of light for me, and even set the camera correctly without my help. But it can never evaluate the quality of the light. Only I can do that, and only if I develope a deep awareness of light. Learning to evaluate and use light well has been for me a lifelong quest, and one the Leica helps me with by forcing me to do it myself so that I really learn, rather than doing it for me.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), April 14, 2002.

In addition, I'm sorry about your digital experience. So far, I plan to get that Digilux 1. Looks like a "fun" camera to use. I wonder whether it can used for gallery prints however based on 4 megapixels worth of data. (But who knows?)

Perhaps Leica digital you won't lose an investment on?

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

I agree to a certain degree. I kept my classic M6, but didn't really see the need for two ttl's. I love my new M7 and feel its a true leica in every way. AE is just a perk IMO.

-- John Abela (jamriman@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.

Well, I usually stand up in defence of the non-metered M's but concede the in-built meter of the M6 is desirable to most users.

I would argue however, that the pinnacle was therfore the (so called) Classic M6 for the following reasons:

The extra height of the TTL to me does not look right, yes I know it's only 2mm but even so. The TTL flash circutry is I believe a disadvantage in that it takes control away from the user and makes the M6 TTL a battery dependant camera just like the M7 for flash users - because, the flash will not fire with dead camera batteries - a serious oversight. This also happens if the user wishes to disable the meter arrows by removing the battery (as some do). The larger "reverse" spinning speed dial is the opposite of all other previous M's - whether it spins the same way as the arrow indicates (Leica's pitch) is dependant on the users way of working!

But at least the TTL can be turned on and works immediately unlike the ridiculous situation on the M7 - turn it on and wait two seconds for the camera to "warm up" like some 1960's TV set - two seconds - that's a lot of decisive moments.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 14, 2002.

I was out shooting yesterday morning in Dallas. The battery expired in my M6TTL, darn. No worry, I had my exposures worked up so I kept on shooting. I thought about the M7 at point in time.

By the way, if you make it to Dallas soon, check out the Sixth Floor Museum (for all the Kennedy stuff) and go upstairs to the 7th Floor and check out the Pulitzer Prize photo exhibit. All the Pulitzer Prize photos (since 1941 I think) are on display. There were probably 100 people there when I went in. You could hear a pin drop in the place. Awesome power in photographs. I also realized that being there with a camera and film is much more important than what camera and film you have. But it was suprizing how many of the photos were taken with Nikon FM's and Nikkormats with Tri-X.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 14, 2002.

Marc, I forgot to say that I agree absolutely with everything else you said. Incidentally according to the latest "Leica Fotografie" the M6 WILL continue to be PRODUCED alongside the M7 - hmmmmmm?

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 14, 2002.

Alfie, if you get a Digital Leica it Has to be for fun, because it'll be worthless in 2 years. 4 megs should be good up to 8X10 depending on the physical size of the sensor and the qualities of the software. For larger "exhibition prints" you'll need a second party program like Genuine Fractals.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 14, 2002.

I know I'm repeating myself, but I think that Leica should produce the original M6 along with the M7, and drop the M6 TTL.

Joe

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), April 14, 2002.

I agree with Joe - - - but, of course, I'm biased as we just got our M7 and we have an early "classic" M6. IMHO, the early M6 is a "dream machine."

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), April 14, 2002.

I don't get it, the early M6? Just b/c it's devoid of the TTL? Is that the deal?

I agree I'd rather own an M6 TTL than the M7, I mean taking a photo is such a simple undertaking usually. Why would you want your M7 to be second guessing some initial settings by yourself (with the M6) unless you're in changing lighting. Oh well, some have this need I guess. I did have the choice to wait a couple of months for the M7, but I like and use the M6 TTL with great results, coming from a Canon I wanted the simplicity and effectiveness.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

I agree that TTL could be lived without quite easily. I prefered the size of the classic M6 to the TTL model anyway. What I do like about the TTL model isn't the TTL as much as the shutter speed dial orientation to the meter diodes in the finder. A classic sized M6 with that shutter wheel would be a dream machine for me.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 14, 2002.

