Hello. I shot film 20 years ago (with a full darkroom) but am getting back into it. I sold all my digital cameras as I wasn't using them. I've been using my Olympus SLR (with aperture priority mode), but I've missed the pleasure of using a Leica since selling my M240 a year ago. (I still have a 50mm V5 Cron.) What I'm wondering is:
Should I get an M6, and potentially shoot less, but have the meter to help me learn the ins and outs of what I'm doing, be present and afford more consistent and quick shots, and make it more likely that I take a shot because I have to do less to get dialed in confidently, OR should I get an M4(-P) and just plow through film and developer, maybe with an external light meter or winging sunny 16?
I know shooting more and getting feedback faster (in the form of developed negatives and scans) is better for learning, but I fear that in the actual moment of wanting to capture something special the M6 will be more accurate and give more confidence.
I'd love to hear all sorts of opinions about this. I'm leaning towards the M4-P with loads of film, but figured I'd ask around and solicit stories and feelings. Thank you in advance for your consideration!
Personally, I'd only consider an M6 in two instances: 1) I wanted to use a 28mm lens, in which case I'd seek out an 0.58x version, and 2) I wanted to use 75, or 90mm lenses, in which case I'd seek out an 0.85x version (and added a 1.25x magnifier).
Beyond that the M4 and M4-2 framelines are much more realistic compositionally than the "modern" M iterations. I understand the M4-P went through a couple of changes framelines-wise (early editions with the not flush windows were optimized for 1m. Otherwise they're like any other modern (shrunken) M. I'm not quite sure, and therefore can't really speak to that accurately.
As for metering, using Sunny 16 or the "Super Exposure Computer" is fairly reliable once you learn to guesstimate light, and certainly less annoying than a clip on meter. That said, I found my results with the VC Meter II to be comparable to my old M6 and MP.
There is a big difference in M4, M4-P and M6. I'm not sure if you mean M4 or M4-P.
The M4 has a much better flare free rangefinder than the other two. Leica cheapened out on that with those two models. And it is a big deal - I've used them and was surprised as to how often the rf patch would flare out on those cameras. Fan-bois say it hardly happens etc.
So... if you can get your hands on all these cameras and see which one works/focuses best for you. Maybe the rf patch flare won't bother you.
The M4 is also built to a better standard than the M4-P and M6, but frankly (comparing my 'better' Ms to my M4-2) they all feel awesome.
Anyway.. if there was a BIG price difference then I totally would go for the M4. If not, get the M6. All the kids are.
Wholeheartedly agree with Desmolicious’s recommendation of the M4. (I didn’t bother to vote since the M4 wasn’t an option.) Build quality and flare free viewfinder/rangefinder were two reasons I chose the M4 rather than the M4-2 or M4-P with the additional factor of the inflated prices eliminating the M6.
This article is most helpful in explaining the differences between the various M film bodies:
I started my Leica journey with a M6 in 2016. It is still today my most used film camera. I later got a M7, M3, and IIIc camera, but the M6 is my favorite.
This said, I voted in this thread for the M4 even I never owned it. For a simple reason: price. I got my M6 in 2016 for $1K, now it is at stratospheric prices of nearly $3K, some even above this. This is totally unrealistic to pay for IMO - just adding a bit more, and you can get a brand new Leica M-A camera.
As Desmolicious pointed correctly out earlier, main debit of the M6 is the rangefinder patch flare which can be annoying at times. To get rid of the issue, you need to pay about $400 to replace the M6 rangefinder with a new M-P rangefinder. There are more simple solutions I am using, for example covering the M6 frame illuminator window with polarized foil, but it doesn't get rid of the issue fully. The rangefinder patch flare happens quite often on my M6 without polarized foil used - even my M7 does it sometimes but to much lesser extent.
My M3 never had this issue, and the M4 versions won't have it either. The only thing which always bugs me about the M4 is the lack of internal metering which I really like to have. Main reason why I use my M3 less often than I would otherwise.
My advice as alternative to the M4/M6 choices mentioned is also looking at the bit bulkier M5. It also has its own faults, for example the M5-typical metering arm can break or fail. But I like the metering displays only available with this camera. Prices for it also raised, but it is still in the range of M4 camera prices. Even the M5 was not a big success for Leica mainly due to its untypical Leica look, it is a good one IMO.
d.s. wrote:
Get the one that inspires you the most.
Personally, I'd only consider an M6 in two instances: 1) I wanted to use a 28mm lens, in which case I'd seek out an 0.58x version, and 2) I wanted to use 75, or 90mm lenses, in which case I'd seek out an 0.85x version (and added a 1.25x magnifier).
Beyond that the M4 and M4-2 framelines are much more realistic compositionally than the "modern" M iterations. I understand the M4-P went through a couple of changes framelines-wise (early editions with the not flush windows were optimized for 1m. Otherwise they're like any other modern (shrunken) M. I'm not quite sure, and therefore can't really speak to that accurately.
