Which Leica M camera to buy?

<p>I understand that this thread is about chosing a piece of equipment. I had earlier suggested a very simple combination. A 35 mm summicron, and any M. The reason for "any M" is that once anyone got use to the workings of a particulalr equipment, he will find that the camera body does not matter that much really. One with an inbuilt meter helps , but is not critical.</p>

<p>We are talking about photography in this forum, and it is obvious that we need a piece of equipment to take images. And a piece of equipment is just one part of the equation. I have assumed that members of this forum understands that. Perhaps I am wrong. Unfortunately, equipment talk seems to take a disproportionate slice of our energy and forum space.</p>

<p>My point is really very simple. Just get any M, and a 35 summicron. Then go and take pictures. Maybe my experience might not be that of others. But owning several M bodies, and several lenses did not make me happy. But having some nice images, taken with a variety of equipment which includes nikon, or canon film cameras, or 4x5, or x-pan or olympus digital or nikon digital, is the reason for my happiness.</p>

<p>Not the equipment.</p>

<p>But P N Chong, </p>

<p>You answered the issue yourself. Your experience is not the same as others. And my experience is quite different. Yes, I might not actually be happy after I acquire my one Leica and one I don't know yet, summilux, summicron, heck even maybe the nokton 35/1.2 that I've been looking at of late. </p>

<p>I will give in, that part of it is the "new purchase, new love" thing that frequently goes on in everyone's heads. From women with shoes to men with cars. I technically don't need a new camera or even a Leica.</p>

<p>But without delving too much into my experiences and perhaps personality. I'll just make it short, I grew up amongst photographers. My father, mother, uncle even grand dad were photographers, and they were professionals. From weddings to advertisements, fine art to modeling. And they never stopped wanting more. First they started with their 35mm equipment, then they upgraded to their medium format, and then even to their large format. And even when they had it all, they still hankered over their next purchase, a better this and that. Granted, I'll almost never be a professional, simply because I don't have my father's talent nor his drive and time. But I've literally seen hundreds of thousands being spent on equipment with no satisfaction in sight.</p>

<p>I myself dislike having a myriad amount of things that do the same thing. I however prefer to have one good thing, regardless of price, that does that one thing the best. My Spotmatic or even my iPhone might be the best camera for me with that "the best camera is the one that's with you" argument. But let's just say I know the Leica is the best camera for the 35mm film format, and there will always be a nagging doubt that I'm not using the best. I don't need to hear the point that my work might not warrant the best, it is human nature is it not, to want the best? By removing everything else that isn't the best in my opinion allows me to concentrate on the end product, bettering my images and composition. Rather than wondering if it's perhaps my ability or the equipment's ability.</p>

<p>Long story short, I do not possess the wisdom yet to understand that I can create fine images with anything at my disposal. So because of my experiences, I deem the next step to improving my photography is to get the best so I can no longer fault my equipment, and instead fault myself and improve from it. Perhaps it is a very immature way to think, but it's how I think. </p>

<p>To want to be left with nothing but oneself to blame or to question is eminently reasonable.</p>

<p>Bryan,</p>

<p>I understand perfectly what you were saying. Really there is nothing new. Perhaps everyone just need to go through the experiences himself to decide what really matters to him. </p>

<p>Go ahead and enjoy yourself. I sincerely hope your happiness will last.</p>

<p>I would buy an M3 if you want to do any close focusing or use a Noctilux. As the viewfinder is .92x you can focus more accurately.<br>

I've had my M3 for a few years now and never any problems. The film is pretty easy to load and you get used to the weight of the camera after a while. It is the most classic Leica and I think in many ways the most beautiful. The new MP is great as well if you would prefer a new camera as it is also mechanical. I think it is the purest Leica since the M3 in fact.<br>

Light metering? Well to be honest even if I had a built in one, I dont trust the reading on a reflective meter. You see it averages an 18% gray reading so if you are wearing a white shirt it will try to make it gray, and if you are wearing a black one it will also try to make it gray. If you want the most accurate reading you want an incident meter anyways. I always carry one around with my Leica and Hasselblad.<br>

As far as lenses,, it depends what you are looking for. I do a lot of night photography with no flash and I love shallow depth of field so I prefer lenses with a wide aperture F2 and above. I really enjoyed the one time I used the 21/1.4 Summilux and wish I could afford it. I would start with a summicron though and after getting used to the standard move on to a wider range of lenses.</p>

Buy an M3 for the viewfinder and an MP for the meter put a 35 cron (1V) on the MP and a 50 pre asph lux on the M3 - if you are shooting B&W it will take you all of 5 rolls to work out your aperture shutter speed combinations - the latitude you get shooting TRX or similar will compensate you for any 1/2 - 1 stop error made. Practice with your digi cam.