I've used both the m6ttl and m7 and have felt the auto has actually captured an image I wouldn't have had with the m6. This probably could be my weakness rather than the cameras but the result was marvelous. I'll continue to use both cameras. I appreciate this discusson.

-- gary brown (drdad1111@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.

Giles,

Despite what Leica says in their "house magazine", to wit: the M6 (TTL) will continue to be produced along side the M7, I'll beleive it when I see it. One way to prove this I guess would be to discover M6 TTLs with serials that are higher than those used for M7 production. (I'm aware that Leitz/Leica serials are not necessarily sequential at any one moment, but ultimately they become that.)

Leica has 6 different M6 TTLs when finish/finders are considered. They have announced (so far) 4 combinations of of the M7. That would make a total of 10 M models for them to produce, inventory and distribute. That ain't gonna happen folks.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 14, 2002.

Whine all you will, but Leica's problem is this: they are not only a business, but now they have shareholders to keep happy. The main issue is that our generation is slowly being phased out. The current generation is being brought up in the digital/automated age. With this, the demand for fine mechanical instruments is going down, down, down. G-Shocks are all the rage. Pretty much nobody in highschool or college knows what a Blancpain is. With Leica's prices staying in the stratosphere, it won't be likely that the young'uns are going to venture there anytime soon. Voigtlander, praise be to them, may actually be helping our cause, and therefore helping Leica rather than competing with them.

I think Nikon got it right with the FM3A (but O Spot Meter Where Art Thou?) Aperture AE on demand, with full manual (and batteryless) operation if desired, all in one model sporting a revolutionary hybrid shutter. Leica, wake up!

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.

IMO, this thread is just another waste of time.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), April 14, 2002.

Marc, interesting point, at the end it takes us to "why do you like your M for?", few months ago we couldnīt say because of any automation, now we can, but for sure older reasons stays, and are dificult to take off, just because of a new feature, (constant changing SLR systemīs users may do, but for those there can be also old reasons that stays).

I have an example of recalcitrant meterless M user, me, when got my first M6 few months ago, I thougth ligth metering will be of a great help, it could had been, if I didnīt have to look through finder to do it, and if I could switch ligth metering arrows off to frame would had been great, at the end I decided to keep M3īs and M4Pīs and sell M6.

I may need a new minolta ligth meter soon.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

I agree that an appreciation of the scene is what's essential to getting good photos and that M's are well-suited to "staying out of the way" of that appreciation. The M3 is my favorite because it does only what I need it to (and does it extraordinarily well) and nothing else.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 14, 2002.

I get identical exposures with my M3 or M6.I prefer the size of M6,as my M3 has the old clip on selenium meter.In fact sometimes I work without any meter,and because of experience and simply studying the light get better exposures,both in light and photo!Thus said,Leica will devote more to the M7...I find it hilarious when seeing many newsmen and photojournalists with their Eos and Nikon systems still checking exposures with Minolta meters.I've seen this on normal sunny days!I spoke with a portrait photographer recently and he said "that by using the Minolta meter(which is a truly fine meter) an exposure accuaracy of 1/12th of f-stop,was his standard"This is sheer nonsense! So the Leica shutter not that accurate,our lenses are f-stops,not t-stops,and unless all your film from same batch number and specially stored,plus at the end very exact and consistent processing,the whole trip a worthless exercise.Photographs are our goal.All of us need light to "write".Free yourself,be liberated,start "guess-timating"!

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

I agree with those who say the TTL feature of the M6 TTL doesn't add much useful new functionality. However, the M6TTL and M7 have more sensitive light meters (down to EV-2) than the early M6s (EV0), that's the ability to measure 2 stops (a factor of 4) less light, and this is useful. Also the M7 shutter speeds are significantly more accurate than all other M cameras and are set in incrementally small steps, making the exposure more accurate.

