M4 v. M6 Use and Feel

[rudy_barnes]

I am close to purchasing my first leica m, and am weighing the

competing merits of the M4 and M6. After consulting countless

threads on this forum, as well as information/opinions at other

sources (the LUG, and LHSA viewfinder articles), I've identified

several trends to users' impressions and feelings about the M4 and M6

that I was hoping to get a reaction to -- are these impressions

generally true, generally false, how do they impact your use and

enjoyment of the camera, etc. They are:

 

1. The build quality and reliability of the M4 v. M6. As the story

goes, the M4 is the last of the great hand-built leicas, and each

successive model, starting with the m4-2, has been cheapened and

built with increasingly slip-shod techniques and materials. Roy Moss

at the LHSA quotes Don Goldberg as saying the M6 consistently needs

more frequent and drastic adjustment than the M3/2/4. (incidentally,

one of the reasons I have discounted the M2 � in addition to it

seeming more difficult to use � is the risk of the

finder �decementing,� which I gather as being a non-issue on the m4.

Is this the case?). Is this hyperbole, or is the difference in

quality borne out by users� experiences?

 

2. The �feel� of the cameras. This is somewhat related to the prior

issue, but M4 advocates rave about the solidity and craftsmanship as

something they can feel and derive satisfaction from during use. I

don�t get the same feeling from the M6 crowd. To be perfectly

honest, one of the reasons I am drawn to Leica is the chance to use

and experience a fine, hand-built instrument. If there is a tangible

difference in the tactile experience of using the two cameras,

whether or not reflected in the final image, it may make a difference

in my decision.

 

3. The convenience of the built in meter. How much of a factor is

the M6�s built in meter as compared to say, an MR-4 or one of the new

Gossen digisix meters (which slip on the accessory shoe and can be

used in incident mode as well)? I�ve only looked through an m6 once

(a new ttl), and the meter doesn�t seem to provide as much

information as it might (it�s just a red arrow on each side of a

circle, right?) � e.g., how far from a correct exposure you are at

any given time. Does the lack of a meter have a tangible effect on

the throw of the M4�s shutter?

 

When fitted with an MR meter, how does the M4 accept an accessory

viewfinder for a wide-angle lens?

 

4. Price/value. This seems like a non-issue to me in many ways.

I�m not concerned about cosmetic condition � a �bargain� m4 at the

same price as a �clean� m6 classic doesn�t faze me so long as they

function equally well. A number of users have opined that a used M6

or M6ttl is the best value for a user. If the M4 is truly more

reliable/less adjustment prone, is this true over the long haul?

Even an M6 classic in nice cosmetic condition can be nearly 20 years

old and due for a (sometimes) costly CLA.

 

I apologize for the rambling nature of this post. I hope it makes

sense, and that those with more experience than I can offer some

guidance. Thanks.

[al_kaplan1]

I've never used a Leica M6 in any of it's variations although I shot a few rolls with an M5 when they first came out. When my M4 was stolen 16 years ago I never replaced it. I've supported myself for close to 40 years mostly using M2, M3 and M4 bodies and still do. I've had MR, MR4 and MC meters, using them until they ceased to be repairable. When working with more than one camera you don't need a meter on every body so putting a 21 or 28 finder on one is no big deal.

If you're serious about getting proper exposures, get yourself a decent meter with an incident light dome. I use Minolta. I've had the meter since about 1982. I'm not familiar with the Digisix but Gossen makes a good meter. I had one of the original Lunasix meters for many years.

The biggest problem most people have with reflected meters is deciding what in the scene to meter. With an incident meter you're metering the light! It's the standard of the motion picture industry. When a production is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour you can't afford to make mistakes. Get one and learn to use it.

Any obviously used M2 that was going to delaminate it's prism has already done so and been repaired. The M2 was made for aproximately 10 years and has been out of production for 34 years. The only one I'd be leery of would be an absolutely mint cherry collectible M2 that had never been banged around at all. If it's seen 34 years of even moderate use, it's either happened or it ain't likely to happen.

The older cameras do have a smoother buttery feel to them and chances are they'll outlast you. I'd rather carry an M2 and an M3 than a pair of M6 bodies because I've never heard ANY bad reports about them.