 

but figure how much time and hassle it is to soup and scan each roll. I have about 50 rolls now sitting in a box - waiting for me to develop - one day...one day..and a couple of bricks in the freezer waiting for me to get into film again..one day one day..

 

Digi works and a used M8 matched to 28 cron is pretty hard to beat and not much more than a decent MP/35 combo these days.

 

good luck | have fun - and do it your way.

<p>Bryan,<br>

You get a vote from me for the M6 (I like this so much that I own several.).The MP is only marginally superior with respect to a more accurate meter and a brighter viewfinder. But I detest its rewind crank (unless you get it a la carte and opt for the earlier M6 version which will cost a lot, lot more). I also like very much my M7, even if I find it has quirks of its own. As for lenses, I have these recommendations: Leica Summicron ASPH 28mm f2, Leica SUmmilux ASPH 35mm f1.4 (the newly released version is recommended primarily for close focusing distances), Zeiss 25mm Biogon, Zeiss 35mm f2 Biogon (It's not as sharp as the 35mm Summicron ASPH but it comes darn close wide open, and I like its look far more than the Summicorn's), and 50mm f2 Planar. I would also seriously consider the Zeiss Ikon as a first rangefinder camera since I have met professional photographers, including a few from Eastern Europe, who swear by it.</p>

 

<p>Bryan,<br>

<br /> I've been through a similar thought process as yourself, i.e. what's the best, simple platform for photography that will last me for some considerable time. I started with the M6TTL, transitioned to the M7, (on the digital side M8, M8.2 and now M9), and finally found my lifetime film camera with the MP.</p>

<p>Coming from a DSLR background you might find the M7 easier to accommodate due to the AE capability but that automation comes at the relatively minor expense of having a Leica M that is almost entirely battery dependent. If the battery dies you do still have limited manual capabilities although to be honest it's not a great concern unless you see yourself trekking many many miles from civilization or need absolute dependability off the grid. The discussions about the exposure dial being 'the wrong way round' are really only applicable if you've come from a legacy background of using 'Classic' M6 or earlier. All current M's (MP excepted) have the same dial orientation and for a new comer it's actually intuitive because you turn the dial in the direction indicated by the under/over exposure arrow, just as you do with the aperture dial.<br>

If you are buying a new M7 then you'll find it to be a wonderful camera platform. Earlier M7's had a mechanical DX sensor that made film removal a PAIN - current models don't have the contacts touching the film cartridge and are much easier to unload.</p>

<p>I finally transitioned to the MP because I figured that I would be keeping one film camera for the long term and the pinnacle of Leica film camera production is the MP. It is beautifully made, has a mechanical feel that will encourage you to love shooting with the camera plus will last you a lifetime. For me it includes the minimal level of automation that I want, i.e. the metering, and is a purely mechanical camera built for longevity. You can certainly argue that any of the earlier M's have the same build quality but to be honest you're looking at 30 year old cameras for this mechanical excellence and then you'll have no metering in camera which for most of us IS a big deal.</p>

<p>If you do decide to get the MP you might want to consider getting one with the original rewind control. I've personally damaged the angled rewind dial on both my M6TTL and M7 due to field accidents and the rewinder will bind against the body and need to be replaced (not difficult). It's pretty soft but doesn't take knocks very well in my experience and Leica's comments seem to reflect that vulnerability, and not just quaint throw backs to older cameras.</p>

<p>If you're selecting just one lens then I'd definitely recommend the 35 Summicron ASPH. It's a great all purpose lens and pretty much has no serious flaws. It is a high contrast 'modern' lens but on film that translates to great micro-contrast and almost 3d rendering of content. If you want something longer then the 50 Summicron is also a perfect partner and is a great value (in Leica terms at least). I personally prefer 35mm for my general lens and to that end actually use a 35 Summilux as my main lens. However, this lens does focus shift slightly as you stop it down but I know that and how to accommodate for it. The new 35 Summilux supposedly is less susceptible to this but if you're new to rangefinders the 'lux's tendency to focus shift could result in missed or soft shots which isn't a great motivator to someone new to the system.</p>

<p>I do shoot mainly with my 35mm but I confess that I do have a small outfit of the 16-18-21/4, 21/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/2 and 90/2.8. I can get away with the 35/1.4 & 90/2.8 for probably 95% or more of anything I encounter. Most Leica M shooters have a small setup of 2 or 3 lenses and you'll find endless threads here discussing the 'ideal' lens set up. For the folks that stick with one lens (and there are many) it tends to be either the 35mm or 50mm.</p>