As for metering, using Sunny 16 or the "Super Exposure Computer" is fairly reliable once you learn to guesstimate light, and certainly less annoying than a clip on meter. That said, I found my results with the VC Meter II to be comparable to my old M6 and MP....Show more →
Not sure about the different finder types optimized for either wide or longer lens usage. I am using my M6/M7 cameras with lenses ranging from 12 to 90 mm, and only use it with the standard 0.72x finder. What I find a lot more important is to use the correct diopter lens on top of the viewfinder which makes a huge difference to focus precisely when either being far- or near-sighted and not using glasses while shooting. After I added a -1 diopter lens (which makes it together with the viewfinder glass optimized with -0.5 diopter strength all together -1.5 diopter ideal for my eyes), I can focus wide open my 50 and 75 mm lenses at f/1.5 using the std 0.72x rangefinder magnification without magnifier.
I have never been a fan of the often cited Sunny 16 rule. I find it fairly inaccurate. It depends a lot on the latitude of the location and works better in sunny bright areas. It certainly won't work well for example in the UK. I have used it, but more like a Sunny 11 rule. External metering is the way to go with cameras without internal meter. Many options around here, I like to keep this one simple and small: I am using a Gossen Digisix-2 meter.
The M4-2 and M4-P both have the rangefinder patch flare issue.
retrofocus wrote:
I started my Leica journey with a M6 in 2016. It is still today my most used film camera. I later got a M7, M3, and IIIc camera, but the M6 is my favorite.
This said, I voted in this thread for the M4 even I never owned it. For a simple reason: price. I got my M6 in 2016 for $1K, now it is at stratospheric prices of nearly $3K, some even above this. This is totally unrealistic to pay for IMO - just adding a bit more, and you can get a brand new Leica M-A camera.
As Desmolicious pointed correctly out earlier, main debit of the M6 is the rangefinder patch flare which can be annoying at times. To get rid of the issue, you need to pay about $400 to replace the M6 rangefinder with a new M-P rangefinder. There are more simple solutions I am using, for example covering the M6 frame illuminator window with polarized foil, but it doesn't get rid of the issue fully. The rangefinder patch flare happens quite often on my M6 without polarized foil used - even my M7 does it sometimes but to much lesser extent.
My M3 never had this issue, and the M4 versions won't have it either. The only thing which always bugs me about the M4 is the lack of internal metering which I really like to have. Main reason why I use my M3 less often than I would otherwise.
My advice as alternative to the M4/M6 choices mentioned is also looking at the bit bulkier M5. It also has its own faults, for example the M5-typical metering arm can break or fail. But I like the metering displays only available with this camera. Prices for it also raised, but it is still in the range of M4 camera prices. Even the M5 was not a big success for Leica mainly due to its untypical Leica look, it is a good one IMO. ...Show more →
retrofocus wrote..The rangefinder patch flare happens quite often on my M6 without polarized foil used - even my M7 does it sometimes but to much lesser extent.
The M7 had a production change where they fixed that by using the MP optics. Some M7s had it retrofitted (and all sellers claim that!). These M7s are also the one that had the flaky DX reader. After about 290-300XXX serial #s all M7s had the good stuff.
p.1 #10 · Opinions on first film Leica, M6 vs M4-P
retrofocus wrote:
I wasn't aware of this! I assumed that Leica added a cheaper component into the rangefinder patch with the M6. Does the M5 suffer from it also?
No. The M5 was the last Leica M that was made w/ no regard to cost cutting. Everything after that was downhill.
note -downhill is a relative term. I cannot emphasize how nice any M is to use!
p.1 #11 · Opinions on first film Leica, M6 vs M4-P
retrofocus wrote..
This said, I voted in this thread for the M4 even I never owned it. For a simple reason: price. I got my M6 in 2016 for $1K, now it is at stratospheric prices of nearly $3K, some even above this. This is totally unrealistic to pay for IMO - just adding a bit more, and you can get a brand new Leica M-A camera.
Right now the market for used M-As seems to be soft. I've seen them go in the $3500 range. Which is pretty darn close to an M6 now! For that I'd get the M-A. It's pretty much a new camera for only a couple o bux more than a 20-30 yr old M6.
p.1 #12 · Opinions on first film Leica, M6 vs M4-P
retrofocus wrote
I have never been a fan of the often cited Sunny 16 rule. I find it fairly inaccurate. It depends a lot on the latitude of the location and works better in sunny bright areas. It certainly won't work well for example in the UK. I have used it, but more like a Sunny 11 rule. External metering is the way to go with cameras without internal meter. Many options around here, I like to keep this one simple and small: I am using a Gossen Digisix-2 meter.
Well in the UK Sunny F16 still works. Just that on most days the widest you'd open up is 5.6...
