The Hexar, Minolta, and Bessas are on my radar too, but I penalized them on the premise of them being less repairable than a Leica. Is that not actually the case?
Re: the Bessas, I don’t really dig the 40mm frame lines. I’m still pretty new to film and mostly stick to 35mm and 50mm. (Very partial to 35mm in particular).
I agree on the M2. I extensively looked into it and came to the same conclusion that it wouldn’t be a huge upgrade, if at all, from the Canon P.
And I’ve no problem ponying up for an M6. I just get nervous about such expensive purchases. There’s so much nuance in the differences between them and it’s difficult to ascertain which one is best for me. I wish I I could just demo them all, or at least buy them with a reasonable return policy. Which reminds me - that is another reason I’m drawn to Leica: resell value!
On the topic of the light meter – I’m actually preferential to _not_ having one, mostly because, for me, film is a way to slow down and escape the hyper-optimizations and automations of modern life. I can always use an external light meter or Sunny 16.
sean_s wrote:
The Hexar, Minolta, and Bessas are on my radar too, but I penalized them on the premise of them being less repairable than a Leica. Is that not actually the case?
I think it is totally the case; with Leica at least you have several excellent options for repair by specialists; for the others (including Canon P) it's harder to find people who'll work on these cameras. And in the case of the Canon P, a repair would likely cost more than you paid for the camera so if something goes wrong people often just buy another. The Hexar, CLE, and Bessas are more expensive.
I don't particularly like my M2-R, but I keep it because it's quiet, takes my M-mount lenses, can be repaired/maintained by reputable experts, and if I ever want to sell it I'll make more than I paid for it (in my case a lot more as I got mine from an old friend for an unspeakably low price, about 1/10 the going rate on eBay). And I like the less cluttered viewfinder of course. Before this camera came into my hands I had my eyes on the M4p, based mainly on this review: https://gear.vogelius.se/-editorials/leica-m4p/index.html. I really wanted something with 28mm framelines, since I have a couple of nice 28mm M-mount lenses, but on my M2-R I either use the full viewfinder for an approximation or if I want more precision I have a shoe-mount brightline viewfinder.
As for having a light meter or no, I think it's a good option and if you mainly prefer to use an external meter you can just remove the batteries from the camera. But if you ever need to be more quickly reactive or take less time when shooting photos, the onboard meter is very handy. When I am traveling solo, I use an external meter. When I'm traveling with others, an internal meter minimizes the amount of time my traveling companion(s) stand around sighing and looking annoyed while I stop to take yet another photo. My Sunny 16 skills are okay for in-the-ballpark estimates, but 30 years of shooting slide film cured me of any trust in Sunny 16 and I prefer to use a meter even though I no longer shoot slide films.
bjhurley wrote:
As for the M6 variants, Johnny Martyr has a good article explaining why he went with the .85 over the others, and that may help you decide whether it's for you (he's an eyeglasses wearer by the way): https://johnnymartyr.wordpress.com/2020/01/23/imho-leica-m6-ttl-85/
Thanks for sharing this. The writing style gave me a good chuckle. Lots of useful insights throughout. I feel _almost_ swayed towards the TTL, but I still have some reservations. The author actually has another blog post addressing lightmeter failure in his M6 TTLs, admitting that lightmeters do in fact fail, but that he doesn't mind/care because Leica's are superior products and should be treated as replaceable tools as opposed to forever-trophies. I don't really buy this argument considering the cost of the product, but to each their own. He does point out though that it may be possible...to get some sort of replacement internal meter since at least one camera repair tech has been working on a replacement. On the one hand — yes, the risk of "circuitboard failure" is probably way overstated; moreover, it probably matters less for Leica's because there exists aftermarket solutions (though I admittedly know little about where to get such work done and what the cost is). On the other hand, these vintage rangefinders are crazy expensive and I feel quite strongly that my investment would be slightly cheapened by the risk of failure, or at least my latent fear of such risk. So why not instead buy an M-A or M4-P and use an external meter? Just my 2c.
bjhurley wrote:
As for having a light meter or no, I think it's a good option and if you mainly prefer to use an external meter you can just remove the batteries from the camera. But if you ever need to be more quickly reactive or take less time when shooting photos, the onboard meter is very handy. When I am traveling solo, I use an external meter. When I'm traveling with others, an internal meter minimizes the amount of time my traveling companion(s) stand around sighing and looking annoyed while I stop to take yet another photo. My Sunny 16 skills are okay for in-the-ballpark estimates, but 30 years of shooting slide film cured me of any trust in Sunny 16 and I prefer to use a meter even though I no longer shoot slide films....Show more →
I asked my wife for her perspective this past weekend. She says once in a blue moon it can be slightly frustrating having to wait for me to snap a picture, but that it's the exception, not the norm. I am a pretty self-aware guy and try to avoid from holding everyone up when I'm in camera mode. When I'm feeling in the mood for slowly down and "doing" photography I think I'm more likely to shoot solo. If ever there are social or temporal constraints but I need to have a camera for some reason, I'm just taking the Sony.
Unlike the many blog & review post authors I find myself looking to for perspective, I am not a professional photographer. I do this for fun. I also already have a digital camera for the times where the photo is more important than the process. For example, yesterday, I took my Sony along for a mini-shoot for my friend's bookstore jazz gig because he really wanted some pictures for his professional portfolio. I needed the camera to just work. I prefer film for slower days when there's no such rush or pressure to capture the "perfect" photo.
For these reasons, I am increasingly leaning towards getting either an M6 Classic or an M4-P, as both are closer to my budget. I think it's the same reason I'm drawn to external light meters like the Sekonic L208 as opposed to an integrated solution like the Voigtlander or the Keks. I don't want to imbue more automation into the film camera. I want it to slow me down and be more present in the experience of shooting. Maybe that's dumb and overly romantic — it's certainly worse on the wallet, considering the cost of film these days lol
sean_s wrote:
For these reasons, I am increasingly leaning towards getting either an M6 Classic or an M4-P, as both are closer to my budget. I think it's the same reason I'm drawn to external light meters like the Sekonic L208 as opposed to an integrated solution like the Voigtlander or the Keks. I don't want to imbue more automation into the film camera. I want it to slow me down and be more present in the experience of shooting. Maybe that's dumb and overly romantic — it's certainly worse on the wallet, considering the cost of film these days lol
I don't think it's dumb. The only film cameras I have with built-in light meters are point-and-shoots. For all the rest I use external meters, either handheld or shoe-mount. Handheld gives me the most flexibility since I can also use incident metering (I don't know of any shoe-mount meters that can do that), which I always use for portraits, and I also have a spot meter that I can use for concerts and other difficult-to-meter situations.
sean_s wrote:
Fun fact - the Sekonic L208 works as both a shoe-mount and an external (comes with a lanyard)!
It's true, although it's pretty bulky for a shoe-mount. I have that one and the 308; the main reason I stopped using the 208 is that it is far too easy to accidentally nudge the ISO dial. I've done it too many times, probably when pulling it out of my camera bag or pocket, and lost a bunch of shots because the meter was giving me readings that were two or three stops over or underexposed. Otherwise I love that meter, especially since it's so small and light and you can see all the possible f-stop and shutter speed combinations at a glance. Plus the battery lasts years.
I now mainly use the L308, which is digital and bigger; also not perfect though; I have a few gripes with it.