<p>Best of luck with your decisions. I fully understand the sentiment behind getting the best tool up front as it saves money long term. I know that I should have bought my MP first although I did enjoy shooting with my M6's / M7 which were cheaper and easier to find when I started. Get the best glass you can because that investment lasts a lifetime, even if you decide to go digital RF at some point.</p>

<p>I second what Peter said. Mechanical perfection at its best and great choices as I mentioned before. However if I was really rich (IE had 10s of thousands to throw at camera equipment) I would buy the newest improved Noctilux for the M3 and an M9 as my digital if only for the full frame shooting.</p>

<p>Daniel, although I originally thought of getting the M3, after really scouring the internet. It seems that a good condition M3 that doesn't still need an extensive not to mention expensive overhaul costs perhaps three-fifths of what a brand new MP would cost. At least the market over here in Singapore is this way. And I have an incident meter but I would much much prefer(I cannot overstate this enough), a built-in light meter. There are times I guess when not physically being able to walk up to a given object would mean no photographs, and although you could guesstimate, I can't profess to being any good with that.</p>

<p>But there is one question I have that has still gone unanswered and I'm really curious about this. Given that I'm short-sighted and always have my glasses on, how does viewfinder magnification work for me? If my main lens and first lens is going to be a 35mm, what viewfinder magnification would serve me the best?</p>

<p>Peter, as much as I appreciate your recommendations. With regards to digital, I admit, occasionally I hanker for it. Not needing to develop my own prints when I'm swamped with work and with a hundred other people hounding me for my much delayed photographs is a welcome relief. But for the most part, I enjoy my darkroom work. I won't say digital is dead to me, but right now I guess the novelty of shooting film in a sea of digital is still very much a joy for me. And the major reason is really because I only get 36 exposures per roll, and I don't carry a whole lot with me anyhow. I got tired of making 1001 exposures out of meaningless events that I cannot be arsed to look at now, and really just want to simplify and have my 36 exposures mean something, chart something in my experiences.</p>

<p>John, I considered the Zeiss Ikon at the very start. But now I'm come to the point where, I know if I buy a Zeiss, I'll be left wondering 'what if?' with the Leica. So I'm saving myself the pain and torment and just getting a Leica MP. For the lens, most definitely a 35mm Summilux ASPH, provided my dealer has them in stock(last I checked, they were all out!).</p>

<p>And Graham,<br>

Thanks very much for such a long and detailed write-up of your experience. I thoroughly appreciate it and am glad that my reasons for getting a Leica aren't exactly whimsical. The thing about shooting with DSLRs though, truth be told, although I do have one. I deplore it's existence immensely. I've never shot with digital save for my point and shoot or my iPhone for that matter. Having to fiddle with white balance and a myriad amount of settings buried in a host of irrelevant menus never really took off with me, not to mention the amount of learning that needs to be done to get into Photoshop or Lightroom(is it Lightroom or Lightbox?). I don't think editing is bad per se, I just prefer not to have to edit anything at all, I know the old masters probably did their own burning and dodging and touching up in their darkrooms(heck, that's what my parents did). And that's all fine, but that's really only necessary when you're a professional or just have a lot of time. I prefer to be out shooting and correcting my technique versus experimenting with Photoshop and taking 6 exposures just to blend it in some HDR or stitching program. Again, no offense directed at the people who do, it's just not what I want to do.</p>

<p>And even when I do shoot with a DSLR or a more modern automated SLR like the F100 or F801s. I prefer to shoot in manual, it takes more time, but I enjoy the process more than if I didn't. Hence the reason why I shoot with an old Spotmatic with it's primitive centre-weighted meter, stopped-down metering, and fully manual settings.</p>

<p>And with what I've researched and seen. I'm probably going with something very close to what you recommended. Black paint MP with old rewind crank and a single 35mm Summilux. In the future I might extend my line-up to either one wider-angle or a modest telephoto like a 90mm for example. All that's left to decide is whether to take the standard 0.72 viewfinder or if I need one of the other two types. If I go with any other, I'd probably pick no engraving, vulcanite and a clean set of framelines for my a la carte options.</p>

<p>Mighty big thanks again to everyone for replying!</p>

<p>Bryan Loo: "If my main lens and first lens is going to be a 35mm, what viewfinder magnification would serve me the best?</p>

