Have you heard about the rumours of Leica stopping the M6 TTL production and introducing an M6.2, all mechanical, no TTL with an M3 style viewfinder, to be presented at this year's Photokina?

One of the biggest Leica dealers here in Cologne confided this news to me, saying that he went to Solms about three weeks ago on a business trip and just by chance had a glimpse at what he was not supposed to see... according to Deep Throat the production is already humming.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), June 01, 2002

Answers

Think about this for a minute..... 2004 will mark the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the Leica M3. The camera you describe, sound like it could be a special model to commemorate 50 years of the M3 and the timing would be about right to initial testing for an 2004 intorduction. Well, it's only my opinion.

-- Sal DiMarco, Jr. (sdmp007@pressroom.com), June 01, 2002.

Back to the future. Leica got it right the first time, they did catch lightning in a bottle/camera when they designed the M3. If what you say is true, an all METAL, all mechanical 'recreation' of the M3, I will finally buy a 'new' Leica camera that wasn't built over forty years ago. (i own both an m3 and m2 c. 1960/59.) To me the M6 and to a greater extent, the absurd M7, are de-evolved mutations of the pinnical rangefinder design embodied by the M3. Leica would do well to honor its greatest achievement and release a current 'M3' for the Leica faithful that have no use for the electronic 'conveniences', magnifiers, AE, that have been grafted onto the 'perfect' rangefinder design. Besides, all the vulcanite has long disapeared from my M3 and the finder is getting foggy...just in the nick of time an M6.2. Imagine being able to buy a brand new M3? Can life get any better?

-- Doug Ford (dford@san.rr.com), June 01, 2002.

Thanks for the G2, Lutz (and thanks also to Mr./Ms Throat for his or her comments to you). If Sal's M3 math is correct, a 50-year commemorative model might make sense. Sounds like a candidate for black paint only, with someone's logo on the top plate.

Personally, I'd rather see an M6-P, keeping the TTL and the 0.72 viewfinder, but adding flash sync to 1/250 like other "professional" cameras. (Yes, I'm familiar with the physical shutter issues associated with sync at that speed, but I like to dream in Velvia color.)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), June 01, 2002.

I agree with Doug that the M7 is the antithesis of what a Leica should be. This theoritical M3 re-issue would be a camera worth getting. I'm sure it wouldn't cost much more than my M4. The high prices of M4's and good M3's shows that there is a demand for a all mechanical, high quality camera.

-- Chad Hahn (thehahns@cornhusker.net), June 01, 2002.

How about an M3ttl, with anti flare VF and lock?

-- John (jamriman@yahoo.com), June 01, 2002.

How about a camera aimed at photographers instead of a collectible? I mean with multi-matrix metering, program mode, reliable flash system, fast flash synch, electronic shutter release, etc. Then some good aftersales service. And some realistic pricing.

But it's not about to happen, is it?

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 01, 2002.

The M6.2 may be a limited edtion for collectors.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 01, 2002.

Rob's magical new company could be called......hmmmmm......Nikon?

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), June 01, 2002.

Rob - what you describe already exists, see Konica/nikon/canon available today at your local 'professionals only' camera store. The M6.2 would give those of us who believe in the original M3 design and actually use the M3 as our primary camera (not for professional photography of course) the ability to buy a 'new M3' instead of fighting with the collectors for an M3 in good condition. What would become of the M3 collectors market? I for one would be able to buy my new 'M3/M6.2' and abandon the user/collector fight for the limited existing stock of quality vintage M3's and M2's.

-- Doug Ford (dford@san.rr.com), June 01, 2002.

Hahaha...aimed at photogs huh? Well...if you have the need for such equipment, Nikon is a good bet. This photographer here will stick to an M6 TTL. : )

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), June 01, 2002.

Me too, James - at least, M6 classic - but isn't it just a bit disappointing to see them (if it's true) coming out with another collectible, rather than trying to move the product forward?

If Nikon produced a manual focus rangefinder with the F100's electronics, I wouldn't hesitate to drop my leica gear tomorrow morning. I might not have a need for all the modes and functions, but i would at least have modern flash, metering and reliable service.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 01, 2002.

I too would consider buying a new m3, however fortunately there are enough good used ones around, that i can buy one, have a good CLA, wear it out, buy another one, have a good CLA before i get to the price of a leica commerative issue camera. now if tempted me with a new IIIg like built just like the original and like the did with the "0" series, then I would be seriously tempted

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), June 01, 2002.