[jay_.]

I still have my M4, bought as a demo in 1970. It has a few small dings and fine scratches on it but it's far from ugly, and was CLA'd by DAG about 3-4 years ago and I had an M6 rubber eyepiece added. The shutter is still spot-on, the rangefinder is clear as a bell and on-the-money, and the transport feels like liquid silk. They'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

 

That said, other than for backpacking use for landscape shots, where a separate meter is not a liability, I have not used it for general or travel photography since I got my 1st M6 about 12 years ago. I have only had one breakdown on an M6 (and I've owned 4 of them, plus the M6TTL I still have)which was the frameline mechanism disengaged on my *newest* M6 Classic, which was repaired when I had it serviced. The built-in meter in the M6 is a real boon, as is the hot-shoe and the provision for the motor winder. The M7 with AE is even moreso.

 

The price of a nice M4 is higher than a new, gray-market M6TTL, and unless it has been CLA'd in the last few years, better figure on paying for one sooner rather than later...in fact, the nicer it looks the more likely it's sat unused and will need a CLA. And you will not want to trust the CLA of an M4 to anyone but a Leica-trained tech, because part of what makes it such a fine piece of equipment is that it has many more technician-adjustable parameters than the M4-2 and later bodies. In the hands of a maestro like Don Goldberg an M4 is the Stradivarius of Leicas, but given to a less fastidious repairman it will come back farther out-of-specs than any M6.

[henry_chu2]

Rudy,

Although I have both M4's and M6's, I predominantly use the

M6's. The presence of the meter in the M6 is the primary reason.

I keep a 21/3.4 Super Angulon on the M4. That being said, there

are a couple of functional reasons why one might prefer the M4.

There are only 4 framelines on the M4 and the 50mm lines stand

alone (I like that). Secondly, rangefinder flare is non-existent in

the M4.

The feel of the M4 is different because the body is covered with

vulcanite rather than vinyl. Personally, I don't care for vulcanite or

vinyl; I like real leather which is found on the M6 titanium and M6J

or the original covering can be replaced with leather.

Build quality--both my M4's have required more attention than

my four M6's. This includes CLA's (both), rangefinder

adjustments (both), and frame counter service. Two M6's have

required meter service (a short), leading curtain shutter repair

(jumped rail and torn--same camera), and frame counter repair.

My oldest M6 is ten years old and has not required any service.

A mint M6 can be purchased for $1200 or less. A mint M4 goes

for $1600. The M4 will surely require a CLA soon unless it was

recently serviced.

[jay_.]

>>Any obviously used M2 that was going to delaminate it's prism has already done so and been repaired. <<

 

Unfortunately this is just not the case. Many if not most M2's and M3's around today have some degree of decementing taking place in the finder. They may not necessarily ever completely decement, but the possibility is there. The M4 and later bodies used a UV-cure optical cement rather than balsam, and will most likely never suffer from this problem. Most late# M2's show some evidence of decementing whereas M4's of approximately the same age (late 60's) do not.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

Rudy.

<br><br>

I've only used a CL and M6, so I can't answer all of your questions, but I certainly can comment on #3. All in-camera meters and especially the one in an M6 are imprecise devices that belong in the world of point-and-shooters and Nikon/Canon auto-prosumer-wannabees who like to imagine they're credible by hanging several pounds of steel/plastic and glass around their necks. It's very much like wankers who <a href="http://ricestreet.ricecop.com/riceexplained.html">rice-out</a> their Honda Civics and figure the girls are all impressed by the ostensible (to put it mildly) formula one credentials.

<br><br>

If you actually need or are willing to hand over control to a reflected light reading, you definitely shouldn't be spending Leica sums on a camera just yet. Your choice of M4 or M6 should have nothing to do with this and you should get something like a Sekonic Studio incident meter in either case.

<br><br>

There's no battery inside my M6 right now, and when there was, I simply ignored the annoying red dot. A good thing or something like this would have been severely over-exposed:

<center>

<table cellpadding=30 cellspacing=77>

<tr bgcolor=444444>

<td align=center valign=center height=570 width=570>

<img src="http://www.avzine.com/vuk/dayna2/BW004812-dayna.jpg">

</td>

</tr>

</table>

</center>

[john_collier2]

1) Reliability is not an issue as long as you avoid early M4-2 cameras. As a

matter of fact you are much more likely to require service on a thirty year old

M4. I have (or had) M2, M4-2 and M6TTL cameras; they all feel similar to me.

