Leica M6

IMHO, finder mag and widest lens 'comfortable use' goes like this:

 

.58x - 28mm

 

.72x - 35mm

 

.85x - 50mm

 

 

 

ETA Grrrrr @ the idiotic photo.net text reformatter.

I had my early "Wetzlar" M6 finder upgraded to the MP finder with the non-flare rangefinder patch. Youxin Ye did it. He had to wait a while for the parts from Leica and it was something over $300, but the rangefinder is now solid in all types of lighting conditions.

 

Framing accuracy is much like the digital M9 since, for some crazy reason, they're both set up to be the most accurate at 1 meter. You have to follow the manual instruction regarding framing and imagine 1 frame line width on the top and up to four on the sides to better know what you're getting. Practicing with the digital M9 body has made using the M6 much easier as I can frame an image, click the shutter and see the resulting image at once, making pre-visualizing what I will get with the M6 much easier.

 

With the newer digital models like the M262 I purchased last year, Leica returned to the 2 meter framing distance and finder accuracy is much, much better.

Thank you guys for your comments. The rangefinder flare thing is not something I have experienced so it's hard for me to worry about it. I suppose the thing to do is just buy an MP rather then buy an M6 and have it wrenched on. Dan thank you for the widest lens information. I have been trying to figure that out. I am sure the .72 would be the best magnification for me as I wanted a 35mm lens and I could also use the 50mm lens later on possibly. That is the only two focal lengths I am interested in. I do not use tele lens for my photography. Dube I can tell you are a source of knowledge on the Leica camera. I am going to pass on the M5 however. And then on the framing accuracy I guess I am just not worried about it. My FM2n has 93% coverage and it has never bothered me in the slightest. The one thing about the Leica I am not sure I can live with is the lack of eye relief. I have to check out another one to see if I can make it work. I cannot really shove my face into the viewfinder like I was doing in the store trying to see the framelines of the 35mm lens. I am going to San Francisco within this week and take a look at the M6 or MP with the .72 and a 35mm lens and decide to go for it or forget it and keep on shooting my FM2n. The MP appeals to me because it's newer.

I forgot to open both eyes yesterday so I could see everything out there. That's on my plan. However it does sound like the rangefinder thing is not all that. Poor eye relief, framelines inaccurate, viewfinder flare. The peephole itself is kind of small also. Crippled shutter speeds. I am starting to wonder why I want one. I have never been a jewelery type person so I don't think it's about getting out of a BMW wearing a Leica for all the world to see like they do in Los Gatos, Ca. . I am going to SF tomorrow to settle the entire thing. Figure out what will work or not. There is also a film only store over there someplace and I thought I would pop in to see the store. I called and they have no Leica's currently. But they sell Street Pan 400 and Dr Pepper's. I am not allowed to drink Dr. Pepper because the company supported the mentally ill guy that sits in the big chair until he goes to jail or the nuthouse.

I actually like the viewfinder myself. As an eyeglasses wearer the 28mm frame takes some moving around a little to comprehend what's being captured with the 28mm f2.8 Elmarit ASPH, but otherwise I really love the thing with 35-90mm lenses, and I use separate shoe-mounted optical finders to frame images when using the 24 and 18mm Elmars.

 

What I really like, is being able to shoot outdoors while wearing my polarized sunglasses, something that's impossible when using my Olympus E-M1 outfit due to the electronic finder.

 

There's no doubt the traditional optical rangefinder is not for everyone, but there's obviously a niche being served by Leica. If they weren't making money they'd have gone out of the business long ago.

Greg that is why I am going to SF tomorrow as I need to find out if I can work with it. Even my FM2n has barely adequate eye relief however I do not care about the shutter speed up there or anything. I just tip it a little if I am concerned about the light meter and what it has to say. I am good with it and am not picky either. I just had one little peak inside a Leica yesterday as the exact camera was sold and kind of inappropriate to let customers handle it. Anyway the Leica store will let me check everything out and I am willing to purchase from them. They only have a beater M6 for sale with water damage and I do not want that one. I will look in the viewfinder however.

Ross, I have used Leica rangefinder cameras (including M4, M4-2, M4-P, and M6) for almost 30 years. In my opinion, rangefinder "white-out" is an overblown problem. It happens rarely and is easily corrected by slightly changing your position or camera angle. It confused me the first time it happened, but it's never cost me a picture. Framing inaccuracy rarely bothered me, either, except when shooting color slide film -- I prefer an SLR for that. Mostly I shot b&w with Leica. For street photography and documentary-style photography, I'm shooting fast, so exact framing isn't possible with any camera. And when shooting b&w and developing my own prints, I can always crop when enlarging if necessary. So whether these rangefinder disadvantages really matter depends on your shooting style and your post-processing methods.

 

Regarding frame visibility, that's a larger issue. None of my M4/M6-style cameras enable me to see the entire 35mm frame while wearing eyeglasses. I can see only about 2/3 of the 35mm frame at once. Not ideal for fast shooting, but mostly I wear contact lenses when shooting, which solves that problem. The 28mm frame is practically invisible when I'm wearing glasses, but I've never had a 28mm lens for my Leica, so I don't care.

