Build-in meter or not?

One would think that a grown up boy/Leica user could make up his own

mind about things like this, but since we are all in on this crime

together, I thought I'd seek your advice/2 cents yet again.

 

So I'm selling the .72 M6 TTL (still available, I'll take $1,225 for

it) to go with a 0.85 alt. 0.92 vf to use with a 50'lux (That is by

now a well research subject and carefully made decision). Now I find

myself struggling to make a decsion for which body/technology to get.

 

In all honesty, I mostly do AE photography since people are my main

subjects, i.e. I decide on the aperture, then measure to find out

which shutter speed I need (like I had to explain that here...). But

I'm torn between three different courses:

 

1) Get a minty CLA:ed M3 I've found (need to decide on it

today/tomorrow as it is leaving the country with the current owner

for a World Bank mission), which bien sur has all the nostalgia of

M, the big advantage of a fantastic VF, no distracting diods in

there, but on the down side, it may/will prevent those "deceisive

moment" shots when there is no/little time to measure exposure

accurately. At the same time, one has a chance to make a more

concsious exposure decision and be more creative, or at least so I'm

trying to convince myself. Did I mention the VF?

 

 

2) Get a 0.85 M6 TTL for around $1,200-1,250. The VF is a little

bit, but noticebly so, smaller than the M3, but I have the advantage

of not having to use an external meter. And perhaps use that 35mm

lens I have lying around but rarely use.

 

3) Just go all out and get a 0.85 vf M7. The advantages are

obviously speed and convenience, and one seem to be able to get a

nice M7 for around $1,600+ these days, but 0.85 ones are harder to

find.

 

Also to consider, I do have and heavily use that Canon 10D set-up,

so this would mostly be for b&w photography, the joy of using old

school mechnical equipment, available light photography and perhaps

some travel.

 

Finally, I do understand at this ultimately is my decision, but I am

interested in hearing for other M users what you are using and why?

Was the built-in and/or external meter part of your decision making

process? If so, why and when are you using an external meter?

 

Thanks in advance,

IMHO, it's (3).

I've had 2 M2s, and an M4. Still have the M2. Instead of trading the M4 for some medium format gear, I should have sold it, to finance a late M6. When I can afford one, I'll get an M6TTL. When shooting SLRs, I shoot aperture priority AE 90% of the time. So if I could afford it, I'd get the M7. After all this time, I've discovered that TTL metering is a GOOD thing - you WILL miss it!

Pat,

 

May I suggest a used veiwfinder mag 1.25 for $150.

I've made a similar decision. I have Nikon AF gear and have been shooting with the FM3a.

 

What I really love, though, is shooting with rangefinders and have been using the Bessa-R with good results. While I like it, I do miss the AE option. So...I'll be selling the Bessa, FM3a, a lot of AIS glass and buying a .58 M7.

 

As I wrote someone else this morning, it's been a long, expensive trip coming to this realization, but there it is - I like shooting traditional rangefinders and I want AE. It's easy (other than the $$$) from this point.

 

DZ

Pat,

 

Just one body? If so, you should get a second one (0.85). I had an M-4 rip it's own curtains apart in Russia, so that left me with one M. I've dropped one M and it had to go to the shop, again, one M.

 

Everyone should have back-ups. I chose an M back-up, as I want to continue to use the M-lenses if one body is out of commission.

Hi Patrick, I bought .85 M6ttl because of 90mm lens but not for 50mm lens. Possibble not much difference using .72 or 0.85 with the 50mm lens. But if you have made your mind then I suggest the M6TTL .85.

As one who used a M3, a M2 and then a M4 for years, I was overjoyed when the M5 came out with the meter and while I preferred the M4 feel(I even had a M3 finder installed), I used the M5 and CL in preference and felt that the M6 was it and I still think so especially that the MP finder can be installed to get rid of flare.

Having a built-in meter is nice but not necessary. The meter in one of my M6's is no longer functional but it's not been missed. I use a handheld meter or eyeball exposure mostly even with the M6 that has a functioning meter. But I must admit, when I bought the M6's, the built-in meter was a point in their favor.

Patrick, normally I do not waste my time answering this kind of question, but here you go. "Built in meter or not?" Because I do a lot of Street Photography (SP) my preference is M2 and M3 and a hand meter. It is the quickest set up where speed is important. With SP, you have to see the shot, get the camera to your eye, focus and with a metered camera futz around with the exposure, all this probably adds up to a couple seconds. With non-metered you can save a 1/2 second or more. In general I think built-in meters are over rated. In addition to the M2 and M3 I also have two M6TTLs which I also use for SP a couple times a month, so I do have a basis for comparison. Another reason I do not like the M6s is all those flashing red light inside the viewfinder, a big distraction. Coming up with a proper exposure is such a no-brainer, I have a hard time understanding the world wide angst over it.

