Is having 2 M bodies inevitable?

Depend on your style and the number of focal lenses you use when doing some serious work.

Changing a lens quickly is a pain. When on assignement, I really use continuously both 50mm and 35mm so two bodies are mandatory. In special cases that I can generally identify before, I use a 28mm or a 90mm, so I can change the lens and start shooting.
 
I have three M bodies. One is my Hexar RF. It works very well for me, at every focal length that I shoot - 28 (seldom), 35 (often), 50 (not as much as I should) and 75 (I love my summilux). My second M is the Hexar RF I have in case the first one breaks. I love my Hexar RF so much that I can't risk being without one. But I'm not at all sure that "just in case" counts as a second M.

For that, I use my M3. My primary excuse (which I'm sure has history, but I just heard the excuse around here and adopted it) is: "everybody needs an M3". To which I can only add that if they haven't tried then they don't really know. While I could give reasons, I just won't.

An M3 needs no reason: it just is, and it is good.

That's all that needs saying.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
Hmm... I got so carried away there that I didn't say what I wanted to. Everyone needs two M bodies. Whatever they have, and an M3. This applies if their first body is an M3.

...Mike

P.S. However, M2s are looking more and more attractive...
 
imo, two cameras (or two lenses for that matter) just adds a distracting choice to the process of photography. the only thing i would want more than one of in my optimal photo purse is film (or cf card or battery if that was the format)
 
We all accept the inevitable, most of us have - as this thread shows - at least two rangefinder-cameras. There a different reasons as shown above.

But it´s not necessary to have more than one camera. You can live with it quite well. ...

... On the other hand different magnification for wides and normal or tele is nice to have. I wear glases and do like the 0.58-viewfinder Leica is offering very much. It´s easier to see 35 and 50 mm frames. The 0.72 magnifacation of my M2 makes it easier to focus accuratly with the 50mm I admit, but it´s not that easy to see the whole frame. So two cameras with different magnification do make a lot of sense, are inevitable in a certain way.

You have to find out yourself. To start with one camera with 0.72 magnification will do. The Leica Service changes the magnification if need be. Try out and see what you like or not. The inevitable second, third and maybe fourth body will come soon - at least if you stay tuned with us people here. You will feel the need.

Thomas

P(ersonal) R(emark):
Do I need another M2 or would a R4A/M fill my needs? Oh my, that´s the kind of questions that bother me. But: as long as I think about this I don´t spend money.
 
M2 for black and white and M6 for colour works pretty well. M2's are surprisingly cheap and the viewfinder is unsurpassed - but I succumbed to lust for a 75mm Summilux and needed the 75mm frame. The internal lightmeter I have found a mixed blessing as you have to actually have the camera to your eye to use it which is much more conspicuous than adjusting the controls at waist level after taking a hand-held reading. But it is very accurate.
 
I'm happiest with the combination of two bodies, one with a wide and one with a standard - both with the same film.

During the summer, a 21/50 combo worked well.
Now it's getting darker, I've just fallen for a s/h 28 summicron, so will give that combo a go.
 
Hi Jay,

As you are not new at photography, you know that there is an issue of affordability, an issue of personality, and an issue of versatility.

When I decide to go or not to go for an expensive for me camera model, I start calculating the cost of the basic package of lenses and 2 bodies. It doesn't mean that I must buy it altogether at once, but it does mean that models leaving me out of the easy affordability of the basic package, are out.

Why 2 bodies ? As Roland said at post #2 it is very much depending on your photgraphic technical personality (he used the term 'philosophy'). Owning 2 bodies doesn't necessarily mean that you will be carrying them simultaneously, if you don't want. But it means that when you have a trouble with your machine you don't stay stucked.

The most far from home you are with a single paralized camera, the biggest will be your pain.

I love carrying two bodies. One is for back up, but if I am already carrying it why leave it as a brick instead of giving it good use ? Roland has specifyied most of the case for 2 bodies, I will only add my own: 2 different ISO levels.

As for the issue of versatility, it depends on how you want to shoot what you shoot. As a crude generalization, the widest the areas of your interest, the more will be the gear you will be needing, as you know already from your SLR experience. There is nothing different here when using Rangefinders, unless you make the cost-convenient healthy decision to use rangefinders for a specific type of photography, while leaving the others for SLRs.

My two cents.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Hey Jay -

This is a quite topical thread, as I am deeply obsessed w/ the same question!

But like Peter I am very much of the philosophy of one camera/one lens/one film. I prefer simplicity in photography.

However, now that my MP needs servicing I am envisioning the likelihood of being w/out it for a good 6-8 weeks while Leica NJ services it. I would also like to be shooting more at home, indoors, as a kind of daily journal, but need faster film. I carry my MP loaded w/ TX@400 w/ the 50 'cron. Inside I really need 2 stops more speed, sometimes more.

