ben z Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I would like to hear from actual owners of older M6 "classic" bodies with the early-type metering (diodes go out with lenscap on vs blinking, ser#s <1.76mil very approx)whether they have had any recent problems with the meters. I already know the opinions (conflicting) of the top repair folks, so what I want is reports from people who own the cameras in question, if there are any here. It's not that I'm considering whether to get an early or later M6, it's whether to spend the extra $250 (cost of new circuit board)to upgrade while I'm having the camera apart for an overhaul, or risk paying another labor charge on top of that if the meter dies in a year or 2. (I'm getting the camera cheap enough to do an overhaul, MP-finder upgrade and the meter board and still be at market value, but I don't want to waste $250 if it's totally unnecessary). Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan d. chang Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I have the early one, does not have any meter problem yet up to now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nee_sung Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 My serial noumber starts with 168... I have no idea what you are talking about. I am the first hand owner. I have had no problem with the meter in the past 18 years. I haven't even heard that there is a problem with the meter until your post. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diego_k. Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 No problems here as well. Dont know what is suposed to be wrong with this, but having the diodes go stronger or weaker is great for fine adjustment of exposure (reminds me of my B&O amplifier). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I bought two in 1986 and the meters work fine. I did have to replace the light shields in front of the shutter with the new mylar ones after minimal usage. These would not be considered parts that wear. DAG told me it is a common problem. As these parts are cheap, I would get them upgraded at a cla. You might also consider the rangefinder anti-flair upgrade. That is lots of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Ben, I have two of the later model M6 "classics". The meter is dead in one of them. I don't think the age of the metering system is any indication of reliability. Sometimes even well-designed things break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r._fulton_jr. Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 My 1986 (or so) Wetzlar M6 is still accurate and no problems. AND a lot of film put thru it. That said, since I also have a late model (2002) M6TTL, I now realize that the new meter system is much better. Since I shoot in a lot of low light the two extra stops of low light reading is really great. In fact, your eMail makes me think about an upgrade on my old M6. I didn't know it was available. Is the $250 price for the meter upgrade? Who is doing it? To answer your question: If you don't need the extra f-stops of low light reading then I'd just use it until it breaks (the meter). I haven't heard of problems with the older meters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben z Posted December 5, 2004 Author Share Posted December 5, 2004 Thanks for the responses so far guys! Definitely is looking like I can risk saving the $250 now. I was a little concerned because I heard (3rd-party, not with my own ears)that one of the repair gurus said the older M6s are starting to show their age and she's seeing some of them coming in with dead meters. OTOH I did speak personally with a couple others and they basically said they aren't seeing any such a trend. Then again, it's to their advantage if they get to charge me for another stripdown if the meter croaks in a year or 2, so that's why I decided to do my own informal poll. John, the upgrade is to the later M6 classic circuit board which I _think_ may be 1 EV more sensitive, not the one from the M6TTL which is 2 EVs more. In fact I asked Leica if it were possible to fit the meter from the MP into an M6 classic and they said no. But I'm not sure if he thought I meant just the circuit board. You'd also have to change the LED display. I don't know if there are any other reasons the MP meter stuff wouldn't shoehorn into an M6 classic. I'll bet way down the pike if they ever run out of M6 boards, an independent guy will figure how to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_eskridge Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I just received my 1986 (Wetslar) or so "classic" from Sherry this week after a CLA. Although aware of the meter differences and age of the meter and also the finder upgrade possibilities I thought in my case that the camera was satisfactory as it is and I am pleased. (I didn't particularly like the fact that she put a new covering on the camera and also a new "Leica" vs "Leitz" red dot on it but assumed it was necessary.) Having owned a later Solms "classic" I can say that the later meters are a little easier to use but not worth the expense of changing them out when the one in the camera is working fine. Who knows, if the meter goes out maybe I will need other work done then also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan d. chang Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 (I didn't particularly like the fact that she put a new covering on the camera and also a new "Leica" vs "Leitz" red dot on it but assumed it was necessary.) why she changed it? I do not think it is necessary to remove it, if it is a CLA the top cover should take off then you do not need to take out the red round plate to adjust the rangefinder. Wired. Some die hard fans thank Leitz log worth more than a Leica one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben z Posted December 5, 2004 Author Share Posted December 5, 2004 