I'm curious about the hype of a Leica M6 over other brands of film camera, particularly the Nikon F3 that I just got and have been shooting with for a few days.
Initial impression of the F3 is that it's solid, mechanically perfect and a pleasure to use. My only criticism of the F3 is that it's not easy to view the LCD metering information.
Setting aside lenses that are available for the Nikon vs Leica, what if anything is better about the M6 over the F3?
One thing I like is the F3 aperture priority which the M6 does't have. I've never used aperture priority before and find that it creates a very easy shooting experience, even though I'm comfortable being a manual shooter with my Leica M digital cams.
The biggest difference is the the F3 is an SLR and the M6 is a rangefinder camera. If you already have Leica M digital cameras, you know how to use the rangefinder already -- but on the M6 and other film rangefinder cameras you don't have the backup of LiveView. You have to rely entirely on the rangefinder, which means what you see is not necessarily what you'll get.
This has advantages and disadvantages. With an SLR you're looking through the lens (except for the moment you press the shutter and get a brief blackout), so framing, focus, etc. are all going to give you a result that matches what you saw, assuming you exposed correctly. But that also means that if you put a filter on the lens, you'll be looking through that filter. If shooting B&W with a yellow or red filter, looking through the viewfinder might be a bit disconcerting...and in the case of red filters or ND filters it might actually be harder to focus because the viewfinder will be pretty dark. On most SLRs you can also preview depth of field to get an even better sense of your final photo.
With a rangefinder, you can put filters on your lens but they don't affect what you see when looking through the viewfinder. That also means you can accidentally take photos with your lens cap on, which is something I did quite a bit until I stopped using lens caps except for storage. But on the other hand, you can't see if your lens is flaring, or what your depth of field will be based on your aperture. You also can't control for focus shift: some rangefinder lenses (including several that I own) have strong focus shift and focusing with the rangefinder will be inaccurate at certain f-stops.
If you're a street shooter or otherwise shooting objects that will come in and out of the frame, the rangefinder has the advantage that you can see what's coming into your framelines.
As the photographer Johnny Martyr says, "it takes more of a photographer to use less of a camera." The rangefinder system is more primitive in many respects than an SLR, so you have to use your imagination more, especially in terms of depth of field. And you have to know your lenses, whether they flare and under what conditions, and whether they have focus shift.
Oh, and on SLRs you can shoot into the sun with impunity; with a cloth-shutter Leica you need to be careful to avoid burning holes in the shutter (highest risk is wide-open aperture with focus set at infinity).
These are both great cameras, nothing is "better," just different. Very different.
Both are great cameras, you need both . The M6 is small, discreet, quiet and is silky smooth to operate. I know the F3 is wonderfully smooth, but the M6 is on another level.
Composing and focusing with a rangefinder is a bit of a learning curve. In practise, you need to combine zone focusing by feel to get close to the expected distance and then fine tune with the rangefinder. With some lenses the framelines will be quite small, with others they will be so wide you will struggle to see the whole frame.
I find I mostly prefer to shoot SLR’s. I like the big viewfinder for composition. However I would never sell my M cameras. The M3 is a great place to start at a fraction of the price of an M6. It is built to a higher standard than the M6 and very much feels like the photographic equivalent of a Rolex. I would always recommend buying from an established Leica dealer and viewing the camera in person. These cameras are 60 years old and some have had a hard life, so mechanical condition varies, even if they look similar externally.
Don’t be fooled into thinking there is anything particularly special about the insanely overpriced Leica M lenses. They are good, but not worth the money. Either go for one of the less popular vintage Leica lenses or go for a modern voigtlander or zeiss lens.
The thing is I have the M11 Monochrome, absolutely love it, and some insanely wonderful/expensive M lenses including the 35 Cron APO. I got the F3 plus the Voigt 40/2 as an experiment to see if I like shooting film. I’m waiting to get my film scans, but I’ve really enjoyed shooting four rolls a film with the F3. I guess I’m on the fence whether to spring for the Leica MP (I like It’s aesthetic better than the M6 remake) since I already know how to use a rangefinder and enjoy it. Cost Isn’t really an issue.
brick33308 wrote:
The thing is I have the M11 Monochrome, absolutely love it, and some insanely wonderful/expensive M lenses including the 35 Cron APO. I got the F3 plus the Voigt 40/2 as an experiment to see if I like shooting film. I’m waiting to get my film scans, but I’ve really enjoyed shooting four rolls a film with the F3. I guess I’m on the fence whether to spring for the Leica MP (I like It’s aesthetic better than the M6 remake) since I already know how to use a rangefinder and enjoy it. Cost Isn’t really an issue.
If you already have the M11, you know what to expect about the Leica experience. I would say go for it, the MPs are lovely.
My only digital M experience was the M9 and that was a crude experience compared to the M film cameras. I think the rear screen had no more than 500 pixels . I gather things have got better since then.
That APO cron is the price of a fairly nice used car in the UK. Perhaps it can be justified for digital if you want clinical perfection in the corners, but I think it would be wasted on a film camera. With film if you want technical perfection just go up to medium or large format where the difference is an order of magnitude more than the effect of uber lenses on 35mm. IMO the whole appeal of 35mm film is that it is not technically perfect, which makes the images look appealing for some genres.