And is Leica going to reintroduce bug-eyed goggled versions of the 35/2 and 35/1.4 ASPH's as well? Or will they reissue a new SBLOO? I can certainly see Leica making a limited run of "new" M3's like Nikon did with the S3, but not a full-on production model. If it will have a built-in a meter I can't see them not using the same meter from the TTL, including the TTL feature, rather than revert to the M6 classic metering.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 01, 2002.

Don't put the cart before the horse. An M6.2 could be strictly a commerative thing, something like the Nikon Millennium S3 ($5,000US). Might not be as exepnsive, but maybe it will be. Time will tell...*IF* it really exists.

-- Ken (kennyshipman@aol.com), June 01, 2002.

When the M7 first came out, my first thought was: now they can stop producing the M6 TTL, a transitional design, and revert back to the M6. If it had an M3 finder, fine with me. Time will tell if it will end up being a limited-production model (or whether it will even happen at all), but if its a regular production classic M6, I bet they'll sell a ton of them.

Joe

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), June 01, 2002.

It sounds suspiciously like an "updated" variant of the M6J - - without the meter, but with the later M-series film loading. Hello, Sekonic 308B lightmeter! < grin >

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), June 01, 2002.

I think Nikon has already looked at the RF market and decided they can't beat Leica's price, or dent Leica's customer base, or even sell any RF cameras. Nikon is interested in digital, as the new D100 proves. Nikon and Canon both, now seem to be concentrating on moving "Pro" type digital down to the masses as quickly as possible. Although, I can see a M6.2 with the "flare resistant" MC RF.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), June 01, 2002.

Lutz- Good for you! for keeping your eyes & ears open. I think TTL and AE are too good a thing. As for all-mechanical-- here we can go back to the watch comparison. If an electronic camera can be made as reliable as the electronic watch, then Leica should go for it, just as watchmakers have. The electronic watch is cheaper by far to make and its accuracy blows away mechanical. I draw the line at AF: I do not want it in Leica.

Let them work on a faster shutter flash sync and a self timer and fixing the RF flare.

With all the M7s out there now, I wonder if anyone has had their shutter accuracy tested? I used to go to huge camera shows in the Chicago area. There was always someone there with a shutter speed testing instrument. The tests were free.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), June 01, 2002.

Methinks the Cologne Leica dealer stumbled upon what (if it does exist) will be the M3J.

Probably engraved top plate, M4 finder lines, chrome or black paint, indvidually serialed with probably 50-100 for each year, wooden box, certificate, etc. Just like the M6J but without the meter (TTL or otherwise). If you want one, I'd suspicion you better have the better part of 10 grand burning a hole in your packet.

Doubt very much Leica will produce 2 M bodies, one with a mechanical shutter, and one with an electronically controlled mechanical shutter, both for the masses. If so they'd just keep on producing the M6 TTL. And does anyone believe they're doing that?

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerry Pfile (Jerry Pfile@MSN.com), June 01, 2002.

I agree with Doug that the M7 is the antithesis of what a Leica should be. This theoritical M3 re-issue would be a camera worth getting. I'm sure it wouldn't cost much more than my M4. The high prices of M4's and good M3's shows that there is a demand for a all mechanical, high quality camera

Their are plenty of auto plastic, out of date, do it all for you,must have the latest,want to spend loads of money on hype,get bored easy, have shallow mind,whats new,wonder what this photography thing is about,they have the latest hype in my photo shop,i have got the latest,look at me,does it pull females...and on and on

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), June 01, 2002.

Some special production models are trial baloons: the M6J made it clear that there was a market for high mag viewfinders.

The S2 was a commemorative of the Contax S, but was a regular production model.

Its my belief that Leica has to produce a mechanical rangefinder, to satisfy that segment of their market, and to mitigate the risk that the M7 won't sell well. Enthusiastic people on the internet isn't the same thing as sales.

I've seen lots of M6 TTL's for sale recently, but not many M6's. An M6.2 makes sense.

Joe

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), June 01, 2002.

Older Rolex watches do not get much cheaper or new ones.A M6.2 would be a winner, the auto,semi auto market is saturated.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), June 01, 2002.

Lutz, Please also read my posting question from 30 May entitled "Please spill some the rumours...". There are some interesting responses.

BTW I thought that you were here in Zürich. Too bad you missed today! I took some of my gear out on the See, but ended up doing nothing but enjoying the sun and water.

-- Reto (redcavereto@yahoo.com(not working though!?)), June 01, 2002.

Jerry, if you mean making the M6 into the M6.2 by taking out the mechanical shutter, and putting in the electrically controlled one... I think that would be a backfire for Leica. While the electrically controlled one would be more accurate, there is something about not needing batteries that I find very appealing.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), June 01, 2002.