 

Regarding the various M-series bodies, I prefer the M6 for its built-in meter. That said, the M4 is a good choice if you don't need a TTL meter. Surprisingly, the best Leica body I ever owned was a Canadian-made M4-2. My sample had the smoothest film advance and shutter release of any Leica I've ever owned! But I traded it for an M6 because I missed having a meter. If you don't plan to use a 28mm or 75mm lens, the M4 has a less-cluttered viewfinder because it omits those frames.

For a newbie to rf/vf cameras, coming from slr/dslrs the whole eyepiece thing can be a bit of a shock. I won't dwell on the negatives, as they are often gigantically overblown in discussions. On the positive side...in dim light, unless you are using a recent EVF camera, nothing beats a rf/vf camera like the Leica. Imagine yourself in a dimly lit church, museum or art gallery with a slr/dslr...struggling to get focus nailed (yes more recent models have a focus indicator light)...with the Leica essentially what you see with the naked eye you see in the vf/rf. In sports action with a slr/dslr you see and try to track the subject but miss what is happening outside the vf, whereas with the Leica and most lenses, you get to see what is outside the frames as well as your subject. Eye relief is basically something of fairly recent concern...with most rf/vf cameras you just bring the body up to your eyes/glasses, focus and shoot. Oh...you didn't notice the framelines, because you have gotten used to just knowing where they are. Scratching one's eyeglasses with metal eyepiece....there's a little slip on plastic ring for about $10 you can get to protect your glasses....yes it moves your eyes back a 1/16 in or so, but honestly it doesn't matter. IMHO the Leica is a grab & go camera...always ready for action, and simple to adjust as needed to varying light conditions, especially if you are already familiar with basic light measuring and the sunny 16 rule. One feature I like, but don't often use, is the Visoflex, which turns the camera body into a slr with 65mm & longer lenses - versatility plus! Just 5 minutes with looking thru a Leica probably will neither turn you off or on, but rather cause you to think about the challenge of a different way of doing things - which can be intimidating. I had the good fortune of growing up with rf/vf cameras....some of which were downright miserable, and the SLRs held a lot of appeal to me. When a friend knew I was looking for a versatile camera which had great optics, versatility and fine craftsmanship, he showed me his Leica, explained its features and loaned it to me along with a 35 and 50mm lens for a week, so I could see if it met my needs. Initially I was overwhelmed by its quirkiness, especially when compared to recently introduced SLRs. The more I used it, the more I got sucked in until I was convinced that I really wanted one. I suddenly began to notice Leicas being used by a number of my associates, which further piqued my curiosity. I had to wait several weeks for Leica to deliver my body and lens to me, as I was at sea at the time. When it finally arrived, it came in a smallish plastic bag with an instruction manual and catalog, no fancy box or wrapping. I was awestruck by its beauty, mechanical preciseness, and spent hours practicing quick focusing techniques my friend taught me...it was 45 years before I eventually sold that lens and body. During that time I also owned over 25 slr/dslr,tlrs. Some were fantastic, some were just very good, and a few were mediocre...but in the end...it was the Leica which stuck with me the longest...thru eyeglasses changes, contact lenses, etc. Today my Leica wears a diopter (to bring to vf/rf to 0,0) and a ring to protect the eyeglasses lens from scratching, and I no longer struggle with the glasses off/on issues others encounter, especially as my prescription changes with age. I know this has been a lengthy post, and I apologize, but thought you really needed to hear some insight beyond 2-3 sentences, so that you could make a better informed decision. Good luck and I hope you end up with a keeper you love instead of just another camera.

Thank you for your comments. I just have to look at them again to try and decide what I would like to do. I might go to the Leica store tomorrow and poke around and see whats up. Kind of far but my wife does not want to go so it would be kind of a lonely drive. They do not have an M6 but an MP is there. That would work for checking it out but I don't think I want to spend the money for an MP. Maybe later if the M6 turns out to be a good decision. It's been years since I have been around Union Square. I will take my camera and take a few shots of the street or something.

SCL, you can write all day about Leica and more often than not I'd be immersed in whatever you write! Leica does that to people. ;-)

 

I got my first Leica, a IIIC, back in the late '90s. It was great, if slow. But for some reason I lost my groove with RFs as the years went by, as I was so spoiled by SLRs (film and digital). Now I'm more spoiled than ever, as I use CSCs (mirrorless) more than anything. Maybe I'm a bit spooked by the clear, unimpeded, yet somewhat detached, quality of the viewfinder.

 

Maybe I'm wrong here, but the best tip about using RFs is this: see your photo before you take it. With direct view cameras, you see the (potential) photo as it's unfolding. With RFs, all you can do with the finder is compose and focus. I think direct view cameras require you to constantly look at the scene though the viewfinder, while RFs require you to look at the scene up until you're ready to shoot.

Hi Karim - thanks for the compliment. I think newbies are often intimidated by sharp, short, conflicting views and tend therefore to avoid trying to rationalize the differences. From personal experiences, I've always found it helpful to have somebody sit down and explain some of the nuances pro or con to me in ways I can assimilate, without assuming I'm either clueless or fully knowledgible.

