Leica M6 viewfinder upgrade: Is it worth it?

[bjarni_m.]

<p>I own a Leica M6 manufactured in 1998 in almost perfect condition - both outside and inside. It's in a perfect condition, 9 out of 10, and i'm planning to keep it and not selling it because i'm very happy with it and it's a keeper i like very much, though two new models have arrived since mine was made in 1998.</p>

<p>Sometimes i wish the viewfinder would be a little bit brighter making it a little bit easier to focus in dark conditions - and that's the only small complaint i have about a otherwise perfect Leica.</p>

<p>My viewfinder isn't dusty, and it's very nice and clean - no dust what so ever inside the viewfinder. I haven't been looking through others M6 viewfinders or the viewfinder of the MP so i can't compare my own camera to others M6 and the MP to see if there's any difference, since i live in a very abroad country where there isn't many Leica's.</p>

<p>I can't go to a Leica dealer either because there simply isn't any here in the Faroe Islands, so i can't do any comparisons to other Leica cameras what so ever.</p>

<p>Would it be worth upgrading the viewfinder to the MP vievfinder? Is it brighter and contrastier? Could a CLA of my camera make the viewfinder brighter?</p>

<p>Sorry if this question has been asked here before. I did find this thread from 2005, but i would guess that things maybe have changed for nine years since this thread: http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Bujl</p>

[SCL]

<p>Bjarni - I had an M6 for a while, and the viewfinder just never seemed as bright as the one on my M4 - perhaps because it was more cluttered with framelines. If yours is clean, no haze, dust, fogging, or bits of flaking mirror - a standard CLA won't improve it. I can't speak to the MP, as I've never looked thru one...although I recall reading somewhere that the M6 upgrade basically reduced flare or glare. I'm currently using an M2 (which basically has the same VF as my M4 - less the 135 lines), and although it did have a CLA years ago, it is quite usable in dim light. Is there a possibility that you might need an eyepiece diopter to make things more clear in dim light, when your pupils are more dilated?</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>I had an early M7 0.85X that was pre-MP finder upgrade. It has multicoated viewfinder glass to increase light transmission. However, the viewfinder glass is polarized to increase the contrast with the RF patch. So, if you compare it to e.g. the Voigtlander Bessa R finder, the M7 finder is not quite as bright. The humble Bessa R has coated viewfinder glass also, and it has a remarkably excellent viewfinder which never flares. The only drawback with the Bessa R rangefinder is the tiny rangefinder baselength which is only about 1/3 of the Leica's baselength.</p>

<p>The only reason to "upgrade" to the MP finder on your M6 is if you are plagued by "white out" or flaring of the RF patch when shooting contre-jour (against the light). I spent about $600 to get a general CLA, change to optical DX film reader, and upgrade to the MP finder on my M7. The service was performed by Leica in New Jersey, USA.</p>

<p>I found after the MP upgrade that the RF patch STILL flares in certain backlit situations.<br>

<br />So, my advice would be to keep using the M6 you have and be happy with it. I did not find the upgrade to be worth the cost.</p>

<p>If you really want a bright flare free finder, get a Voigtlander Bessa, or an M3.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>DAG did the MP upgrade on my M6 classic, in order to get control over finder whiteout. With that done, and the MP type wind-on lever installed, My M6 became close enough to my MP that I didn't need both, and sold the 0.72 MP. I kept my 0.58 MP, as I use it a lot more.</p>

[SolaresLarrave]

I don't think a viewfinder operation will "improve" your camera finder. If you consider it a bit dim, the

viewfinder upgrade may add a shade to it because it consists of applying an antiflare mask on the existing

viewfinder (or a piece thereof). What you have is simply par for the course of owning one of these

cameras; some of my Leicas have a very visible rangefinder patch, but then, some have a not ideally bright

one. However, keep in mind that the viewfinder in these cameras is remarkably bright, so it's a joy to use

them.

 

Take care and enjoy your camera!