My newest TTL is the smoothest and quietest of them all.

 

2) What you do with your cameras in private is your own affair. Mine sit on a

self if they are not being used.

 

3) The built in meter is a HUGE advantage. The day I got my first TTL was the

first day of my M2 being second fiddle. The best the M2 can hope for is that I

need three bodies as the metered bodies are my first choice no contest. My

M2 sees a good deal of quiet time in its old age.

 

The M4 has only one accessory shoe. If it is filled with a meter that is it, no

separate finder or flash.

 

4) Beats the heck out of me. My cameras get dropped and banged. Worse yet,

they get modified to suit me. Collectors are not interested in my cameras

period. The purchase price of my M2 and all the servicing it has required adds

up to much more than a new M6 would have cost. (Think about it...I did and

that is why I now have 2 TTLs)

 

Here is my advice: buy the closest M camera in reasonable condition. Use it

and then you will know what exactly you want in a M camera. If the first one

you bought was not it, then sell it and get the one you now know you need.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

Sorry about any redundancy/conflict with the postings above my previous one--I was still composing tediously while they were going up amidst my "blindness."

[jeff_yiu]

HI Rudy,

 

I have a M6TTL0.85 and loved it more than my previous M2&3. To be honest, M3,2,5 & 4 are gorgeous. M5 might have metering problem due to a dead and expensive to repair CDS cell. M3,2,4 are awesome and surely holds its value well, given it is in a mint to exc condition.

 

However, as a user, I believe M6 & M6TTL are the way to start with. They have a reasonable sticker price and basically the same body as M4, except for the zinc vs brass top plate, built-in meter and hot shoe. A mint M3,2 & 4 will surely cost a fortune and I really do not think a user M3,2,4 is worth 70 to 80% of a new M6TTL. FYI, I am now saving for a EXC++ chrome M4, which is going for 10% more than a new M6TTL, and I want it just as a collectible. It will not be wise to use it.

 

For the MR-4, I believe it has also got a CDS cell. Even if it works, I doubted it will be accurate. Since it is coupled with the shutter speed dial, you will not be able to use a shoe bridge for ext Viewfinder.

 

For RF discementing issues, you can always get the M2 & 4 fixed with available parts, since it is basically the same RF as in M6s. However, you have to be careful with M3s, the RF are very difficult to repair and parts are getting rare. Having to replace the M3 RF with a M6 version, will NOT be economical.

 

Sorry, if I have upset any old Ms users, these are just my 2 cents. I hope this helps.

 

Bests

[lacey_smith4]

meter question -- do you now use an incident meter, or a handheld? Are you comfortable with it as your sole meter? Do you want to travel very light adn unobtrusive, with only a camera and lens? Do you envision quick swing up and rapid metering for candids and street photos, or slow deliberate work, allowing transfer of settings (or frequently hand-metering representative scenes, and leaving the camera on approximated "good" settings [some folks do very well this way, others worry exposure to death])? These are the type questions that should settle whether you want a built-in meter or not.

 

The M6 meter is very accurate, al meters take some learning. The LEDS give a gradation that tells you more or less right on (LEDS same bright -- within a plus/minus 1/3 stop, say), and almost there (one light slightly dimmer -- which is the plus/minus 1/3-2/3 stop (I think it is referred to as 1/2 stop).

 

Seriously, if you are coming from 35 mm SLR, I would recommend the TTL meter - any hand-held (though admittedly more a demonstration of control of the photographer), is a bit of a learning curve, and learning metering and Leica may be a bit much. If you are coming from studio and/or large format, stick with your hand-held.

 

Don't know of any good way to use both a meter MR on camera and a viewfinder -- the meter works off camera, though.

 

Kind of like buying a car with a clutch -- if you like clutches and know how to use them, great; if you need automatic transmission, then no matter how "quality" the car, you won't have that much fun with a clutch.