<p>0.85 and, to see the 35mm frame lines well without glasses, an adjusting lens: a "diopter".</p>

<p>You know what'll solve everything is the best: the Leica MP. You need a self-timer? Get one of those wind-up self-timers that thread onto the shutter button. The MP has a ttl meter if you need it, and a mechanical shutter that doesn't need batteries, so you can be out in the boonies for months and months until you run out of film; if you run out of film. You can still get the MP new or in like-new condition.</p>

<p>The M7 is undervalued but an amazing camera. It took a while to get mentally used to the extra automation (AE). Leicas are supposed to be all manual, right? Mine is the .58 magnification and is totally off the charts -- point and shoot (AE) or work the shutter manually. The M7 top/btm are brass (cool). Mine has the film cartridge easy load thingy. Some have the MP finder. Unless you just have to fiddle with the shutter knob, consider the M7.</p>

<p>I used film Leica-Ms from 1991 to 2007, and one day I will buy another. I have owned an M2, M4-P, M4-2, and two M6s, and 28mm, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/2, 50mm f/2.8, 75mm f/1.4 and 90mm f/2 lenses. They travelled with me around Europe, to the USA, and to Australia, and never malfunctioned once, whether in freezing North European winter, or the spray of North American waterfalls, or the hot and dusty Australian outback. I am no great photographer, but most of the few really good images that I have made, I have made with a Leica M, on some kind of 35mm film.<br>

For optimum versatility, ease of use, value for money, quality of results in a Leica M package you need:<br>

<strong>Leica M6 classic with 35mm f/2 Summicron (4th version)</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>You don't need TTL - Leica M's are for available light. </li>

<li>You don't need an M4 with Black paint - you'll be paying more un-necessarily for collector appeal, nor sould an M2 or M3 be ideal. They both have limitations compared to the M6. The latest MP (last of the manual Leica Ms) is as practical as the M6, and probably better made ... but for a practical photographer it is hardly worth the very much higher price. The difference between an M6 and MP will bu you a second nice lens.</li>

<li>You don't need an f/1.4 ASPH lens - the f/2 is plenty fast enough, and is much smaller and less costly. [it hardly protrudes more than does the 50mm f/2.8 collapsible in its collapsed position].</li>

<li>However, a custom lens hood, is worth having.</li>

</ul>

<p>The M6 has some useful little goodies, some or all of which are missing on older cameras:</p>

<ul>

<li>Rubber ring around viewfinder (does not scratch your spectacles)</li>

<li>Full set of bright lines (28/35/50/75/90/135)</li>

<li>Useful (if primitive! built in exposure meter)</li>

<li>Completely manual shutter (so you can still use it without batteries)</li>

<li>Canted re-wind crank (much easier to use than the knurled knob type of older M's and the latest MP</li>

</ul>

<p>For a single focal length, 35mm is probably the most versatile and certainly the easiest to use. </p>

<ul>

<li>50mm does not get enough in the frame. </li>

<li>Anything longer than 50mm is not great to use because of the small area of the the viewfinder that represents its coverage. SLRs are better if you do a lot of telephoto shots. </li>

<li>28mm is noticeably wide angle, and you can't see the whole frame if you wear glasses. </li>

<li> 35mm is the optimum - it uses most of the available VF area, but is still fully visible, even with glasses.</li>

<li>The 4th version of the 35mm Summicron is legendary for its Bokeh. [Out of focus parts of the frame are aesthetically pleasing]</li>

</ul>

 

<p>Tom, I truly appreciate you taking the time to type all this out. But(there's always a but), although I agree that the difference between an M6 and an MP could probably be a lens. I know I won't be satisfied if I don't get something brand-new(although that would probably also make me baby the thing til' I get my first painful scuff on it). And regarding the lens itself, bokeh isn't really what I'm after, at least not with a 35mm focal length, it might be really good but if it's at f/2. I'd rather an f/1.4. </p>

<p>I know rangefinders don't have mirror slap so handholding speeds can be as low as a fourth of a second if you have steady hands, but because I don't, at least not tripod steady like some people I know. I prefer getting the fastest Leica lens money can buy, if it blocks my viewfinder a tad. It's probably something I got to learn to live with. I shoot 35mm f/2 lenses all the time on my SLRs. And even with ISO 400 film, it's not fast enough, many a time when I'm reduced to handholding something at an eighth of a second, I just wished I had a 35mm f/1.4.</p>

<p>Brian,</p>

<p>I think you've settled on the ideal, money no object, starter combination. Leica MP & new 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH. You really cannot do any better than that IMHO for a single camera, single lens outfit if 35mm is your preferred base focal length.</p>