Perhaps Sherry finds it more accurate to finalize the vertical alignment of the rangefinder _after_ the top cover is tightened down. That would entail removing the logo. However the old logo _could_ be reattached with Pliobond and I would think she'd have asked if you wanted that, or at least wanted it back, knowing the affinity for things like that among Leica collectors. As to the body covering, M. Sparks (www.cameraleather.com) has this on his site: "Leitz switched to a Japanese "PVC-on-fiberglass" covering beginning with the M6...But over the long term they are prone to stiffening. The jelly-like adhesive, which permits easy removal, also lets the vinyl float on the camera, allowing shrinkage and lifting at the edges." Unlike the M4-P and earlier bodies where they are exposed, the covering of M6 has to be peeled off to get at the screws that hold the shutter crate to the body casting. If your cover was stiff it might not have been reattachable. Why not call or e-mail Sherry for her explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee hamiel Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I have an early M6 from 1986 - no meter problems other than it's always been consistently off by -1/2 stop so I adjust the film speed to compensate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david k. Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I have two 1985 M6 Wetzlar's, no problem what so ever, both within a third of a stop. As someone else said, the change in the later Solms meters is minor at best, most people wouldn't even notice the difference. The MP viewfinder upgrade on the other hand, gives M2, M4 type performance and is well worth doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jean_. Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 The meter of my mid-90s M6 meters nonsense only, after fooling around with possible fixes I finally took out the batteries and use an incident meter. Not really convenient, and somehow defeats my idea for buying an M6. I really don't know what can break in that meter, but then everything that can break went wrong in my camera.. so I decided not to send it in anymore for repair, the day it quits completely I'll sell it as is and see if I'll get another M or go digital or whatever. I did however newer hear of any meter problems until now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spider_. Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I have an early Wetzlar M6. There has never been a problem with the meter. My advice is to not change the meter board unless the extremely unlikely event of a failure occurs later on. You won't be "upgrading" anything by changing the board, as it's fine the way it was originally designed. Leave the board alone and spend the money on film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I have an M6 within the first batch of 1000 (no strap protectors), 1984. I've had it since 1985 with no problems. Its meter matches my 2003 M7. "Since I shoot in a lot of low light the two extra stops of low light reading is really great." My M6 meters to 1-sec at f1.0. How low does one need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben z Posted December 5, 2004 Author Share Posted December 5, 2004 Cool, it's sounding more and more like an unnecessary thing to do and in fact who knows, the new board might even fail before the old one would of! Spider, I'll probably spend the $250 on processing for the couple hundred rolls of film I've already got in the freezer now : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_lazzarini Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Bought my M6 'classic'in 1990.<br> The first one, chrome, had a meter problem in cold weather, where it would go inoperable after a few minutes of use.<br> Exchanged that one for a black body model, and have never had a meter problem since.<p> Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Bought my Wetzlar M6 in '90 & used in all kinds of Alaska weather, never a problem. Probably send in for CLA soon but doesn't appear to need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_phillips1 Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 I have an M6 from the first at Solms (174xxx) and the meter is fine. I find I can't see the arrows at all in bright light, so I usually ignore it and use a hand held meter. I keep batteries in the body in case I find myself shooting in low light (and even then, I still carry a hand held meter (or use the one in my head). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaijin Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 My M6 is the 748th M6 built by Leitz Wetzlar. It has never had a CLA and the meter, along with everything elses, works just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r._fulton_jr. Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 >>>My M6 meters to 1-sec at f1.0. How low does one need?<<< Lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot_rosen1 Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 As I recall, the arly M6s metered down to EV0 with the 50/1 Nocti, while the later M6TTLs and the M7 meter to EV-2. Other than that, there is not much difference in the metering capabilities and reliability of the early vs late meters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron_sawyer Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Um, if I'm not mistaken, the TTL's meter is solid state and somewhat more reliable, less sensitive to the batteries' voltage drop, and somewhat more accurate. And the display is different with three LED's rather than two. But I have not heard that the early M6's meter is so bad as to justify a preemptive circuit board replacement. Just use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben z Posted December 6, 2004 Author Share Posted December 6, 2004 I'm convinced! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now