[aplumpton]

<p>The comments above I find more informative than I can offer, but even in the absence of them I would suggest you to keep your M6 as it is. Yes, there are differences no doubt between the various Leica M cameras. But how many times will these small differences (I mean small in regard to the otherwise overall high capabilities of all Laica M rangefinders) affect your photography? My medium format rangefinders have even less good VF-RF systems but that has hardly impeded my photography. I lived very happily over more than a decade with the small shortcomings of an M6, and now those of an M4-P to replace it (both maintained well and in near mint shape, although used continuously and frequently), and find that my photography has not degraded at all. In fact, it has improved quite a lot. That, after all, is the key to photography.</p>

<p> </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I don't know what they built into my digital bodies, but I consider my old beater M4-P similar functional. - AFAIK its the same as M6, just without exposure meter and at least 14 years older than yours. To make things clear: That M4-P's seller's MP or my M8 appear a barely noticable bit brighter. But unlike with my aging & also beat up M3, that would benefit from some resilvering of its RF prism I see no issue focusing the M4-P in somehow handholdable conditions.<br /> If anybody is DSLR (/ P&S?) savy enough to talk me through taking comparsion shots of the views through the various finders I'll try to do them. <br /> Personally I wouldn't invest into an upgrade. The difference I am seeing here wouldn't justify one, even if it was a just $100 affair (which it surely isn't) and I still guess your m6 should be in a better condition according to your description.<br /> I haven't shot enough in broad daylight to have encountered the RF flare Robert is describing.<br>

To second Arthur: Although my M3 is a borderline case RF condition wise I had it CLAed as is locally, since it is still easier to use than my Retina or Super Isolette.</p>

[bjarni_m.]

<p>Thanks for your replies.</p>

<p>I'm perfectly happy with my M6, which i think will serve me well for many years, since it's in such a good condition over all.</p>

<p>If i do understand you all right, i'm not guaranteed a brighter and more contrasty viewfinder if i upgrade to the MP viewfinder, right?</p>

<p>It isn't that bad. I could could just use a little bit more light in dark conditions in my viewfinder, so it would be easier to focus, since i shoot a lot in situations where there isn't so much available light.</p>

[bjarni_m.]

@Stephen: Interesting, i'll try that next time i'm near a Leica dealer.

[Aoresteen]

<p>I have an M4-P and in 2004 I sent it to DAG for a CLA. While he had it I had him upgrade the viewfinder. I liked the improvement and felt it was worth the ext $ to have it done.</p>

<p>When your M6 needs a CLA have it done then.</p>

[baisao]

<p>From <a href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00cwXk">a recent thread</a>, Gus Lazzari said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Sorry, but in my many installs of these <a href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00YA0r" rel="nofollow">Leica OEM 3 piece kit</a>s, the flare issue <strong>isn't totally 'corrected'</strong> and therefore fully up to the actual MP model in performance.<br>

<br /> The <strong>0.85</strong> viewfinders in particular, <strong>are the worst</strong> performers 'postpartum'.<br>

<br /> I've characterized them as Voigtlander/Cosina like, and as a result, questionable if it's worth the added 'kit' expense..."</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

[mukul_dube]

<p>Many users have no trouble with the finder of the M6. For others, like me, the flare makes the camera virtually unusable. My M6 got a finder almost as good as that of the M3 after DAG did the restoration. I cannot call it an "upgrade" as it involves <em>replacing</em> components which Leica had <em>removed</em> from the near perfect finder last seen in the M5.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>I don't remember the exact reasons; however, the M3 and M2 viewfinders rarely, if ever, experience any whiteout issues -- probably due to more hands-on operations and old-time quality materials that Leica used in the 50's and mid-60's.<br>

(Yeah, I'm at the "good old days" time in my life, alas.)</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>I had my m6ttl 0.85 viewfinder upgraded to an MP viewfinder. It greatly reduced the flare. As compared (brightness) to my M6 0.72 there is no difference...IMHO.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I had a DAG converted M6 awhile back, it made what I considered to be a big difference in use, the flare drove me nuts when it happened. I now only use an M3 which is flawless regarding patch flare.</p>