I guess they'll be a lot of people taking summer courses at MIT so they can figure out how to operate their new M7s. :-).

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 14, 2002.

I think a few people missed my point. I'm not whining about the M7. I just spent $2,300. on one! Yes, Leica is a business, but winning over the younger buyers, as someone suggested, ain't going to happen by such partial measures anyway. And the price didn't go down with the M7, it went UP! Further seperating the men from the boys. Who's kidding whom here. Leica MUST keep the legend alive as a insider cult kind of product, or they will perish. Myth or reality is irrevelant . What counts is perception backed by steadfast adherence to a central philosophy. There are a few brands that have stuck to their guns in the face of mass marketing pressures. Waterford & Rolex among them. Let the market come to Leica. Those who truly dedicate themselves to photography will find their way through the morass of shouting, bickering camera brands.

What this has to do with taking photos is this: If Leica can keep the personal mystery alive as only they can, then a particular way of thinking stays with us. I know it sounds a bit esoteric, but I feel it's true. Leica is a haven from all the other rush about, hose off film ( or pixels if you will ) choices cramming the ad pages of the photo mags that I no longer read. What Leica needs to sell is the Leica way, instead of trying to be like others ( well, almost). Better marketing is a lot less expensive than the R&D development that they will never be able to equal from the big dogs in Japan. Why be the runt of that pack? Leica, run alone! ( bet I really get flamed for this one ).

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 14, 2002.

Jerry, yes I agree, hence the questioning "hmmmmm?" I added at the end. Shame though, I think if they go back to the old model - i.e. continue to offer the M7 in all it's multitude of vf variations etc BUT just make one fully mechanical M6 - the old Model T idea - any colour (model) you want but only if it's the M6 (classic non TTL) in black .72 variation. No choice of vf, no choice of colour.

To be frank though, I have never purchased a single Leitz product NEW and there's enough secondhand mechanical gear out there to last us all several lifetimes - for Leica however the path they have to tread between alienating existing users and attracting new ones is a very tricky one indeed.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 14, 2002.

I agree with Marc. A Leica M is a choice. Itīs a choice for the basics of photography with the best quality possible. Most of the people that make this choice probably donīt want multi-program modes, AF, red-eyes- reducing-flash, motor-winders up to 10 fps etc etc. I believe that an M user wants to have full control on every aspect of the exposure, with the need to actually think about that particular shot. Isnīt that what most of the discussions in this forum is about? Ideas, thoughts, creativity, technique...metering of light.

-- Eric Kragtwijk (e.kragtwijk@hccnet.nl), April 14, 2002.

No need to defend the M6, TTL, M7 or any such thing. Leica M users, new and old, will decide the relative merits of these cameras with their wallets, as has always been the case. Leica will continue to produce the M6TTL or go back to producing the M6 if and only if there is sufficient demand. And if users want early M6 cameras, the price of the used M6s on the market will rise. And if in the future, people decide they want these cameras, the prices will rise, even if this takes a number of years (as in the case of the M5). So the Leica M market will settle these issues over a period of time, but with their wallets, not with posts on Leica discussion forums.

For better or for worse, that's the way it has always been.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 14, 2002.

Marc-- Explain to me how buying an M3 will make you "more adept at careful observation of light."

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), April 14, 2002.

Marc, interesting, I was thinking the same thing a day or two ago. While M7 is wonderful camera, I know I personally should stay away from it because I become too lazy with automatic cameras. It's just my personal flaw, and it is cured by the M6. I have the current TTL verson and a Metz 54MZ, and they gave me a free Lieca sync module. Well, I keep using the flash with its standard shoe because it is good enough just like that. I came to Leica from EOS and Nikon systems that can do everything for you and then some. Now with leica I manually set the exposure and then check the light meter settings to see how much I am off. And usually I am either on or within a stop off - quite a feat for me. This lack of autoexposure proved very beneficial for me and I would not like to become lazy again. I know I would with M7, I would just keep it on Auto. I am just hoping that due to some incredible event M6 prices will drop to say $1200 or less so I could get a second body cheaper. I know, I know wishfull thinking.

