second body.

[gus_gus1]

<p>I now own a M6 that I am very happy with and intend to keep it. But I always wanted to own and use a Leica M with out a light meter. I have been thinking of getting a M4. I have read a few articles on the M4 and they all seem to be positive. I will probably get a Voightlander vc 2 for it. Any comments on the m4? Thanks. Gus.</p>

[fred_haeseker]

<p>I have an M4-P, which is identical to the M4 with the addition of 28mm and 75mm frame lines and without a self timer. I find the M4-P an excellent camera and have happily used one for many years with a 35mm Summicron, 90mm Tele-Elmarit and 21mm VC. I think the price for the M4-P tends to be lower than that for the M4.<br>

Another difference is that the M4-P was made in Canada instead of Germany, which some see as a minus -- a collectors' quirk?</p>

[SCL]

<p>M4 my absolute favorite....had and used one for 43 years. I had to sell it in the recession, and came back with a much less expensive M2.</p>

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>Great choice, you already know by heart, Gus Gus!!! It is the late heyday Leica M.<br>

As for a second body, I recommend to go to sleep early and having some exercises.<br>

Good light,<br>

Knut</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>But I always wanted to own and use a Leica M with out a light meter.<br>

I will probably get a Voightlander vc 2 for it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You want to buy a Leica without light meter - to then add a light meter on top of it? What am I missing here?</p>

<p>The easiest and cheapest way to get to use a Leica without light meter is to take the battery out of your M6.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Just thinking here. Assuming that your M6 is a .72 VF model, how about an M3? The M3 would work a little better with any telephoto lenses you may have, and would work as well as any body with WA lenses that need an aux finder.</p>

<p>Of course, the M4 is a great camera and a little easier to load.</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>What is the point of buying a meterless camera and then putting a meter on top of it? I would go with either an M6 in the alternate color body than the one you currently own; silver for color, & black for b&w; or an M6 with a 0.85 viewfinder. The later makes the 50mm easier to view. </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>For about a year I had an M6 as my main film camera and an M2 as a second body (Knut, lay off!). I'd often carry an exposure meter when I took the M6 and forget it when I took the M2. For convenience and fast working, Steve's suggestion makes sense. Since, however, you have "always wanted to own and use a Leica M with out a light meter", you could choose from among the available options by considering the focal lengths you will use.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>One note, the M4-P and the M4 are not exactly the same camera just with different frame lines. Check out cameraquest.com on this. Apparently the build of the M4 is akin to the build of the M2 and M3 while the M4-P build is similar to the M6, in fact the M4-P is a M6 without the meter.</p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

<blockquote>

<p>... in fact the M4-P is a M6 classic without a meter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is precisely correct. Other than the meter, only the top plate materials (brass vs. zinc alloy) are different. I can think of no reason why someone would prefer an M4-P over an M6 classic. They are even currently priced about the same. </p>

<p>Similarly, for all intensive purposes, a new MP is simply a $5,000 M6 with a brass topcover and the RF condenser put back in (removed during M4-2 production). </p>

<p>If you're really after a different user experience, then buy a meterless Leica M (or remove the battery from your M6), practice sunny 16, and ditch the meter idea entirely. </p><div></div>

[Troll]

<p>To paraphrase the Duchess of Windsor, you can't have too many old Leicas.</p>

[ray .]

If you want to use a camera without a light meter I'd suggest getting a hand held incident meter.

 

As far as Sunny 16, I did that for years and for the most part it worked, but once I got a Leica with a meter

or used an incident meter, my exposures were much more consistently accurate.