best camera body next to a m6ttl

[bas1]

I have been shooting with my new m6ttl for a while now, after working mainly with a Nikon f100. I love the quality of the shots I get with the leica enough to put up with the quirks of the M system and am thinking of adding a second M body to my arsenal. Main reason would be to carry two focal lengths at the same time. I don't want to change lenses that much and consider te tri-elmar to slow for my needs.

 

<p>

 

My question is what would be a good body to add. I would love to have a used m2/3/4 or even a used m6 classic preferably with a .85 viewfinder since I think the 2nd body will have either the 75mm or the 90mm attached permanently.

 

<p>

 

Does anyone have such a combination of M3/M6TTL and how do they experience the different speed-dial directions for instance. I think that alone would/could be a huge inconvenience and drive me to a new m6ttl? Please advise

[wilhelm]

If you don't need a TTL meter, IMHO the best body for lenses 50mm and

longer is the M3.

[jay_.]

I would have always given this answer, but I'm even more positive of

it now. Buy a second M6TTL 0.72x...and get the soon-to-be-released

1.25x viewfinder magnifier for it. That will give you complete

standardization of controls and total interchangeability should one

or the other body malfunction.

[steve_lehuray1]

I mostly use my Leica Ms for street photography and when doing that use

two M bodies; M3 for 50mm and M2 for 28 or 35mm. I think the M3 is the

easiest to focus because of the larger magnification, so if you get a

M6ttl I would go for the .85.

 

<p>

 

As to what other bodies if cost is a factor then a M4-2 or M4-P. If you

get a M3 I do not think the the different-directions for the shutter

speed dial would be any hinderance.

[sparkie]

I second Jay. I have an M6TTL 0.85 with 2lenses, the 35mm/f2

ASPH 'cron & 90mm/f2 ASPH APO 'cron. I am going to get a second body

when finances allow and it will be the M6TTL 0.58. I too had been

thinking of the M3 for nostalgic as well as classic reasons, but deep

down I know the reverse direction usage between the two bodies will

irk me, and probably drive me to getting a ttl anyway. I have heard

the loading on the M3 is slower then the TTL, though I could be

wrong. But remember the larger dial on the TTL is so intuitive and

ergonomic. I intend to have the 35mm on the 0.58 body and the 90 on

the 0.85 permanently and will hopefully not get the urge to buy a

third lens. I hate changing lenses and would like to limit my usage

to two lenses and two bodies. Bas, why dont you go down to a Leica

dealer and play around with the two bodies, switching between them

and see which combinatio you feel is best. All the best!

[richie chishty]

Bas:

 

<p>

 

I have a M6 TTL 0.72 and two M3s. I always have a 35mm Summicron

ASPH mounted on the M6 while the M3s have 50, 90 or 135 lenses. The

90 and 135 lenses, and the Noctilux, are easier to focus and use with

the M3s. Film loading with the M3 takes a few more seconds than with

the M6, but what might slow you down is the absence of a light

meter. I use a handheld Gossen LunaPro SBC, a Leica MR meter, or the

M6 TTL as a light meter. I usually take one reading, and then adjust

exposure if needed by 'guesstimation'! M3s in user condition can be

obtained for half the cost of a M6. If money is not a problem, then

a M6 0.85 might be the best compromise, since you plan to use the

second body with a 75 or 90 lens. You get a higher magnification

viewfinder plus a built in light meter. I too thought about getting

the Tri-Elmar, but f4 is too slow for me......................

[timothy_nelson]

A couple other things to consider: the M3 wouldn't have framelines for

the 75mm lens. On the other hand, if you use a 90, you could enhance

the M3 rangefinder accuracy beyond that of the M6 0.85 by adding the

above-mentioned magnifier. As with all of these opinion-gathering

exercises, it's your own opinion and manner of working that really

matter. Either the M6 or the M3 could be just the thing for you. An M3

(and M2/M4) "feels" different from the M6, in ways that may or may not

be important to you. I agree with the advice above to just try them out

and compare.

[godfrey]

My choice for a second body as companion to the M6TTL .72x is

an M4-P. Reasons:

 

<p>

 

- Same viewfinder magnification and frame lines ... I use the

same lenses I use with the M6TTL so I want the same VF

capabilities.

 

<p>

 

- Less to no rangefinder patch flare (simpler optics since there

are no metering indicators in the camera to manage)

 

<p>

 

- Relatively inexpensive (I traded a Rolleiflex 3.5F Xenotar for the

M4-P body in EXC++ condition, valued at about $900.)