 

I've two M6s. I also use handheld meters (more often studio or large format, but sometimes M6); the two meters are not mutually exclusive. Used M2 and M3, they do have a slightly different feel, but I needed the convenience of the TTL. Neither has disappointed me.

[george_b1]

I srarted with a IIIc in 1945 - - obviously requiring an off-camera meter - - - and graduated to an M4 shortly after they came out. I still use our M4 with an incident meter (Sekonic 308B) for everyday shooting with 'chromes.

 

We have an M6 (and a new M7) that my wife uses. She really knows how to use the built-in reflective meter. However, if we really come to a "definitive moment" when we want the shot to count, it's our M4 and the incident meter. IMHO, Once you learn how to use and to trust an incident meter, you'll never go back.

 

I really don't know how many rolls have been through our M4 - - but it's the camera I pick up when I go out for an afternoon of walking and "looking at the natives." The M6 is an excellent shooter; however, you'll really have to learn how to interpret and to use the built-in meter. It's accurate, repeatable and useful - - - once you learn how to use it.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

I must be the oddball.. actually trying to make images with an M4-2 and M6TTL.

 

By far, the M4-2 that I have is smoother on both winding and release. The shutter sounds smoother too. Of course it probably has about a 3000 image head start (100 rolls?) Not knocking the M6TTL, just that the M4-2 I have is smoother, feels better to shoot with.

[msitaraman]

Commonsense says that the M6 classic is simply an M4 with a meter. Build quality? From a practical point of view the two are identical.

 

Talk of "slipshod construction" in the M6 is simply hyperbole. I read a long interview with Malcolm Taylor, the Englishman who is the top Leica repairman in Europe and the Leica museum's camera restorer, and he says that the fine points of difference in the two cameras are appreciated only by repairmen-for the user, the M6 is every bit as fine a camera.

 

The M4 and the M6 may feel and sound a bit different to Leica aficionados and long time users, but the differences are slight indeed to the newcomer. The brass top plate in the M4 does indeed make it sound a little different, the absence of a meter causes the shutter release to be a bit softer, brass wheels cause the wind to feel a bit smoother after many years of use...

 

And how good is the meter? Well, the fat spot size seems to have been optimally picked by Leica engineers. Legions of users in this and other forums report that entire rolls of chromes are very nicely exposed indeed. And this has been my own experience. I really think the M6 tops the M4 because of this ingenious addition.

 

Be sensible, get an M6.

 

IMHO, of course! :-)

[vuk_vuksanovic]

<i>And how good is the meter? Well, the fat spot size seems to have been optimally picked by Leica engineers. Legions of users in this and other forums report that entire rolls of chromes are very nicely exposed indeed.</i>--Mani

<br><br>

Mani.

<br><br>

On this basis of this confession, I can only imagine (the web link you've posted doesn't work) that you take somewhat predictable pictures. Regardless, there is simply no excuse for a person who spends thousands on a camera before having mastered the fundamentals of photography (such as evaluating light/exposure).

[msitaraman]

Vuk,

 

I don't think there is any need for the personal jibes in response to a posting that might contradict yours in terms of a preference, do you? As for spending thousands, or hundreds, or tens of thousands, that's really my business isn't it?

 

Gosh, what's with this forum lately, and the ad hominem sarcasm?

 

:-(

 

I do find I take predictably lit pictures, in that I am able to, for the most part, eyeball an average grey 'fat spot' area within the scenes I meter with the Leica (mostly people in indoor or outdoor 'natural' lighting) and the results are almost always to my liking.

 

I owned a spot meter long before I acquired a Leica, which I would use in conjunction with my non metered camera, mostly for still lifes, which were then of interest to me. In conjunction with my own darkroom B&W time, I would agree with you that this is the only way to get exquisitely placed tones. But for the kind of fast pictures of people I got the Leica for, the built in meter (costing a premium of a couple of hundred over an M4) is not a bad feature to have in many situations.

 

Now, can we be friends?

 

:-)

[msitaraman]

An addendum.

 

The only other in camera meter I am thoroughly familiar with (i.e. that I've used for more than 5 years) is the Nikon FM's which has the classic Nikon centerweighted 60/40 pattern.

 

I found that meter to be less predictable or more precisely, more difficult to internalize and compensate for, than the Leica fat spot.

