Which Leica M camera to buy?

<p>Don't close this just yet!</p>

<p>The question I'm going to ask has perhaps been asked a lot of times, but believe me I've read all the replies and feel that my thirst is not quite quenched yet, hence this question.</p>

<p>I intend to sell off all of my other cameras and lenses. My Nikons, and Pentax gear. Although they have given me spectacular images and memories, they have also made me want for more. I don't want any more, and don't want to hanker after any more cameras or lenses. I shoot mostly manual and in black and white film, so the digital era is quite honestly a low point for me, since very little seem to appreciate film these days but a high point also because everything film is mostly cheaper.</p>

<p>I'm young so excuse my ignorance if I happen to say the wrong thing, but I don't quite want to get to the age most people I know get to when they realise that after spending hundreds of thousands on expensive Nikons, Canons and everything else. All they ever really needed was just one camera and one lens. I've realised that now, so to cut things short.</p>

<p>I am absolutely confused on which Leica M camera to buy. Money is no object, but that's not to say I would willingly buy a 50mm Noctilux or an M9(if only because it's a digital camera). I can't seem to decide between an M3, M6, M7, MP or the Zeiss Ikon. Even a singular choice of focal length has me stumped. 35mm or 50mm(on my SLRs, the 35mm f/2 lens regardless of make is always my normal, but I've recently been trying out the 50mm, and since I only want one lens, I can't decide which to get.).</p>

<p>I want to be able to take pictures of everything(people, landscapes, parades, celebrations, weddings, funerals, anything the eye can see!) and anywhere(at home, at work, in broad daylight, in the middle of the night, at a bar, in a cave, on a train, wherever one can go!). I understand that no one camera can fully satisfy every single one of these situations or conditions but I want a camera that can come close. I have reason to believe the Leica M series will do that.</p>

<p>I know all of this sounds whimsical, at least to me. I'm not trying to add to fanaticism or mystique common to the Leica brand, but rather just some opinions. I've shunned digital, regardless of how great it can become, there is something brilliantly grand about developing and printing your own pictures. And I like it and have the time for it so why not?</p>

<p>And of course, what I'd like on the camera. A self-timer(though if I am not mistaken only the M3 has) would be nice, I frequently travel alone and prefer my own company and the freedom to do things on the fly without having to consult anyone so shooting pictures of myself against something ever so often would be a nice touch.<br /> Metering would be helpful too, although if there isn't any, I'd finally be able to find a use for my VCII meter.<br /> Oh and maybe ASA speeds beyond 1600 so that I could actually try shooting Kodak P3200 at 3200.</p>

<p>So amongst the M3, M6, M7, MP or Zeiss Ikon. Which would you recommend, and keep in mind that it's my first Leica(or non-Leica but with the M mount).</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>p.s. I know the lens-hankering never really stops regardless of the system you buy. But with mostly fixed focal length lenses to be had, I think I'd be able to curb my addiction fairly well by sticking to one lens and maybe a wide-angle at a later time.</p>

<p>I would eliminate the M3. Though many Leica experts say it was the best Leica ever made, they are now very old. They are a little harder to load than an M6. The big drawback is no meter. I had a 3 and a 6 for years & finally sold the 3 because I absolutely never needed it. My M6 required a cleaning & adjustment after 10 hard years, but has never broken down. Great camera. I have not used the 7 or the P.</p>

If you shoot almost only B&W, I'd go for a meterless body.

Your favorite focal lens is important for the viewfinder choice. Mine is 50 : with a 50, a kit composed of a nice CLA'd M3

(.91 viewfinder) and a summicron 50 (or lux if you want the extra-stop) is the thing I use most when shooting B&W

(>90%). With Tri-X rated from 200 to 3200, depending on conditions.

 

With a 35, you'd better go for another body. Maybe a .58, especially if you wear glasses.

but when in the mountains, my kit is usually composed of a M6TTL with a 2/28. And an Elmar 50 in the bag. With Velvia.

But this is just my experience and my way of using my cameras...

 

Try one close to what you think close to your needs. Stick to it for some time, shoot, learn and adjust later if needed. Have

fun.