 

<p>

 

- Same easy to load mechanism as the M6.

 

<p>

 

The difference in shutter speed dial size and rotation is

inconsequential since I set it while looking at the camera at

waist level, not while looking through the lens.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

Bas if you´re used to the handling of your M6ttl then your best

choice should be a similar body with another magnification (if

needed). the 1.25 magnifier can be a great choice.

 

<p>

 

I have been lately tempted to buy a M6 classic that some friend owns

and wants to sell, I tried it and find exposimeter arrows disturbing,

took bateries out and it was the same M4P and M3 I´m used to, so I

decided to wait and think better about a next body (in case I really

need it). With you it can be exactly the oposite if you´re used to

your M6 and meter. Good luck.

[eliot]

Bas

 

<p>

 

If you don't have any experience with earlier M cameras, there is

much more to consider than the direction of travel of the shutter

speed dial, which is probably not as big an issue as you may think.

 

<p>

 

1) The M2 and M3 are wonderful cameras; I don't think there was ever

a better viewfinder designed than that of the original M3. However,

neither of these cameras (except for a few very late M2s such as the

M2R) have the rapid loading system, which was introduced with the

M4. It is very much slower and more annoying to load an M2 or M3,

unless you have them converted to rapid load.

 

<p>

 

2) The film rewinding knobs of the M2 and M3 are inconvenient and

annoying to use. leica corrected this with the canted rewind lever

introduced on the M4.

 

<p>

 

3) Those cameras are over 35 years old, so they will have to be

adjusted to specs.

 

<p>

 

I use the M4P, which is still a terrific camera: essentially an M6

without a built-in lightmeter. I like the Leicameter MR4; it is

coupled to the shutter speed dial, very reliable, and gives readings

identical to my Gossen Luna Pro meter.

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps.

[jackflesher]

Bas:

 

<p>

 

Assuming your current M6TTL body is a .72, I would redommend you

consider the .58 as your next body, while adding the new 1.25

magnifier as previously suggested. With this set-up, you will have

all possible baes covered, and get maximum flexibility from your

system, should you decide to add wider lenses to your Leica stable.

 

<p>

 

The .58 body works very well with 24, 28, 35 and 50 lenses WITHOUT

the need for an auxilary finder. The .72 body (or the .58 + 1.25

configuration) is great when you're switching between 35, 50, and 90;

while the .72 + the 1.25 (.85) would be super for 75, 90, and 135. Of

course, if you are SURE you'll never want to use anything wider than

a 50 on a .85 body, it would also be an outstanding choice - it's

just that it won't be as good of a back-up should your .72 body

become disabled at a critical moment.

[kent_phelan]

If you use your M body the way it was designed to be used,

intuitively and by touch, there is only one choice and that is to

stay within the family of newer TTL bodies. Any pre-TTL body will

give you a smaller shutter speed dial with, to the point,

a "backwards" action.

 

<p>

 

I am continually amazed that the advent of the TTL, with

its "improved" shutter speed dial, did not precipitate an uprising

from M afficionados. What were the Solms product planners thinking?

How did this pass the design stage? "Oh, let's improve this by

reversing the direction of the action..." Sheesh. Were they unaware

that they have a huge installed base of die-hard users, many of whom

have owned 10 or more M bodies through the years, and have perfected

their art to the point where they can use no other camera? I'm not

talking about the collectors here. I'm talking about the street

shooters, the PJ's, the artists and the poets of photography.

 

<p>

 

I've never met an M photographer (note: _photographer_, not

collector) that did not handle their M body by feel, unconsciously,

and usually at waist or chest level. Mike Johnston has written of

this phenomenon often and far beter than I could. But it is true.

The design of this 1954 classic lends itself to "melt" into one's

hands. It's pure brilliance, and anybody who has used an M for any

length of time knows what I am talking about.

 

<p>

 

Then to take one of the key controls on this minimalist body and

change its operation 180~, well.... I just don't get it. I know, I

know, it now matches the LED in the viewfinder. Big whoop. IMO, it

precludes using an M6TTL along side, say, a beautiful old M2 or one

of the great M4 variants. To me, trying to work quickly,

unobtrusively, and intuitively with two camera bodies, with one

shutter speed dial working the opposite of the other, would not

work. But hey, that's just me. <g> I'm one of the old dogs who has

the real estate of the top of that camera burned into the back of his

brain. I would find it impossible to concurrently use both old and

new.