 

To take the example of Vuk's exquisite picture, I would have found it near impossible to meter with that centerweighted pattern. With the M6 spot, I'd meter off the grey wall on the right, probably compensate a bit for the white mortar (hard to say, without seeing the actual scene) and also take a face reading, and then make up my mind. All this sounds imprecise, but it has worked consistently for me. And it takes less time than it sounds.

 

As for the meter design itself, of course it would be much easier, if, ala the Olympus OM3/4, I had a little scale to help me keep track of how much I'm opening up.

 

Fortunately, the human mind learns to compensate for the deficiencies of the tool it uses. I think my M6 experience (and the similar anecdotal accounts of others that I refer to) is that it might be easier to do so well with a fat center spot. Whether it is better done with a tight spot, I don't know. I do know the Leica meters pretty well, in sum.

[andy_piper2]

Rudy: I use M4/M4-2/M4-P bodies. I prefer them to the M6s I've tried. I don't think there are significant 'quality' differences with the -6 - but here's what I prefer about the 4s.

 

1. The M6 has gaps in some of the frame lines to leave room for the meter symbols (28/35/50). The 4s do not. This makes me itch the way a missing tooth did when I was a kid.

 

2. Most M6s I've tried have a slightly more metallic 'clink-clink-clink' sound on the backstroke of the wind lever - could be the zinc top, could be the extra 2mm of 'attic space' in the TTL cameras, could be the extra 20 years of 'breaking in', could be my imagination. But it's been consistent over about 80% of the M6 bodies I've tried. Other than that I've noticed no 'feel' differences. Possibly the M6s, especially the TTLs, have a slight 'catch' in the shutter release where the meter turns on/locks exposure, but nothing I've noticed consistently. I don't use extra soft releases.

 

3. The M4 and M4-2 are much less likely to 'flare' in the RF patch, and have 90mm framelines that form a more complete 'box' than the M4-P/M6 framelines. Extremely nice. And as already mentioned, they have no 75mm frame cluttering up the 50mm view (not a plus if you want a 75, of course). They also lack the 28 frames - but as it happens I go directly from 35mm to 21mm, so I don't miss them (and have a set in the M4-P if I ever need them).

 

4. I prefer to have the exposure set before I start shooting, and have a very compact hand-held meter, so I don't miss the TTL metering. Plus my 21 (my most-used lens) is also the Super-Angulon, which doesn't allow metering anyway.

 

My main reason for using RFs is compactness, so I'm not interested in an accessory-shoe meter. Why pay extra for a compact Leica and then make it as big as an FM2 by sticking a meter on top? At least that's MY attitude.

 

5. It's purely cosmetic, but I like not having the shi-shi red dot on my cameras - I prefer the plain industrial tool look. (Well, yeah, the M4-P has a red dot - but it's down low on the front where my right hand usually covers it.)

 

6. As to price - I got the chrome M4 3 months ago for $1200. The other models were under $900. But frankly, even if M6s were that low I'd prefer the 4s, for the reasons mentioned above.

 

I think it is perfectly logical to consider these differences against the obvious functional value of the built-in meter - and different people will come to different conclusions based on what they value most and least. I'm happy with the choices I made.

 

2¢, please. 8^)

[feli]

