Leica M6 vs. M7

Ray, you didn't get my point. You use a wide angle lens and auto focus so you don't have to look through a view finder.

Hi Judit,

 

I haven?t read all answers your question has received, so sorry if I am telling the same that some one has already said. I have used the M6, the M7 and now and MP. First I have to say the Leica rangefinders are not fast photographic cameras unless you master the pre configure everything technique, that means, pre set aperture, so you can have enough deep of field, and pre set shutter speed (with the M7 you can have aperture priority). If you want to photograph fast moving objetcs, the real problem here is focusing, some times the range finder window flares at the precise moment you need to focus, some times it is not easy to say if the rangefinder spot is aligned, or some times the object you want is faster than you. What I do most of the time is to use a focal-length-aperture combination that gives me engouh deep of field distance to move so I don?t have to focus, I move around instead, and have the shutter speed pre set, that aproach favors short focal lenght lenses, I use 35 mm or even 24 mm, but if you want 75 or 90 mm is going to be more difficult. Another point here is composition, a DSRL or a Hasselblad allows you to compose inside the viewfinder, but the rangefinder window is not as precise, and the lens lines inside can be confusing at first.

 

So my advice is to rent before you buy, going from DSLR or Hasselblad to Leica M means a different photography aproach, with the Leica you take the picture in your mind, with the DSLR you can do it in the camera viewfinder, with the Leica you must be "in" the picture. All in all I guess for your needs a M7 will be fine, is a great camera, so I advice you to search for serial numbers to have the ones with the best rangefinder, later numbers.

 

Thanks,

 

Jorge Saravia.

Robin,

 

That is a lovely picture!

M6 is cheaper the auto exposure is not an issue, M6 does fine !

I DO confirm (Having owned both) that HAND HELD, pictures are sharper with a leica than with a Hasselblad. I think this is due to less rattle during exposure. Also Leicas are lighter thus easier to hold steady! On a tripod older blad lens are not so great so leica is not far behind with a slow film.

Hi there, I don't agree at all with these guys pushing you toward a dslr. If you want a Leica, get one, for sure. I just had a kid, and I use two digital cameras to take pictures a Fuji F11 and a Nikon D70. Both are great, but sometimes, I would love to be able to control focus, you cannot do this with a digital camera, you point the sensor at the subject and the camera focuses, less control and slows you down.

 

I get great photos with both cameras though, so they do the job, but like you, I would like a Leica M. If you can afford it, get the M7. I had a Bessa R3a last year which is a poor man's M7, only paid $300 for it! It has a better finder, 1-1, noisier shutter, is more flimsy and drains the battery if you do not switch it off after use. If you are at all worried about money, get one of these instead, with a 40mm 1.4 lens and you will be in business. The G Contax is also a good option, probably the best lenses of the entire bunch, but batteries run out and is a little noisy, not mention a pain in the ass to focus, but it does have autofocus so is very fast, when it gets it right.

I've made a good living from photograhy for 30 years. Trust me.

 

A reason not to buy a Rangefinder for portrait work. You will want to (in most cases) isolate your subject from backgrounds. The beauty of an SLR is what you see is what you get. Any complete fool can focus an SLR quickly when the lens is wide open. Rangefinders distract from the 'moment'. Its also impossible to know exactly how the 'sibject' will relate to the background. SLR's are unbeatable for this. Backgrounds are AS important as the subject.

 

If yopu can control you subject then an M with a Noctilux will give you an artistic edge.

 

If you want your pics to look like point and shoot (what is it the snobs call it....reportage?) then get an M with a Summicron.

<p>Not a response, a question . . . <br>

I'm not sure you'll read or even get this, but I'm wondering what you decided about the Leica, and if you did get either model, what's your experience been? Thoughts, suggestions?</p>

<p>As there are SO many answers saying the same thing,, ( you are making a bad choice )<br>

as in:<br>

' should I drive a porcshe 4 or a porsche 4s for roaming around my farm, I have been driving a ford tractor, ,,,,,?'</p>

<p>The answer is,, you HAVE the right tool, you obviously dont have the right lens.</p>

<p>Get a lens, that is FAST!!! 24 1.4 outrageous expensive<br>

or 28 1.4 VERY expensive<br>

or, 35mm 1.4 affordable,<br>

50 1.4 a great deal</p>

<p>I think,, for fast moving kids,<br>

a 35 1.4 on a full frame digital SLR is unbeatable<br>

else a the same type lens on a cropped sensor SLR</p>

<p>this is three years later,<br>

I would say,,<br>

for $1000 get a Nikon D7000 ( or Canon equivalent ) with a 35mm 1.4 or 1.8 lens, or<br>

for $2000 get a Nikon D7000 and a 28mm 2.8 lens ( since you could shoot at 6400 ISO, thus saving on the lens cost of a 1.4 ), or<br>

for $5000 get a Nikkon D700 and a 24 1.4, this is the DREAM package.</p>

<p>I LOVE Leica rangefinders, they are SO convenient fast smooth and wonderful compared to my 4x5<br>

but, are also not competitive for your subjects ( fast moving subjects ) like a NEW digital SLR with a fast Wide lens.<br>

They are all three separate purposes. <br>

4x5<br>

leica RF<br>

new high ISO digital AUTO SLR<br>

( there are many 'other' kinds too, like peanut butter proof P+S or holgarific lomo polaroids)</p>