-- Igor Osatuke (visionstudios@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.

Steve, Igor pretty much answered your question for me. I started Leica photography with a M4. My serious work has improved over the years through experience and because of thought, not technical wizardy. Technically the work I do now isn't any better than 20 years ago. And because of the demise of readily available silver rich papers, it's actually harder to achieve the same level. It's human to become lazy in these days of "it does it all for you" cameras. I'm not suggesting that I'd dump everything and return to living in a cave for the purity of principle. It just would be nice to sort of slow down and enjoy the light, study it . think about it. I suppose anyone could also do that with a 10 FPS EOSv with IS 70-200 zoom. But wouldn't it be a lot harder to resist the temptation to hose off a burst while taking the cameras' word for it? I have the Canon set up, and rarely feel one with it. Something I do feel with my Leicas.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 14, 2002.

Uh, how about taking the battery out of your M6. Regarding silver-rich papers, they are readily available. Berrger, Forte and Luminos are all chock full of silver, and offer the flexibility of variable contras

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), April 14, 2002.

I cannot help but comment on the observation above that:

"...our generation is slowly being phased out. The current generation is being brought up in the digital/automated age. With this, the demand for fine mechanical instruments is going down, down, down."

This is a correct statement that totally overlooks what is happening demographically right now, and how that will affect the (now) small market for Leica cameras or their new clones: the huge baby-boom group (which I am ahead of by about 2 years). There are tons of wealthy guys in there who are about to retire with even more tons of extra money looking for a new hobbies or a return to the one they had before all the family obligations set in, photography. They were weaned in the 60s and 60s on the equivalent of Pentax spotmatics, but have already bought, or soon will buy, the latest high-tech automated cameras. Like me, they will one day get tired of watching the auto focusing on their new Nikon or Canon cameras and try turning it off to see what the manual focusing looks like. The old feelings they had with their first manual focus through the lens metering will come back quickly to them. They will suddenly wonder why they have to use all the electronic features on their new camera. They will search for a solution and stumble across the rangefinders now available, and they will buy them. They will do this after they've realized they can spend their money any way they want to now. They will not buy one or the other to save money: they will buy one of each of them to see what they are like. After they get a Leica or its clone, they will wait until an acceptable digital camera arrives--preferably one that takes their Leica lenses, and they will buy that too. What better way to spend their time and expendable income. 2002 is a good year to get into the camera business. These people already have 4-5 televisions in their homes, SUVs for which they've paid out an additional $10,000 in profit to GM or Ford, not to mention the $1000s in extra gas expenses. They are not going to quibble about a simple $2000-$3000 camera, nor will their wives as long as it keeps them occupied. In short, they will agonize over which new one to buy, then they will buy one of each. And most of them will really enjoy doing this. (The others will sell them off on ebay, so keep posted!).

-- Larry Kincaid (skyinc@comcast.net), April 14, 2002.

Bear with me here folk, but I think we may be missing the point somewhat. This discussion has been about Leica M bodies, and has paralled the general topic in dozens of like threads in the past couple of months.

Several decades ago, beginning in about 1956 or so and while a Freshman in HS, my Father began to entrust me with the operation of the business's Pako automatic (kind of) B+W film developing machine. It was a glorified "dip and dunk" piece of equipment, noisy, smelly, and requiring constant attention.

Film, almost all of it 620, 120, 127, 828, etc. was loaded upon racks, brought into the darkroom, stripped of backing paper, the film then clipped to the rack, with another clip placed on the bottom to to hold it down and straight. The machine would would lift and dip the racks though a succession of developer, stop, and fix tanks, then out into the light where they passed fans and electrically heated rods to assist drying before removal.