 

Didier

<p>You left out my favorite, the M4. But since I've shot with the M2, M3, M4 and M6...I'd recommend the M6 out of your list. I'm not sure why you are considering a change if your present gear is giving satisfying results...but that is your decision for your own reasons. My advice is don't sell your other gear until you are satisfied the RF M series is truly what you want! The M6 is newer, has a good built in meter. If you want to use TTL flash get the M6TTL, if not, the M6 classic. I personally prefer a 35mm lens as my normal lens and a 90 to supplement it. Less often I use a 50 and currently have two of them (Summicrons) after years of trying almost every 50 Leica offers in the M mount (I sold the Noctilux...wasn't my cup of tea, Summilux was really nice, but I didn't use it enough to keep it). I also periodically use a Leica 135 and 400 Telyts for special needs and a VC 15. I originally got a Visoflex, because I thought I wouldn't want a SLR any longer, but it rarely gets used, as SLRs & DSLRs are more convenient. The good news is that I can use the lens heads of my 90 & 135 M lenses via an adapter on my SLR & DSLR cameras, as well as the 400. So the Leica M stuff is certainly a versatile package, but don't dismiss the digital stuff. The day may come when it is impractical to use a lot of film unless you process it yourself. Whichever camera you choose, don't get hung up on buying a different model later on to improve your photographic skills...use what you choose and learn to make best use of its features. Given you're going for cameras with some usage in them, make sure you have a CLA in your budget...my M4 needed it twice in the last 40 years (once because a windstorm blew it off the picnic table I had set it on while looking for a lens). Good luck with your choice!</p>

<p>You left out my favorite, the M4. But since I've shot with the M2, M3, M4 and M6...I'd recommend the M6 out of your list. I'm not sure why you are considering a change if your present gear is giving satisfying results...but that is your decision for your own reasons. My advice is don't sell your other gear until you are satisfied the RF M series is truly what you want! The M6 is newer, has a good built in meter. If you want to use TTL flash get the M6TTL, if not, the M6 classic. I personally prefer a 35mm lens as my normal lens and a 90 to supplement it. Less often I use a 50 and currently have two of them (Summicrons) after years of trying almost every 50 Leica offers in the M mount (I sold the Noctilux...wasn't my cup of tea, Summilux was really nice, but I didn't use it enough to keep it). I also periodically use a Leica 135 and 400 Telyts for special needs and a VC 15. I originally got a Visoflex, because I thought I wouldn't want a SLR any longer, but it rarely gets used, as SLRs & DSLRs are more convenient. The good news is that I can use the lens heads of my 90 & 135 M lenses via an adapter on my SLR & DSLR cameras, as well as the 400. So the Leica M stuff is certainly a versatile package, but don't dismiss the digital stuff. The day may come when it is impractical to use a lot of film unless you process it yourself. Whichever camera you choose, don't get hung up on buying a different model later on to improve your photographic skills...use what you choose and learn to make best use of its features. Given you're going for cameras with some usage in them, make sure you have a CLA in your budget...my M4 needed it twice in the last 40 years (once because a windstorm blew it off the picnic table I had set it on while looking for a lens). Good luck with your choice!</p>

<p>My favorite is Leica M3 single stroke with black 35mm F2 Canon all in user condition with a recent CLA. The absolute outside edge of the finder is roughly 37mm view so an optional 35mm finder may be unnecessary. In the cold shoe a small accurate exposure meter completes the ideal kit. Don't forget a lens shade! I also use this lens with a Canon P so the LTM to M converter ring needed on the latter camera cannot be used. I mention user condition to keep the cost of acquisition down allowing for the expense of a CLA which the camera might need to insure another 50 years of use! The mint ones are for the well heeled collectors.....</p>

<p>The MP is a cool factor camera like no other, but has no self timer, only some of the M3s have one. I detest (this is suppose to be a conversation, no?) the answer to use Google but that would be your best bet to compare features, and narrow down your list from there.</p>

<p>So do a lack of knowledge, my input input is meager.</p>

<p>What VF magnification would you prefer? .58 or .72 would be the way to go for wides or the .72 for all around shooting. .85 is also an option.</p>