With an SLR and long teles with very narrow angles of coverage, or with macro and bellows factors, TTL metering is a major advantage. But with the Leica's lens range it's only a convenience at best. And I find the TTL meters in the M6/M6TTL/MP much less of a convenience than they're cracked up to be, because a)they are for all intents and purposes shutter-priority (due to the full-stop metering shutter speed increments) and I prefer aperture-priority. Only the M5 and M7 (the latter in AE only)do provide aperture-priority. And b)match-diode metering is only a tad swifter than using a clip-on or a handheld.

 

If you are shooting slide film, fast metering is more advantageous, especially if you are an occasional photographer and lack experience in guesstimation. I'm not talking about "Sunny 16" which is a lot more complicated than some books make it sound (you rarely ever actually end up in true S-16 light so you better know the rest of the chart by heart too--plus, each light type is further subdivided depending on side, front, top or backlighting). I mean taking a handheld reading and then judging how many stops up or down you need to adjust as you shoot on the fly.

 

I really do not feel the slightest handicapped using my M4 vs M6, and many times when I grab a Nikon FTn from the case I don't bother to take the prism off and load in batteries, I just grab a handheld meter. I'm used to it with the Hasselblad also. It's a matter of experience.

 

So the decision between the M3, M6TTL 0.85x, or M7 0.85x is better made based on other criteria, such as the laboriously slow loading and rewinding of the M3 and the lack of 35mm framelines; and the fact that the 0.85 finder with the 50 Lux prevents you from using the eyepiece mask to frame far enough outside the 50 framelines to accurately compose at normal shooting distances. My personal choice would be to just hang onto your M6TTL 0.72 and vent your lust for a new toy in some direction that won't come back to bite you in the *ss.

I'd go with option 3, or a Hexar RF and a M3, that way you will get 2 camera's vs one. However the Hexar only comes in .60 .

 

GS

The M3, no if's and's or but's! A seperate handheld incident meter is much faster than trying to futz around and fine tune the wrong exact exposure for every frame.

I do a lot of candid people photography, (ahem) in colour, (ahem-ahem) from the

front from 2.5m and... have never used AE.

 

Hand meter using a reasonable quality incident meter and learn to judge exposure.

You will find that it is just as accurate as a built-in meter, more so if you are working

in strongly back-lit scenes.

 

I have three cameras for this work (a M3, M4-P and M6TTL) depending on where I'm

shooting and what mood I'm in.

 

The M3 finder is v.good, but the 0.92 magnification is so large it makes it hard to use

camera when wearing sunglasses as your eye is too far away to see the whole

50mm frame in go. However, the 90mm frame in the M3 is fantastic - almost as

large as the 50mm frame in a 0.72 viewfinder!

 

The 0.85 finder is okay, but the problem (for me) is that the framelines are so thin

they are difficult to see when working fast - pairing the 75mm lines with the 50mm is

also unnecessarily cluttered IMO. An advantage of the M3 is that the 50mm

framelines are on their own and are impossible-to-miss thick!

 

So FWIW, my advice is to look v.carefully through different viewfinders to see which

one you are comfortable with.

One thing about a built in meter is you are always setting the exposure for each shot which may be unneccessary and time consuming. With a hand held meter find the exposure and then shoot on unless ther is a change in the light.

My vote's for an M3 with an add on meter (I use a battered old MC). Much nicer than those nasty modern M6s :-)<div></div>

Thanks for all the kind and thoughtfull advice so far. If it wasn't clear, I use M for b&w negative film almost exclusively (altough Fuji Reala looks darn nice with it), thus I have some latitude.

 

I guess for the quick occational shot, the built-in meter has its advnatages. For a photo session, a hand-held meter would be more accurate and the light doesn't change that much/fast.

 

The timing of the question again has to do with that the M3 in questions (a beautiful single stroke, 1M+ serial # from 1964, recently CLA:ed) will travel to the other end of the world (literaly) by Friday, thus the time to make a decision on it is now.

 

The M7 is a real tempting option, but one should perhaps factor in that is it almost twice as expensive as the M3 solution, and I'm a simple happy weekend shooter at most.

 

Well, well, keep the suggestions/rationales coming.

 

Cheers,

Pat

 

Yes, get a M7 which should satisfy everything you need. Sell me the

M6 at $1100.

 

Jerry

"When you are old and grey and full of sleep...," as WB Yeats wrote: sell everything & use a IIIF RD ST w/3.5 Elmar "and think about the soft look your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep..."

 

Paul Neuthaler

I get better results from using sunny16 and occasional metering then from any AE i have used. Still if you like using AE for its comfort, i would get the M7 without blinking my eyes when seeing the pricedifferences. Working as confortably as possible pays off IMO.....

 

Greetings,

I have to go on the side of meterless. A hand-held meter is all one needs with the M, any of them. I have several cameras, some with meters and some without. I find that the meter is distracting in the viewfinder and is not as fast to use as your brain and a hand-held meter. However, if you gotta have it, then you gotta have it. ;-)

Meter, we don need no stinking meter!

 

I know this example gets used a lot, but I can't help it. It is a good one. Ansel Adams did not use a meter for this photo. He had to take it quick and was using a large format camera so he didn't have a bunch of time.<div></div>