Now what little 35mm was shot in those days, was always run last for two reasons. "Hanging 35mm" involved some care, particularly 36 exposure which required "looping" it through a stainless steel rectangle (make sure the emulsion side is on the outside of the loop damnit!).

It was also necessary to be one the outside of the darkroom with the 35mm film to chamois it down to aid in preventing water spots. It was necessary to examine the film closely with a shop light to assure that none were there.

I pursued this part of my responsibility with vigor (examining the negatives closely revealed the occasional series of "artsy" images), but I also noticed that some strips of 35 jumped out from the others in sharpness and contrast. Meaningful things to me at the time as I also did the enlargements on Saturdays and during the Summer.

I pointed out his to my Dad (sharpness and contrast, not the artsy stuff) and he said "they were probably shot with a Leica".

I concluded then, as I do today, that as far as 35's go, Leica probably made the best lenses. We (the company business) had been Leitz dealers since 1935 when my Grandfather had the business. From that time, I can assure you that I helped "shop wear" a lot of Lietz equipment till I could afford my own.

Sorry to bore the Hell out of most of you with tales of how I spent my youth, but the point is don't worry so much about the bodies. They just serve to carry the lens. How well those photons bounce around before they strike the emulsion is where the action is. As long as I'm around I want Leica to succeed, not so much with their bodies, but with a business model that lets them keep making the lenses.

With apologies to all the purists, collectors, and those I may have bored,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 14, 2002.

The way I see things, now that the M7 is a reality, Leica should go back to manufacture the marvelous M3 and keep only those two models in their products line.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 14, 2002.

I maintain that your brain is the best TTL metering system/ multi pattern device you can put on your camera. With enough experience you can work "fast and loose" with the older M cameras and still get results that SURPASS anything electronic out there. If your unwilling (not unable) to surpass that admittedly steep learning curve then you are denying yourself the real prize in any endeavor. Not how many great things come out of it but what great things you can get by LEARNING about it. With respect to all the parties that will take offence to this statement; I think Leica is wasting their time with AE and electronic shutters. If you're learning how to take photographs with AE feature that's like Donovan Bailey amputating one of his legs early in his running career and replacing it with a cybernetic leg. Sure he might still be a world champion but do you think it would've been more satisfying to him if did it all by himself? Instead of relying on a crutch like his AUTO- LEG????

OK, I'm at a loss for punchlines tonight... I'm getting off the podium, now's as good time as any for a would-be assasin to shoot me!

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.

Good thread Marc! As for young people rejecting old technology and craftsmanship, I was talking to a young guy in a store who described a screwmount Leica as a seriously cool camera. No everyone is going to jump on the high-tech bandwagon.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), April 15, 2002.

John - I can think of an alternate reason *for* having the M7s AE capability. Pat and I shoot slides almost exclusively, using up our Kodachrome 25 and 64 along the way. (Of course, we also use Velvia and Provia). In the AE mode, the shutter speeds are stepless for all practical purposes, as they are controlled by a microchip. This should translate into more accurate exposures when using slide films that have very little exposure latitude

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), April 15, 2002.

The idea that AE is an aid in "changing light" is only true if the "color" of the subject matter is "average" and that subject matter stays the same in the new light (for example, you are photographing a fire engine that is moving down a street, in and out of different intensities of light). The meter in the camera is a reflective meter, it measure the object(s) at which it is pointed and it doesn't know at what it is pointed. What if in the shade it is pointed a dark skinned person wearing dark attire and in the bright light it is pointed at white lunch counter sign? Unless you override the meter, you will get overexposure in the first instance and underexposure in the second. The photographer always has to evaluate the scene and decide whether to accept the meter reading whether the camera is used in automatic or manual mode. With print film the AE function of the camera may get you close enough for your individual taste, but with slide film more accurate readings are necessary.

-- Jim Lennon (jim@jmlennon.com), April 16, 2002.

Praise be unto the classic M6!!

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 17, 2002.