<p>Well Graham, thank you again. 35mm is my preferred focal length simply because 43mm(or 40mm) is not a usual focal length and I just simply refuse to go and buy a 40mm lens for my SLR that I may never use again. As much as I try to fall in love with what a 50mm can see. I simply detest it, how it crops everything up and is simply too restricted(taking a step back in most of the photo situations I encounter is just simply not possible). I would love to be able to use a 35mm f/1 or something like that, but since there's no such thing in the Leica world. The 35/1.4 will just have to do(not like it's a substitute at all).</p>

<p>agreed, 1.4/35mm 'lux and the mp is an almost perfect combo, however the perfect combo requires a 1.4/75mm 'lux aswell! enjoy your impending purchase.</p>

<p>btw: voigtlander make a 1.2/35mm. it is huge for an m mount lens, and i found it to be no faster than 1.4. a sold mine for the asph 'lux.</p>

<p>Hi Bryan,<br>

Indeed it does look as though you've made up your mind, and if you: a. Want to buy new, and b. It does not matter what it costs, then you can hardly do better than a new MP and a 35mm f/1.4 lens. It will cost you four times as much as a used M6 and similarly pre-loved 35mm f/2, but if you have the money, and nothing better to do with it ...</p>

<p>About all you will have to agonize over are whether you want the traditional rewind (tougher) or the canted one (easier to use). Unfortunately I believe that it is no longer possible to get the MP "a la carte" which allowed you to also specify finish, body covering, viewfinder magnification and engraving.</p>

<p>As for the lens ... personally I'd still take the Summicron (f/2) over the Summilux (f/1.4) as it gives nicer pictorial results, and it is a lot smaller, but the f1/4 ASPH is not a bad lens! [Leica does not make a bad lens].</p>

<p>As for the 75mm f/1.4, if you want one of those [to create the really perfect outfit!] then you will have to settle for second hand. It has been replaced in the Leica line-up with the 75mm f/2]. It (the 75mm f/1.4) is a wonderful lens (I have owned two of them, both bought second hand on eBay) but it is surprisingly heavy (compared to the wide-angles and normal lenses) and is difficult to use, for three reasons: tiny viewfinder image, very shallow depth of field at wide apertures, and blocking off a big chunk of the viewfinder image. As a result mine never really got enough use to justify lugging one around with me. [On the other hand, when I eventually sold them, they sold easily, for far more than I paid for them - a far better return than money in shares or bonds!]. But practically ... I'd shoot for a while with the 35mm before considering anything else. You may find that it is all you need.</p>

<p>Honestly Tom,<br>

Yes, I want to buy new. As the M7 and the MP are the two only film Leicas still left in production, I don't have much of a choice. Although money is no object, saving money is always a good thing, but based on my criteria regarding the purchase of a Leica. I have no choice, if I want something new, that's what I have to do. I'm not saying the M6 is a bad camera or everyone in the world doesn't know how to take care of their cameras such that every old Leica is scratched and bruised, I'm sure I could find an M6 in all the specifications I wanted without so much as a scuff on the paint job. But I want it new. Brand new.</p>

<p>I'm fine with the tougher to use as well as tougher in durability rewind crank. That's the least of my worries. It's more on the viewfinder magnification(tried a .72x magnification on another person's M9 with a 50mm lens and I couldn't see all of the framelines without moving my eye about).</p>

<p>With regards to the f/2 vs f/1.4 lens issue. Yes, I've debated it over and over again. The Summicron may be smaller, more lightweight, doesn't block the viewfinder and be hell of a fast lens in it's own right. I'd still rather have the heavier, viewfinder blocking, and one stop faster Summilux since I can afford it. Pushing film one stop is not ideal due to excessive grain, but being able to stop down an extra stop without loss of quality is by far a better trade-off in my opinion.</p>

<p>Oh also, I never really said I wanted the 75mm lens, that was what someone else said would make the perfect combo. I personally prefer the 85-105mm focal length(at least when I use my SLRs). But regardless, I do not intend to buy another lens for a good few years after I purchase my MP and Summilux. Even if I do, I'd probably sooner cave to an even wider-angle than a telephoto.</p>

<p>Just a small update, it seems the new 35 'lux is in short supply. Which is a major bummer for me even though I won't purchase all of this til' October. The local retailer I often frequent offered to put me on a waiting list, but even they cannot confirm when my turn will come.</p>

<p>And I'm not sure if I want to wait months for a single lens. Might just have to settle for a summicron or even a non-Leica lens. A pity truly.</p>