<p>ISO selection is dependent on the film, not the camera. Attached is a shot on K P3200, at 3200 1,4.</p>

<p>The advantage of an M3 is it has the worlds' best viewfinder (VF) magnification at .91 (?). The disadvantage is it has the worlds best VF magnification at .91, so that mandates an external VF for 35mm lenses and wider. The Leica 35mm lens made for it is goggled, an issue for some, it wouldn't be for me. If could I'd have an M3 married to a 75mm/1,4.</p>

<p>The M6 classic (called classic, not officially "Classic" as it's just an informal way of saying non TTL flash) is an awesome little camera, cheap today by L standards.</p>

<p>I always liked the 3 lug M5, I like the idea of carrying a camera hanging down instead of flopped over. I don't know if that is the case in the real world or not, but the M5 prices have gone crazy in the past 3 years so I'll never own one.</p>

<p>The ZI gets rave reviews for its' finder, Zeiss has also been making Biogons since invented by Dr. Ludwig Bertele at Carl Zeiss in 1953. A fantastic design and still modern (a Biogon/Hologon hybrid is used for the Mars Rover NavCams, to give you an idea of what the design can achieve distortion wise).</p>

<p>CameraQuest has a nice conversational overview of the different models here: http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm</p>

<p>While money can't buy you love (trust me, it can be rented), it can buy you a Leica. First lens? The (recently) discontinued 35mm/1,4 Summilux ASPH and some Tri-X, Plus-X, Pan-F and P3200.</p><div></div>

<p> I'd be fine without a meter, but you might not. I prefer to carry a hand-held meter. An M3 is fine, IMO, if one gets one that has had the RF update and a recent CLA by a reputable repair person. Same for any other used Leica M. For a one-body outfit, I'd go with an M6. The question for me would be between a Summicron and a Summilux, and I would compromise and go with the former. No matter what, I would take a 2nd compact, lightweight quality P&S camera while traveling. Something like an Olympus Stylus Epic, Olympus XA, etc., if using film, or a Canon S90 or Fuji 200EXR if digital, just in case.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here's a pic of an MP with the goggled 135/2,8 Elmarit M. The gogs bring up 90 mm frame lines making it easier, supposedly, to focus. It's mounted on a .72 VF MP.</p>

<p>It has it's detractor (both the camera rewind and the gog'd lens) but they both work as designed.</p><div></div>

<p>Bryan, as you probably know, the M7 gives you exposure automation, if that is needed. The M6 with its meter and with a 50mm Summicron f2.0 (or even the collapsible newer version 50mm f2.8, discontinued a few years ago) is hard to beat, especially with the 0.85 magnification finder. However, you may eventually want to go for a 35mm or wider lens, and if so, the 0.72 model would be better. I've use both the M3 and M6 and wouldn't hesitate about the M6, the on-board meter is just so convenient. Having said that, once I sold these and went to MF (Mamiya 6, a great 6x6cm RF B&W camera, although with slower lenses), I wanted back into Leica M and purchased the meterless M4-P (used with VCII meter attached; not as convenient as the M6 or M7, but still a great and well-made camera, with 0.72X VF).</p>

<p>You will likely be happy with any of the models you are thinking about, but the small differences are noteworthy. I used a Konica RF camera for 3 or 4 years and regret seling it. It is a smooth, svelt and great performing camera (some say it is not pefectly matched to Leica M lenses, but my tests using high res. slide film showed little if any mismatching) and a shame it was discontinued. And quieter, I believe, than the Cosina made Zeiss-Ikon.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. You're right on that Didier, I only shoot B&W. Perhaps in another year or so I'll finally be sick of shooting grey that I'll make the jump to shooting colour slides. But I somehow don't see that happening much.</p>

<p>But why no meter if I shoot B/W? I would think it would make it easier since shooting B/W very often requires multiple filter changes depending on light and subject.</p>

<p>Also, I very rarely use a telephoto lens. So the chances of me buying a telephoto lens is rather slim even though they are definitely of use. I just prefer the normal to wide-angle point of view and let my legs scale to fit something in, naturally I can't fit athletes in that well, but I don't like sports much anyway.</p>