Stay with just the F3 for a while. There are plenty of MP's around if you decide that you really like film. Get comfortable with the workflow, how different films render and if you want to make the move to processing your own film.
If you're a street shooter or otherwise shooting objects that will come in and out of the frame, the rangefinder has the advantage that you can see what's coming into your framelines.
With either, if you keep both eyes open usually you can see what's coming way before and even move out of harms way
Oh, and on SLRs you can shoot into the sun with impunity; with a cloth-shutter Leica you need to be careful to avoid burning holes in the shutter (highest risk is wide-open aperture with focus set at infinity).
Early F had cloth issues, and some were reportedly able to somehow burn pinholes into titanium With either burning ones eyeballs is another major hazard
These are both great cameras, nothing is "better," just different. Very different.
brick33308 wrote:
The thing is I have the M11 Monochrome, absolutely love it, and some insanely wonderful/expensive M lenses including the 35 Cron APO. I got the F3 plus the Voigt 40/2 as an experiment to see if I like shooting film. I’m waiting to get my film scans, but I’ve really enjoyed shooting four rolls a film with the F3. I guess I’m on the fence whether to spring for the Leica MP (I like It’s aesthetic better than the M6 remake) since I already know how to use a rangefinder and enjoy it. Cost Isn’t really an issue.
Well you have an M11, you know why you chose it over a Nikon Z/Canon R/Sony/Fuji. The rangefinder experience (including size, weight and everything that comes with it) is what it is, technically there is nothing the Leica does better than any other camera of a similar sensor generation.
So now you have the F3 and the M6 will be just like your digital choice. If you want aperture priority you can always get a used M7.
brick33308 wrote:
Setting aside lenses that are available for the Nikon vs Leica, what if anything is better about the M6 over the F3?
The biggest benefits of the m6 over the m3:
Smaller body and lenses
Faster to focus if you enjoy RF or zone focusing
Ability to use flash on the hotshoe
Aside from that really nothing. M6 has a slower max shutter speed. It doesn’t have aperture priority. Is much more expensive. Can’t focus closer than .7m. Can’t really use wide lenses without an external viewfinder. Can’t use telephoto lenses.
That said I enjoy using my Leica M7’s more than my F3 for everyday carry especially in the 28, 35, and 50mm focal lengths.
brick33308 wrote:
The thing is I have the M11 Monochrome, absolutely love it, and some insanely wonderful/expensive M lenses including the 35 Cron APO. I got the F3 plus the Voigt 40/2 as an experiment to see if I like shooting film. I’m waiting to get my film scans, but I’ve really enjoyed shooting four rolls a film with the F3. I guess I’m on the fence whether to spring for the Leica MP (I like It’s aesthetic better than the M6 remake) since I already know how to use a rangefinder and enjoy it. Cost Isn’t really an issue.
Post some pics in the "post your recent film shots" thread. It's the only way we can reliably assess if you're M6/MP-worthy.
I have both the F3 and M6. They are both very very nice.
Use the F3 for a while to see if you really dig film. If you do, then get an MP to complement your F3 - not replace it - and it's nice to have a film M that is interchangeable with your digital M.
Desmolicious wrote:
I have both the F3 and M6. They are both very very nice.
Use the F3 for a while to see if you really dig film. If you do, then get an MP to complement your F3 - not replace it - and it's nice to have a film M that is interchangeable with your digital M.
This is my view as well. After several years with SLR's and now a year with a rangefinder, I'm confident in saying that I won't be without either one. It's not really a "vs" situation, unless a significant bulk of your shooting is right in the rangefinder's wheelhouse.
As bjhurley wrote above, you are comparing an SLR with a Rangefinder, so really very different beasts. That being said, I think the "big" thing about the F3 is that it is a true System camera without the huge size-penalty that often implies. By "system" I mean it supports interchangeable finders such as the DA-2 Action finder (offering a large image that can be seen even with glasses or goggles) and the DW-3 Waist-level finder, as well as the excellent MD-4 motor-drive, data-backs, etc. The F3 also has mirror lock-up so you can shoot legacy fish-eye lenses if that is your desire. Yes, the flash-mount of the standard F3 is clunky, and the LCD metering display is tiny, but otherwise it offers a great 100% viewfinder SLR in a pretty compact package. The M6 is also a lovely piece of kit, and if you want a rangefinder experience, its a great way to go. "Why not both" is probably the answer..
A F3 with pop up waist level finder is my dream camera. I’d be all over it.
As for the M6……😴ZZZz. So pretentious these days. People buy simply to brag / pose with. Obviously not FM members 👍🏻
I bought a M6 Panda back in 1997/8 along with 35mm F2 ‘cron asph and 90mm Tele Elmarit M
I hated it, absolutely hated it. It was back in its box and shoved in a safe the same day I got it and remained there until 5/6yrs ago when I finally decided to sell it.
I think you made the right choice buying the F3, go your own way, be yourself….don't follow the herd!
. The M6 is small, discreet, quiet and is silky smooth to operate. I know the F3 is wonderfully smooth, but the M6 is on another level.
z. So pretentious these days. People buy simply to brag / pose with. Obviously not FM members 👍🏻