Thanks, Lutz! You just drove up the price of all those used M6TTLs people are dumping for M7s ;-)

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), June 01, 2002.

Actually I heard last fall, once the M7 rumors started, that the M6 'classic' would be brought back, leaving ttl to the -7. I can't remember the source.

I'm certain there will also be a "Fifty years of M" commemorative.

Lut's info sounds kinda like a resurgence of the M6J.

I can also see a revision of the M6 ttl to adopt more parts in common with the 7 - on-off switch location, double battery stack, new de- flared RF (if any), maybe HSS flash-sync - but NOT the electronic shutter.

Put all these rumors in a bag, add a few more yet to come, shake them all up together - and the result will still probably be wrong.

If they're bringing back a 50/90/135 "M3" finder, I hope they go whole hog and make it 1.00x 'sted .85 or .91.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), June 01, 2002.

Charles,

No. Doubt that for what in all probability will be a limited run commemorative of the M3, they would use the electronically controlled shutter. Doubt even if they'd use a meter in it

I think they would try just to make a very expensive few that hold to the original M3 specs wherever possible. Perhaps even to the degree of bringing back the self timer and the condenser they removed to save a buck or two that now flares.

They could do it relatively easily. Brass top and bottom covers are now the norm, CNC capability should handle the top cover engraving (although I think they have to pay to use the Leica script any time they use it on a body). They have the body and shutter tooling. I would guess the they'd use the 0.85 RF assembly though as it already exists.

Might even box it with a collapsible Summicron 50, with a brass cap of course.

2500-5000 units, in both chrome or black paint. Change back from your 10 grand (but not a lot). They'll be sold in a flash, and be put in the collectors cases.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerry Pfile (Jerry Pfile@MSN.com), June 01, 2002.

Interesting, Lutz. Is that "no TTL" as in no TTL flash, or is it "no TTL" as in no built in meter? I can't believe Leica would produce a mainstream camera product with no internal (TTL) meter. I can believe a divergence in the product line with the electronic M7 and a 'more' mechanical M6 (call it an M3 if you will). Personally, give me the more mechanical M6. Ditch the TTL flash, ditch all the plastic, and give me a black paint version, if you please.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), June 01, 2002.

You know, we laugh about these high priced commemoritives, but...

I wish I'd have bought an M6J when it was new, and shot with it. A 50 year anniversary M3 might just be the perfect camera, FOR ME. You only live once and what's the difference between $1900 and $2500 in the course of a life time. A 1.00 x finder and a redesigned 50mm Summilux rivalling the 35 ASPH's would be a way cool way to do film based photography for the rest of my life...

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), June 01, 2002.

Jerry, I don't see them using the electronic shutter. M3+batteries does not an M3 reissue make.

I DO see a .85 finder, frames for 50/90/135 only, M3 style rewind, chrome or black paint (and precious few black paint ones), M4 film load, no meter of any sort, M3 style metal trimmings on the outside, and with motor capability. Brass plates and engraving are a must. No red dot either.

I'm unsure if they'd put in the self timer, but they probably would.

This would be easily done to the basic M6TTL, even using the 2mm taller overall size, it would be close enough for a passable reissue.

Also folks.... please remember that all those painstaking tolorances of the original M3 are more easily kept today. Precision casting eliminates much machine work. CNC and other soft automation eliminate much of the tight work.

They'd not HAVE to make it like they made M3's, just make it look and work like an M3 (more or less) to make it a reasonable reissue.

I wonder if Nikon will do a reissue Nikon F in a few years?

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), June 01, 2002.

The problem with such rumors is that one really never knows what Leica will do until they actually do it. I heard rumors about an auto-exposure M6 about 5 or 6 years ago (to be called M6-AE or M6E- electronic), then the rumors stopped. Finally, five years later, Leica decides to release the camera as the M7.

I also heard rumors in the late 1980s about a 28/2.0 Summicron. Apparently there was one on the drawing board quite a while ago. The lens they actually released was the 35/1.4 Aspherical in 1990. Then ten or so later, the 28/2.0 Summicron comes out. So whatever the rumors, you probably won't be certain until it actually comes out.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), June 02, 2002.

Dear Lutz,

Thanks for the info. I am skeptical about the rumors of the M6TTL's demise. Anyway, hope they are not true. Is it possible that the M6.2 is non-TTL because it is a return to the "classic" design? I would look foreward to using my DR 50/2 on it, but would not be to happy to see the return of the itsy-bitsy shutter speed dial (which, yeah, I can live with).