<p>So it seems it's 2 votes right now for an M6. What about the M7 or the MP? I'd like more opinions!</p>

<p>Edit; Good gravy! In the time it took me to reply, there's a whole slew of more responses, give me a sec to read through all of them now!</p>

<p>The AE ability on the M7 is incredibly useful. If I were to buy a new (used) camera that is what I'd purchase.</p>

<p>A 135mm lens could barely called telephoto by todays' standards. Regarding focal lengths and composing by backing up or walking forward, at times that is just not an option. This attachment was shot at 10 feet on Kodachrome with the 135/2,8, wide open.</p><div></div>

<p>Well Stephen, I'm considering a change because of a number of factors. They're really all just personal and would make little sense to an outsider(which also makes me feel that they're rather nonsensical). But long story short, I just want one camera with one lens plus a wde-angle later on and on certain occasions. Because of this, I would like to get rid of everything else(except maybe my old Spotmatic which I utterly adore and will relegate to a display cabinet). And because I will no longer have more than one camera, well, let's just leave it at how I'll be a much happier person.</p>

<p>And Michael I don't quite understand how ISO speed is related to film and not the camera. If I wanted to shoot a roll of P3200 on my Spotmatic that only goes as far as 1600, how do I rate it at 3200? Also, I've been through that website, but after reading it, I am far more distracted than I was before. Everything seems to be fantastic.</p>

<p>Arthur, I must confess that I'm not very informed about what exposure automation is. But also with your mention of MF. I have thought and considered it for a while now, and to be honest am still debating whether to settle for one of the new Rolleiflex TLR cameras. I would probably get the one with f/2.8 lens. But I was also considering the Mamiya 6 and 7. I would like to shoot MF far more than 35mm, but the slower lens speeds are a problem and a direct contradiction to me wanting to take pictures everywhere. And most of them involve places where a tripod would be more of a hindrance and less of an aid. So that's why I settled on a Leica instead.</p>

<p>And Luis, I totally agree. Regardless of what I'm shooting, I always bring a small digital P&S(I know I exhibit great disdain for digital, but in the case of digital P&Ss, I haven't found a film equivalent that is as small as my little Nikon).</p>

<p>And so again, everyone's mostly for the M6. With a few notable exceptions for the M3 and M4. Oddly though, most websites I seem to get directed to with google searches highly proclaim the M7 or MP as the camera of choice to get into if you're a first-time buyer. Again, it's all highly subjective I know, but perhaps you can now understand my confusion and indecisiveness.</p>

<p>I know a lot of Leica users will consider the comment heresy, but the MP for me is serious overkill compared to the M6. Unless you shoot 20,000 images per year (and even then...), or are very very concerned about occasional flare in the viewfinder, what does it really buy that the M6 does not already have? Even if there are marginal differences for the huge price differential, will they really show up in the images, or in the capability to make them?</p>

<p>Bryan, just saw your thread. AE is automatic exposure, in which you set one variable (f stop or shutter speed) and the camera reads the reflected light through the lens and sets the exposure automatically, when you press the shutter button. The M6 reads the light through the lens and you set the f stop or shutter speed yourself by centering the meter indicators in the VF window. </p>

<p>Lastly, like you already know, you can't always compose with your feet. Shot with a digi PoS, cliffs to my back, cliffs to the front, moving back impossible, moving forward, suicide.</p><div></div>

<p>Michael, yes I have to agree again. By today's standards a 135mm is a short tele. And backing up or moving forward is just not going to work sometimes. I've run into such situations either indoors(a small room) or outdoors(on a bridge for example). But with the application of a telephoto lens, that is something I rarely encounter. I've found, at least in my experience that when it's impossible for me to get a good shot with a lens regardless of where my legs can take me, I'm forced to try a different vantage point. An example of this is when I tried to compose a shot of the grand canal in Venice with a 50mm lens and realising then that a 35mm would be better suited and there was no way I could levitate two metres above and behind the bridge I was standing on. I found a way to get under the bridge via some steps and lean out near the water to get a good shot.</p>