So I am lately considering the crazy idea of "converting" my MP into 2 M3s or 2 M2s. I have posted elsewhere about this, so will try not to dwell on it too much.

It feels crazy, excessive, and downright quixotic, but my love of taking pictures ends up making it seem sensible.

W/ one M body I seem to be in the minority anway... 🙂

Good luck w/ your decision.

Regards,
-Mark
 
I believe in having a backup body, or two working bodies with different lenses and or different film depending. Travel; Ill have different film, Work; Ill have the same film but different lenses.
One body is mechanical the other has automation.
 
First, thanks for all the thoughtful replies. Every comment has been helpful.

I appreciate the philosophical turns this thread took, never mind that my original concern was a bit more prosaic: i.e., would the "middle" VF of .72 serve my anticipated spread of focal lengths or would I really be hating things if I didn't also have another body with another VF for either end of the range. Obviously, I've seen what frame lines are included, but knowing what it's like to live within those lines will only come with experience.

It's also confusing to an RF novice when you see people saying things like--if you shoot with a 50 often, then you really want an M3; or the Bessa crowd saying you really want an R4 if you're usually shooting < 35.

Based on the replies, I'm increasingly confident that I can start off with a .72 (or equivalent) and then see if I really "need" another body. Personally, I expect to build a lens collection SLOWLY and I anticipate usually going out with just one or two lenses, no matter how many I end up with. e.g., 28 and 50; or 35 and 75. Or a single 35 or 50. That said, I would love to have different speeds / types of film loaded at any given time, so...

Once I get sorted, I expect my kit to be film with rangefinder and fast primes; and digital with an SLR and fast(ish) zooms. The former primarily available light and shorter focal lengths; the latter for those times that digital SLRs are the tool to use, e.g., multiple flash, longer focal lengths, action stuff, etc.

Meanwhile, I intend to keep an eye out on how digital Rangefinder scene shapes up. I'm not really tempted now, but I hope there are significant advances and increased choices somewhat soon and that any RF purchases now will be compatible with the future!
 
Jay I think your confidence is not misplaced. Remember that if in the future you do feel the "need" for perhaps a greater mag, a 1.25x magnifier will give you an effective magnification of .9 at a price that is considerably less than another M! Good luck and post some pictures when you finally start using your kit! 🙂
 
JayTee705 said:
...

Based on the replies, I'm increasingly confident that I can start off with a .72 (or equivalent) and then see if I really "need" another body. Personally, I expect to build a lens collection SLOWLY and I anticipate usually going out with just one or two lenses, no matter how many I end up with. e.g., 28 and 50; or 35 and 75. Or a single 35 or 50. That said, I would love to have different speeds / types of film loaded at any given time, so...
Click to expand...

Yes, that´s a good decision. That´s a really good way to start.

Thomas
 
Yep

Yep

Then the question, why stop at 2. I had 2 M2's in the early 70's. Sold them for Nikon F's. Sold them and went to digital when they first appeared. Been DSLR for about eight years. Retired, and came back to film RF's. Re-discovered Leica M, and got an M3. Wanting wide angle, I purchased an M6. Didn't like the meter, traded it for an M4-P. Still wanting the instant gratification of digital, I bought a D-Lux 3. Missed the viewfinder, so I bought the M8. Boy, am I in love. I can use my M3, M4-P, and M8 with all my Leica/CV glass on all 3 cameras. Reminds me of my Nikon F days. I now have the best of both worlds. Nikon DSLR and Leica M.
Granted though, being a working photographer for a living has given me the funds to buy what I need/think I want, I would think I would still be in the same boat even if I was a semi-pro/hobbyist.
You probably didn't want to hear that, but, Leica will grow on you. I'm now looking for Leica II-III. Being retired will drive you nuts trying everything till you find your Niche.
Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Ahem, yeah I absolutely agree with all you guys: an M4-2, an M4 an M8 and a CL is the absolute minimum requirement.

(the wife was looking over my shoulder for a minute there...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ken Ford
Considering a SL series body
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
5K
Ken Ford
Ken Ford
W
Road Trip Kit: Leica body, Nikon glass
Replies
12
Views
348
agentlossing
agentlossing
A
What is the MOST gear you've ever carried on a trip?
2
Replies
34
Views
610
spatumba
spatumba
photoman12001
Vintage Rangefinder Lenses on M4/3 Bodies
Replies
9
Views
905
jamesmck
J
Ken Ford
Change of plans, no longer thinking about replacing my NIB S3 2000 with a user S3 2000 Black
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2K
Ken Ford
Ken Ford
Back
Top Bottom