At any rate, I hope this not only going to be a limited commenorative camera like the "J." I also hope it doesn't have an M3-M2 rewind stick but a regular modern Leica rewind crank.

Well, Lutz, thanks again and keep us informed! We love it!

Best,

Alex

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), June 02, 2002.

If they are coming out with an M3...with a different badge (M6.2 whatever)... why would anybody buy it (except collectors)... you can get mint used M3's for a much smaller price - this of course is assuming leica doesn't change its mind and go "cheap" on us with this new camera =)

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), June 02, 2002.

As far as I understood Deep Throat, non-TTL means dropping TTL-flash capabilities. When I tried to squeeze more details out of him, he started to become more reserved, saying he already told me things he was not supposed to pass on. I doubt he had any reason to make himself interesting by saying so. I just had him triggered by showing him my full-fledged M6 with all the "S"-goodies I provide...

I think, with all the discussions provoked by the M7 (and previously by the M6 TTL, and more previously even by dropping the M3 viewfinder!) among wellcomers and traditionalists, it's a logical consequence to go for the most complete and "modern" design on one side (actually the M7) and keep a most traditional, purely mechanical body on the other side, even if that means stepping back to an older type of finder (which aparently still has a lot of followers).

Collectors as well as traditionalists among users would embrace such an M6.2 - just read the posts on this thread alone.

Cheers from sunny Cologne. I'm here for work only. Back to Zürich in a couple of weeks.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), June 02, 2002.

Would the M6.2 have a built in light meter?

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), June 02, 2002.

David -

I tend to think that "all mechanical" means no batteries. IMHO, No batteries means no built-in meter, as it really would be a feat to install selinium cells.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), June 02, 2002.

The more I read this forum, the more I consider we can divide the Leica owners (more precisely the M system owners) into three categories (though there is a fourth which is obviously scarcely represented at all: the pure investors):

1 – The everyday users 2 – The traditionalists 3 – The collectors

The first category – even when they really like their M’s – are far more sensitive to the practical shortcomings of the present versions and are the harsher critics on the body. It seems they can’t be understood by the second category (and conversely have difficulties understanding people pertaining to the second category). The main problem for them is, IMHO, they are probably too prone to forget the pleasure they have (or had) taking pictures with an M (I consider myself a member of this category).

The second category are so found of their cameras they are generally blind to the arguments of the first (which is fully understandable). They literally worship their M’s and as someone aptly put, it has become for them almost a religion. The real problem with them, IMHO, is they are stubbornly trying to rationalize their opinion with mostly irrational arguments (including some extracted from the “Beginner’s guide to Sigmund Freud theories”, hardly a good reference at all).

The third one is the happy one, their problems are mainly practical and they enjoy taking pictures with their totally outmoded cameras, knowing and acknowledging they are outmoded and rejoicing themselves to see and manipulate fine mechanics of times long gone. Though they have some M models, they are more LTM owners than M owners.

I think we have hardly a chance the second category succeed to convince the first and vice versa. But what has always surprised me is the kind of anathema the first are always facing when they suggest a modification to the M bodies.

I ever thought a photographer is entitled to require from a manufacturer a tool which is better suited to his photographic work. And if I can agree with the fact any M can eventually suit the particular requirements of this or that photographer, I will never consider my opinion on a body is something which is directly transferable to another person. I can too fully understand an M3 user is totally satisfied by his (her) camera. But what surprises me is when I discuss with an M3 user he seems (more or less) never able to admit my requirements might be different from his.

Some people here consider they can take all the pictures they want without a TTL metering device… That’s OK with me if they consider it is the way they want to perform their work… But if they try to be logical, they should admit metering with a hand held meter the incident way is valuable only if you can approach the subject enough and setting the aperture by guesswork is a far less precise way to meter a subject than using a metering device at all (and hardly suited for color slides by the way).

But what is really curious is these people generally claim Leica should produce a renewed version of an old model devoid of this or that modern device… I can’t understand that! … If you want to take pictures with an M6 (TTL or not) the old way YOU CAN DO IT. Just operate it the old way. But the reverse is impossible.

And there are enough M4, M3, M2 models in mint condition in the second hand market if you want one… So why do you want to forbid Leica the right to improve and modernize their M cameras (at least as long as the new lenses remain fully compatible with your old body and this body repairable) or negate the right to other photographers to require new devices on new models if they feel these models will better fit their requirements? Nobody will force you to buy these cameras after all.

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), June 04, 2002.