<p>Granted it was not only dangerous but rather foolish, but I came away happy. And it was only a $40 camera I put in harm's way, though I doubt I'd do the same with a Leica. But you get the point I guess.</p>

<p>Except for the digital M bodies and M5, the built-in self-timer and built-in meter are mutually exclusive. Leica made room for the meter batteries on M6 and up film bodies by removing the self-timer. So start by making up your mind about those features. That will narrow down the selection.<br>

Next think about the framelines and finder magnification you'll need for your lens. 28? 35? 50? That will narrow it down more. In other words, make up your mind about the lens focal length, then the body selection will follow. If you're like most people sooner or later you'll end up with two or more lenses, and maybe even bodies, but start with your immediate needs.<br>

By now you'll have a selection of bodies that are differentiated by things like appearance, build quality, age, availability of parts, possibly film-loading method, and of course price. Then people are better able to offer specific recommendations about particular bodies.</p>

<p>But Arthur, faced with the M6 and the M7. Is automatic exposure worth the steeper buy-in? I can definitely see where it would be useful. But with nearly everyone recommending the M6, there seems to be a disparity between usefulness and adoration. Don't mind my blasphemy, I'm just trying to iron things out.</p>

<p>Also, is the M7 one of the cameras with the so-called "wrong way" shutter dial? It's not a huge concern for me since it will be my first camera, so whichever way it spins would be the "right way" but I'm just wondering.</p>

<p>A better example of getting closer is suicide (and an example why I hate C-41). Getting closer for a landscape may mean falling 180 feet to a rocky death.</p>

<p>And why I hate C-41, shot with "pro film" with arguably the "best" lens, and the colors suck. It was an awesome scene, Chaco Canyon at sunrise. I refuse to diddle in PP, I want to learn photography and not Photo Shop film corrections. Luckily I shot the same scene, same metering and same AM time with Kodachrome. While I don't have a scan to post, it is frigging gorgeous. And after scanning, I only have to FTP a TIFF to a printer, no PP required.</p>

<p>All Leica M cameras have settings for ISO 3200, or up to 6400? To shoot P3200 with a camera/light meter that tops out at 1600 you would basically only have to close the lens a stop, or slower the shutter down a step, voila, exposed for 3200.</p>

<p>But the go anywhere do anything kit you seem to be describing is an M7, MP or M6, a 35mm lens and a tripod, but for a cave you may want to go wider. :)</p>

<p>Have fun, enjoy the adventure and return to post where you go and your photos.</p><div></div>

<p>The answer is simple. You should get the most advanced and flexible body= M7 0.72x and a good matching universal high quality lens = 35/1.4 Summilux. I normally use a 0.85x M7 for 50mm lenses, 0,58x M7 for 28mm lenses and th Zeiss Ikon for 35mm lenses (BTW Zeiss Ikon is the most advanced rangefinder), but if you do not wear glasses, the 0,72x M7 will keep you covered from 28mm to 50mm easily.<br>

As to the lens, from what you wrote, I think you want a 35mm. look st the photos of this guy, he only uses an M7 with a 3mm Summicron ASPH:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/emmanuel_smague/<br>

Get the Leica, as if you buy another camera you will still want trying a Leica anyway, and while Leica is not best at everything, it is good enough at most things to make you like it for life.</p>

<p>Ken,<br /> First off, you read rather impatient. Did I not mention that I am a first-time buyer into the Leica M system? I was not aware that the self-timer was exclusive to bodies without a meter. And having used SLRs my whole life, I was equally unaware that viewfinder magnification had anything to do with what lenses I wanted to use.</p>

<p>But with that being said, very well. I would prefer a body with TTL metering, since I use a wide variety of B/W colour filters and would prefer not having to mentally factor in the f/stop reduction. I could do with a shutter release cable I guess.</p>

<p>With regards to the focal length, I am still undecided and will be for a while til' I fully flesh out the possibilities with regards to the 50mm focal length. But with that being said, I would probably buy a 28mm lens at some point.</p>