If you can only afford one M body I would suggest a M6 or even better a M6

TTL with the meter. If this is your first M camera than even more so. As it is

you will have your hands full getting used to focusing etc. and the meter

comes in awfully handy. I would also suggest staying away from the .85

versions of the M6 series, because the 35mm frameline is difficult to see and

the patch tends to flare like a mother. At least mine does. One of these days I

plan on sending it to Leica to be converted to a .72. That way I will also gain

28mm framelines. Friends of mine have the .58 and.72 versions of the M6 and

neither of them has anywhere near the problems with flare that I have. I would

also suggest the TTL model because of the larger shutter speed dial, which is

easier to adjust while you are shooting. After a year of shooting with the M6 I

picked up a M2, which will have to be pried from my cold dead hands. To me

the viewfinder is perfect. One frameline per lens mounted (35/50/90) and not

a trace of flare. My other choice was a M4, because of the quick load film

system and film rewind crank, which the M2 does not have. From a touchy-

feely perspective the M2 (and probably the M4) feels smoother than the M6,

because of the brass vs steel gears. But this doesn't mean that the M6 feels

rough, just different. The M2/M3/M4 feel like high precision, hand made

cameras. They have a "warmer" feel to them. The M6 feels like a high

precision camera that was made on a CNC mill. It defiantly has a more

utilitarian, colder feel to it, but just as solid. It's probably the difference

between sitting in a 1965 and 2002 Mercedes. Both will last for ever, but have

a different feeling to them. If you get the M4 or an old M6 you should defiantly

get a CLA done on it, even if it appears to be working. The camera will work

"dry" even if its lubricants are gummed up, but it's like running an engine

without oil. My M2 worked for a few weeks, then seized up and off she went to

Sherry. I couldn't believe the difference when I got it back.

 

 

cheer,

 

feli

[sam_portera]

I never have understood where all this anit-meter stuff comes from. People think that because they don't rely on and on-board meter it makes them a better photographer. Bottom line: an on board meter is simply another tool at your disposal. And Vuk just because someone uses an TTL meter it does not mean that they have no understanding of exposure. Take Vuk's photo for instance. I would have metered off the palm of my hand and opened up one stop, or stepped in closer and meter the models face and open one stop. Incident meters are nice to have but not always practical. Try using an incident meter in mixed lighting with children. Damn near impossible.

[sal dimarco]

Rudy, Get what makes you happy. Both are fine cameras built to the highest tolerances. The LHSA Viewfinder piece on the M4 is full of holes and cheap shots. While, it has some valid information, all of it is not correct. By the way, since you read the M4 piece did you read my piece in the Viewfinder on the M6? It is not online. I will e-mail you a copy, if you like. I've owned M4s since 1968 and M6s since 1984 and have taken them to hell and back with no ill effects. Good Luck!

[al_kaplan1]

Sam, taking pix of children in mixed lighting is easy with an incident meter. You start by making several readings, set your shutter speed, and change apertures depending on where the children move. Centering an in camera needle or nulling LEDs is no faster, and you don't have to worry about what the background lighting is shot to shot.

[patricks]

for all the reasons mentioned above. get a mint M6TTL for around $1,200 and spend more time/energy/money on learning how to use it. as soon as you get it/start using it, you'll forget these types of academical discussions.

 

Namaste,

[sam_portera]

Al, The method you describe may work well for you but I prefer to use the on board meter. I have gottten so used to it that its second nature. I can evaluate a scene and I know how my meter is seeing it. I make the decisions. Besides I don't know about your children but the ones I photograph (especially the boys) are completely unpredictable I couldn't possibly meter each area beacause they cover a lot of ground quickly. I don't pose them, I allow them to play and I capture them in their element. Most of the parents in my experience prefer the candids because children 4 years old and under can't really pose or smile. To each his own.

[patricks]

Vuk, liked the photos on your website, just out of curiosity, what percentage of those photos are taken w/ your all manual Leica vs. 35mm film and medium format?

 

Cheers,

[vuk_vuksanovic]

<i>Vuk, liked the photos on your website, just out of curiosity, what percentage of those photos are taken w/ your all manual Leica vs. 35mm film and medium format?</i> -- / patrick

<br><br>

Patrick.

<br><br>

Thanks. I've just done a quick count of what's up there for the moment (I'll soon be adding/changing things) and the rough breakdown is 40% Olympus E-10, 40% SLR with just a 50mm lens (most of that Contax, the rest Canon FD) and 20% Leica M (Elmarit 90, Summicron 40, Jupiter 8--which is a 50mm lens). The pictures of strange objects and the crazy abstract stuff is where the Leica is very rarely used, partly because of the difficulty in framing and partly the inabilty to focus at a close distance--I don't shoot macro, but often enough I am under 1m away.

<br><br>

I no longer own the Olympus, so I suspect the balance will shift quite a bit over the next little while. Even now, there are negs and slides awaiting scanning and posting. For example, <a href="http://www.avzine.com/vuk/dayna2/dayna2.htm">these shots</a> were all done with Leica, while <a href="http://www.avzine.com/vuk/dorchester/dorchester.htm">this set</a> was captured with the Contax.