 

<p>

 

Sorry to rant, but I have (obviously) been thinking about this for a

while, and your question illuminates the conundrum perfectly. It's

not that I have anything against the M6TTL --- I don't. If I used

one, I'd be happy with it, and would be sticking within it and its

TTL siblings. But to me, the TTL is an unhappy event in Leicaland,

as we now have two distinct families of M cameras: pre-TTL and post

TTL, and that's not a good thing.

[godfrey]

Kent,

 

<p>

 

I use both M4-P and M6TTL. I handle them both by feel a lot of

them time. The direction of the shutter speed selector motion is

inconsequential ... on the TTL, it's very intuitive since you push

the selector with your finger in the direction the meter's indicator

is pointing. On the M4-P, you move it as per a glance at the

camera. Since the dials are located differently and have a totally

different feel, there's no way to mix them up in use.

 

<p>

 

Godfrey

[j._o.]

Get another 0.72 M6TTL.

 

<p>

 

If you have viewfinder envy, buy the 1.25x adapter. The 0.85 vf

isn't a substitute for an M3 vf.

 

<p>

 

If you have build-quality qualms, buy an older lens -- say an old

chrome 90 Summicron. They have the same feel as the early Ms and

won't depress you about the current Leica bodies.

 

<p>

 

If you're not used to their full-disassembly loading technique, early

Ms will depress you; if you don't have a handheld meter yet, it's

another gadget to buy and calibrate; and M3s are incompatible with

the motors, rapidwinder, modern flash connections, etc.

 

<p>

 

I like my M3. I'll probably get another to back it up eventually.

[mark_johnson3]

Bas:

 

<p>

 

I have a pair of M3's and an M6, .72 non ttl. I have thought

about the M6ttl .85 but I not sure about the rotation of the shutter

speed. I have had my M3's for 30 years and use them by feel and the

M6 matches the feel. I still find myself prefering the M3's over the

M6 for the rangefinder on the 50 and longer lenses. I detest the

flare of the M6 finder. I enjoy the meter on the M6 and use a Luna-

pro, MR or MR-4 meter on the M3's. I do not use TTL flash so that is

not an issue. I agree the rewind knob on the M3 is slow and

cumbersome, but I am used to it. Try handling an M3 or M2 before you

decide, but don't plop down the cash without at least shooting a roll

through a used body.

 

<p>

 

Good luck and enjoy.

 

<p>

 

 

Mark J.

[peter_hughes1]

I laughed when I first read about a TTL M6. What are they trying to

do, I thought, turn it into a snapshot camera? Who the hell uses

flash for anything serious with a Leica?! I could almost hear the

wheels turning at Leitz: "Let's appeal to all the rich amateurs out

there who use Leicas for their vacation and holiday snaps!" Grotesque.

 

<p>

 

And for my money, even a built-in meter is contrary to the Leica

approach. And the problem it apparently causes, with viewfinder

flare, is an indication of just how tacked-on this feature is.

 

<p>

 

No wonder vintage Leicas are commanding high prices!

[nesrani]

Peter, not every snapshot opportunity takes place in the studio with

a willing babe and two hours to take the picture. Sometimes TTL and

lightmeters are very useful. Funnily enough, this seems to be the

consensus among pro snappers who mostly use Nikons and Canons, not

because they're amateurish dweebs who can't focus without help, but

because they need the speed and precision of modern equipment to do

the job. The Leica M is still a thousand miles behind the competition

in this department - but it has some advantages, which is why I for

one use them. I'm happy for you if your subjects don't require a

modern feature set in your camera, in my case I also choose my

subjects and the way I want to photograph them, that doesn't mean

that everything else is shite. And please let's not cite the famous

snappers of the 50's as the ones who did perfectly well with an M3

thank you very much, they didn't shoot slide or do highly skilled

corporate photography.

 

<p>

 

What is this talentless rich amateurs thing you've got? It's getting

boring.

[nesrani]

Of course, you could just be winding us up, but the absurd thing is

that plenty of people actually believe this nonsense.

[raymond_tai]

TTL flash is very useful in any camera but 1/50 sec. sync. may be a

little slow for fill.

 

<p>

 

Bas, If you really don't "need" a second body to warrant that kind of

investment I highly recommend the Bessa-T. I use it for long and short

lenses outside the ideal 28mm to 50mm range.