<p>Edit: Forgot to include, yes I wear glasses. Am short-sighted.</p>

<p>Thanks Michael for the tip, I never actually thought of that!</p>

<p>And thanks Marek, that's the type of answer I needed! Narrows it down a whole bunch! But just one small follow-up question, the 35/1.4 does block the viewfinder does it not? How would I get around that?</p>

<p>having owned pretty-much everything, film-wise - my only three suggestions would be:<br>

leica m4 / 35 summicron / 35 summilux asph. [about £1,000-£2,500]<br>

leica m6 [classic] / 35 summicron / summilux asph. [about £900-£2,500]<br>

olympus trip 35 [about £3-£20]<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j12t/<br>

good luck, buddy; you seem to be heading in a good direction : ]</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm young so excuse my ignorance if I happen to say the wrong thing, but I don't quite want to get to the age most people I know get to when they realise that after spending hundreds of thousands on expensive Nikons, Canons and everything else. All they ever really needed was just one camera and one lens. I've realised that now,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bryan,<br>

<em>Your dichotomy of one camera and one lens for everything and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on expensive nikon/canon is false. It just show how naive you are. There is a road in between. Actually, most of us are on that road unless you are a gearhead fondler or really hardheaded hardcore minimalist...</em></p>

<p><em>I would start with a M6 and a 35mm. See if RF suit you then get another lens or two.<br /></em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

<em><br /></em></p>

<p>'So amongst the M3, M6, M7, MP or Zeiss Ikon. Which would you recommend, and keep in mind that it's my first Leica(or non-Leica but with the M mount).'</p>

<p>It really depends on what is important to you:<br /> M3 - Best Leica viewfinder for 50mm, but no framelines for 35mm. Consider an M2 or M4 if you're likely to go for the 35. Obviously no meter, and more likely to need servicing than the others you mention.<br /> M6 'classic' - No-nonsense body with meter, arguably the best value, and my choice.<br /> M6-TTL and M7 - Slightly larger than the M6, adding TTL flash metering and larger shutter speed dials that turn in the opposite direction to all other film Leicas (but are easier to adjust with one finger). M7 uniqely has AE mode, but is almost completely battery dependent.<br /> MP - Basically an M6 with retro touches for the user/collector (M3-style film wind and rewind) which can be considered either 'better' or 'worse' according to taste. Went back to using brass for top and bottom plates, and black (paint) model designed to wear more gracefully (though unfortunately more easily) than black M6 (which used black chrome plated zinc). One significant practical improvement is the new viewfinder optic which is supposed to reduce the risk of rangefinder patch whiteout (can be retrofitted to earlier cameras). No TTL flash.<br /> Zeiss Ikon - Has its fans here, who tend to rave about the viewfinder/rangefinder. Still a current camera, though more expensive than, say, a mint M6. I guess we won't know if it has the longevity of a Leica for another 50 years or so :-)</p>

<p>'I intend to sell off all of my other cameras and lenses. My Nikons, and Pentax gear.'</p>

<p>I wouldn't sell them off until you've been using the M for a few months (if then). The RF experience (have you tried one yet?) is really quite different to using an SLR. The purist single lens/single body approach is romantic, but not always practical - contrary to myth, even Cartier-Bresson used more than one lens! 35 vs 50 is largely a matter of taste. Note that the 50mm frameline in cameras like the M6 and later is a little undersized for shots at infinity, which makes it feel like you're shooting with a slightly longer focal length (and means you get more in the frame than you might expect).</p>

<p>'And Michael I don't quite understand how ISO speed is related to film and not the camera. If I wanted to shoot a roll of P3200 on my Spotmatic that only goes as far as 1600, how do I rate it at 3200?'</p>

<p>If you're shooting manually, you just set the meter to 1600 and remember to make the necessary one stop adjustment in shutter speed or aperture to halve the exposure.</p>

<p>'A self-timer(though if I am not mistaken only the M3 has) would be nice, I frequently travel alone and prefer my own company and the freedom to do things on the fly without having to consult anyone so shooting pictures of myself against something ever so often would be a nice touch.'</p>

<p>You can buy an accessory timer for any camera.</p>