My own personal M favorites are the M2 and M4 with the MR meters, although I did like the 0.72 M6TTL very much and it was certainly faster and better to use for slide film, which is largely what I shot.

I went to San Francisco but it's been years since I have been around Union Square. I would say it's not really accessible by car. Maybe if you know the city but I do not. Anyway I drove by the place and was not able to stop. The chances of being in an accident are very high in that area so after a couple laps around the block I gave up and headed over to the Height St area to another store that I have seen on-line. That is kind of a rough looking area and I figured the safest thing to do was go home and forget it. I had called them and they did not have a Leica anyway. I thought I would just look around. So the quest is pretty much over. If I ever get a chance to look one over or maybe shoot a roll then I will consider it. Given that the camera has poor eye relief I think I will just put it on the back burner. . Thank you for your patience and willingness to answer my questions.

If one searches the photo.net archives with regards to the visibility of the 28mm and 35mm framelines in a 0.72x viewfinder for people wearing glasses, one finds the same range of answers given here from "no problem at all" to "hardly visible" or "not visible at once". Seems everyone is different and it indeed depends on the individual. If I really pushed the camera into my face, squishing glasses and nose as much as possible, I could make out the 35mm frame without having to scan around in the viewfinder. I just got tired of having to clean my glasses after every shot ;) and was afraid that after a while my nose would suffer some permanent rearrangement :eek:. Not much, if anything, has changed with time regarding eye relief on a Leica M, for whatever reason. To me, it's one of the main reasons I gave up on using Ms altogether; using them was just too uncomfortable.

I would say it's not really accessible by car.

My experience too (and not just for Union Square); one needs to find a parking spot somewhere and then be prepared to walk, however far that might be. I am sure locals (and those who know the City well enough) can point out numerous locations close to the places you wanted to get to; I would have picked some of the parking spots I am familiar with (hoping they still exist and are not generally overrun) and walk the remaining distance.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

Well I gathered that also Dieter from searching the net. My one glance at the camera on Monday had me shoving my face into the camera to find the 35mm framelines. After a couple days I decided for the money it should really have a viewfinder to die for and not one that would barely work. I could get a diopter for it and be blind otherwise or put my glasses on and off or prop on top of my head but I just do not want to. I am comfortable with them on my nose after all these years. Anyway without an opportunity to give the camera a critical look I figure I will skip it at least for now. Edited March 9, 2017 by rossb

I could get a diopter for it and be blind otherwise or put my glasses on and off or prop on top of my head but I just do not want to.

Went through exactly the same experience and realized the diopters weren't a solution for me. Some 25-30 years ago, a rangefinder might have solved some low-light focusing issues for me but I couldn't afford one. Once I got some, it turned out that technology had moved on and there were better solutions to those focusing issues.<br><br>I so very much wanted to like the M cameras but came to realize that they did not offer any usage advantage for me, just the contrary. I do admit that they are nice to look at though;)

Edited March 9, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

I read the Leica 10 finally addressed the eye relief issue and it's supposed to be nice for those that wear glasses.

SF is probably easiest by public transport - e.g. if you were visiting Camera West, you could get the BART from Walnut Creek to Montgomery St in under 40 min. There are also some downtown parking garages - see http://sfpark.org/ . I think this one is cheaper than the garage under Union Sq: https://www.yelp.com/biz/sutter-stockton-garage-san-francisco

I was thinking if I were to try again to visit the Leica store I would go with my son who shoots film also. He went to school in SF and knows how to ride Bart and all that. Going solo I just do not know how to even get a ticket. I have a daughter that is getting her Masters at SF state currently. She works at the De Young museum. They are all so capable of moving about the city and I am paralyzed. I guess it's time I learned how to do some stuff. Quite frankly I wanted to walk around Union Square and see some of it with my camera of course.

I guess spending the day riding trains or looking for parking garages to go shopping would not have produced much anyway. The camera I was going to look at apparently was sold as it's off the website.

Getting a guided tour from the kids sounds like a good plan. There's a lot to see and photograph if you haven't properly explored the City before, and you can walk nearly everywhere if you don't mind hills. Just watch out if you get a Leica and your film shooting son asks to 'borrow' it!

My film shooting son is the one that got me fired up about it. To him the Leica M6 is the holy grail.

A great set of posts. I'd always toyed with the idea of getting an M6 (my experience has been with, largely IIIf's, but more recently an M2) so did a bit of googling and was astonished at the prices they are getting. Have they become de rigeur again. Prices seem to be hovering in excess of $2000 for decent bodies. Far in excess of Don Rockwell's estimate of around $1000. Has old become new again?

Regards, Arthur

I've seen prices go up by 20-30% here in the UK recently and a distinct shortage of them at dealers - I wondered if it was just the weak pound after our Brexit vote madness, since the main dealers sell internationally. But >$2000 is way too much for a plain M6 Classic - you can do a lot better on ebay.

Don't forget that a lot of the point of the M system is its small size, particularly the lenses, and this is a real thing, unlike the case with many modern AF mirrorless lenses.