Leica M6 vs. M2

[kparratt]

<p>I would like a meter just for chromes, other wise I get by with a DS M3, and use a Gossen Sixtar.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>A bit off topic, but there are many good handheld meters around (reflected, spot reflected, incident) and I use a few of them, but I like the the small shoe mount reflected light VC-II meter for my two meterless M and LTM bodies and a Fujifilm GSW690. Very easy to switch it from one camera to the other and the meter occupies not much more space than a small separate viewfinder. </p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Get an M2 and don't look back -- you won't have to. . .</p>

[jodys]

<p>Huh. In terms of build quality, you can't hold a candle to a Corfield Periflex (you'll get discouraged and quit if you see how it's built... better to work in the dark).</p>

<p>Seriously, having worked on quite a number of Japanese and German cameras, as a hobbyist repairman, the only 2 cameras I've worked on that can approach the build quality of the IIIf he's dissing are the Rolleiflex/cord and original Canon F1. But in both cases, it's more like comparing a Mack truck to a Ferrarri. Yes they are both extremely well engineered, materials chosen with great care, but the objectives were diffferent.</p>

[josh_carr]

<p>With a handheld meter and a little care you never get a bad exposure. I shot a roll of Velvia last Saturday in very mixed lighting conditions; in the open, in sun, in cloudy conditions, in deep shade; and 36/37 exposures are spot on; the one that isn't is a stop over but still usable (silly mistake - I forgot to adjust the shutter speed from 1/60 to 1/125 on that one).</p>

<p>I never get that hit rate with a TTL meter, because you have to know how the reflectance of your scene compares to 18% grey and I just can't do that in my head. With a bit of sky and ground in shot the camera gets it right 80% of the time, but that's not good enough for slide film.</p>

<p>As for modern multi-pattern metering; my Lumix digicam gets about 50% of shots completely wrong, and on digital that's disastrous because the merest hint of overexposure blows out any highlight detail.</p>