All kidding aside working w a meterless camera and hand held meter (dedicated or your phone w app) is still very easy and quick. You pretty much just take one reading as a baseline, then adjust around that as you shoot.
p.1 #13 · Opinions on first film Leica, M6 vs M4-P
retrofocus wrote:
Not sure about the different finder types optimized for either wide or longer lens usage. I am using my M6/M7 cameras with lenses ranging from 12 to 90 mm, and only use it with the standard 0.72x finder. What I find a lot more important is to use the correct diopter lens on top of the viewfinder which makes a huge difference to focus precisely when either being far- or near-sighted and not using glasses while shooting. After I added a -1 diopter lens (which makes it together with the viewfinder glass optimized with -0.5 diopter strength all together -1.5 diopter ideal for my eyes), I can focus wide open my 50 and 75 mm lenses at f/1.5 using the std 0.72x rangefinder magnification without magnifier.
I have never been a fan of the often cited Sunny 16 rule. I find it fairly inaccurate. It depends a lot on the latitude of the location and works better in sunny bright areas. It certainly won't work well for example in the UK. I have used it, but more like a Sunny 11 rule. External metering is the way to go with cameras without internal meter. Many options around here, I like to keep this one simple and small: I am using a Gossen Digisix-2 meter. ...Show more →
I wasn't thinking of focus accuracy, mainly just the magnification options and how they can help alleviate some of the Ms few shortcomings. In my case, I find the 28mm frame too much of a stretch, and the 90mm frame float out in no mans land--even with an added 1.25x magnifier on my M4 (it works pretty well with 75s though if you're left eyed and have a decent schnoz). I suppose I should've gotten the 1.4x, but remember the view being fairly dim.
p.1 #15 · Opinions on first film Leica, M6 vs M4-P
The M6 is one of my favourite cameras but I think the current prices are too inflated to recommend buying one now. I have seen M4-2’s and M4-P’s around £850 which was what M6’s were selling for a few years ago. I would probably choose an M4-2/P if buying an M camera now. The original Wetzlar cameras (M2/3/4) are nicer but cost a few hundred more than M4-2/P.
p.1 #16 · Opinions on first film Leica, M6 vs M4-P
Desmolicious wrote:
The M7 had a production change where they fixed that by using the MP optics. Some M7s had it retrofitted (and all sellers claim that!). These M7s are also the one that had the flaky DX reader. After about 290-300XXX serial #s all M7s had the good stuff.
Correct - Mine is in the good range starting 294XXXX from 2003 (black version). But it still has sometimes the patch flare issue. I don't think it has the MP finder yet. Pls correct me if I am wrong and it should have the MP finder indeed.
p.1 #17 · Opinions on first film Leica, M6 vs M4-P
d.s. wrote:
I wasn't thinking of focus accuracy, mainly just the magnification options and how they can help alleviate some of the Ms few shortcomings. In my case, I find the 28mm frame too much of a stretch, and the 90mm frame float out in no mans land--even with an added 1.25x magnifier on my M4 (it works pretty well with 75s though if you're left eyed and have a decent schnoz). I suppose I should've gotten the 1.4x, but remember the view being fairly dim.
Agreed the 90 mm is a bit narrow, but I have no trouble with 28 mm frame lines (28 mm is one of my most favorite focal lengths). Here I rarely look at the lines and simply frame all I see through the finder. It always turns out fairly right on.
p.1 #18 · Opinions on first film Leica, M6 vs M4-P
retrofocus wrote:
Correct - Mine is in the good range starting 294XXXX from 2003 (black version). But it still has sometimes the patch flare issue. I don't think it has the MP finder yet. Pls correct me if I am wrong and it should have the MP finder indeed.
Hmm, maybe then in the 300s? Mine are in the 330 and 420XXX range with no flare.
Leica for a while did, for free, retrofit the MP finder. Seeing that they still make the MP, maybe ask them nicely?
p.1 #20 · Opinions on first film Leica, M6 vs M4-P
andrewd01 wrote:
The M6 is one of my favourite cameras but I think the current prices are too inflated to recommend buying one now. I have seen M4-2’s and M4-P’s around £850 which was what M6’s were selling for a few years ago. I would probably choose an M4-2/P if buying an M camera now. The original Wetzlar cameras (M2/3/4) are nicer but cost a few hundred more than M4-2/P.
The one thing that is super nice about the M4 onwards compared to the M3/2/1 is the quick load system.
It really is super quick to load IF YOU FOLLOW LEICA's VERY SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS!!!!
Not yelling at you, just all the threads complaining it doesn't work. Even Tamarkin (who is a Leica 'expert'!) has a really weird video showing how to load the camera, using up about half the roll! (ok I exaggerate for effect, but he wasted a bunch of film).
All you do is follow the little diagram which shows to drop film in, with the film leader extended into the 'tulip'. Then close the back and wind on. That's it! Never ever failed for me.
Anyway bringing this digression back on topic, that is one advantage of something like an M4-2 over an M2.
