Best Buy: Leica M6 or Xpan?

[wouterlam]

Hi,
I'm new here on this interesting forum! I'm looking to buy a rangefinder and I like two camera's the most. The M6 and the Xpan. My budget is just for one!
I like the compact camera and fast lenses for M6. And I like the choice of two formats of the Xpan. Have you some pro and contra suggestions?
Thx!!

Wouter

(sorry if this was already a thread)

 

[Avotius]

I think you cant go wrong with the M6 myself. The xpan (II is the one to have by the way) is a nice camera and all but the slow lenses offset its usefullness for me so I didnt go down that road when I was choosing between it and the Mamiya 6. I chose the mamiya because the negative was larger so at least there was a gain there for still using slow lenses, pity the camera was such junk.

In the end I have always secretly lusted after an m6, m7 or mp so I sold my mamiya before the second body fell apart, but then never quite was able to buy a leica. The hasselblad would be a nice choice of you needed the absolute smallest panaramic format body you could get but really....m6 and some leica or zeiss glass.....

 

[foto_fool]

Welcome to the forum. I found RFF a number of years ago when I Googled for information on the Xpan - was interested in the dual formats just as you are. I ended up buying the M6 for the greater utility, the range of lenses and the better build quality.

Every used Xpan/TX1 I saw looked as though it had been beaten with a hammer - paint missing from every edge. Also nearly every description included "cracked LCD - does not affect camera operation". And there are just three slow lenses available, requiring some very expensive center filters to counter vignetting.

I came to realize that the Xpan is a specialized tool - made for panoramas even though in a pinch one might shoot a standard 35mm single frame with it. I started out thinking that if I had an Xpan I might take trips to shoot landscapes, but came to understand that if I was not already drawn to shoot them - and I'm not particularly - the camera would just sit.

I love the M6 for most of what I do. My specialized camera ended up being a Fuji GW690III. The camera is built well and the 90mm/f3.5 lens is spectacular. Every once in a while I think I might pick up a GSW690 for the 65mm/f5.6 lens. On Dante Stella's website (or maybe it was Luminous Landscape) it was pointed out that if you shoot lots of sky with the GSW690 and crop horizontally you end up with a 30x90mm panorama, vs. 24x65mm for the Xpan. The width of the 6x9 format is actually more like 86-88mm, but you get the picture.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

M6.

Xpan lenses are great, but slow. You can't get that lack of speed back in post-processing. But you can compensate for the loss of "pano" view with stitching software, careful darkroom work, etc. Xpan has only four lenses that work on it. M6 has tens, if not hundreds (all M mount lenses, LTM screwmount lenses (Leica, Nikon, Canon, FED, Leotax etc. with adapters etc.) of compatible lenses.

Just my 2 cents. BTW, if you had said that your photo vision is exclusively panoramic, my recommendation would go the other way.



Ben Marks

 

[Frank Petronio]

If you want the larger size/higher image quality you can always get a 120 folder for $2-300 instead of the Xpan, and you can always stitch since scanning XPan film is often a PITA. The Russian Horizon Panoramic cameras are a great deal too....

But a M body and a f/2 lens will let you shoot in much darker and sketchier conditions.

 

[oscroft]

I don't have an XPan, so I'm no expert on those. But from what I've read about it (supported by what other people have said on this thread so far), it really is a specialist panorama camera and doesn't appear to be used much for general-purpose photography.

I do have an M6, and I think it's probably the best all-rounder for someone wanting a general-purpose rangefinder at the moment (based on a combination of specification, build quality and price).

 

[BNF]

Go for the M.

I had an X-Pan (I) and while the image results were stunning (to say the least), the post processing costs, were for me, the deal breaker.

It wasn't any fun viewing the images solely on the light board. I can't speak to scanning the images because I did not have a scanner at the time I had the X-Pan. The visual impression comes from large scale viewing, like from a projector, and there is no way to easily and cost effectively project the X-Pan image (film based). And the cost of large prints cut my experience short.

 

[wouterlam]

Hi, thanx for these quick and interesting answers! They are a big help for me.
Wouter

 

[wouterlam]

Hi, thanx for these quick and interesting answers! They are a big help for me.
Wouter

 

[myc5]

I had an XPAN (I) a couple years back with the 45mm. I have to agree with BNF on this. The results (prints) were impressive, but getting prints was a big hassle. Not many labs do it.

I'd suggest, if you are thinking of the xpan, look into how you're going to get it processed and printed before getting one.

One other thing. I wasn't impressed with the focusing patch in the viewfinder. I found it somewhat small. I've never held an M (I have a Bessa now), so can't compare with an M.

Not sure if it's still true, but the one I bought & sold held it's value for over a year. I sold mine without losing any money on it. (not like the digital stuff of today) So you could probably buy one to try it out and resell it if you don't like it.

 

[Hephaestus]

You might find the Zeiss Ikon to be an even better photographic tool, and a better value, than the two options you listed. You can load film faster in it than the M6, the maximum shutter speed is a stop faster and it offers aperture priority (and it will take all the same lenses that the M6 will).

Just a thought. 🙂

 

[pfoto]

I think along with most here that the M6 is the more versatile choice, especially for a first rangefinder. The Xpan is an interesting camera but is no longer being made, and anyway its a sort of half way house between 35mm and a true panoramic like a 617. Get the M6 and see if you enjoy using a rangefinder and the range of possibliities afforded by the 35mm format. If you are still drawn to the aspect ratio of a panoramic you should maybe look at a 612 or a 617 body. But in the interim, using an M6 will be good practice for the compositional challenge of using a panoramic well.

 

[RdEoSg]

I've owned both cameras and just sold my Xpan a couple weeks ago. I loved the camera, but in the end I found I never used it much. I couldn't afford the 30mm lens so I only used the 45 and 90's. Amazing quality, but the 45mm is only 24 in panoramic mode so it really is nothing more than a wide angle lens on a bit larger negative. I found that with my Canon 5D and my 16-35 lens I was getting much wider shots and to be honest with some good raw files to work with I never had a problem matching the quality of the Xpan even when making prints that were 3-4 feet wide.

The Xpan is interesting in that you can shoot pano and normal but I never really used it in standard 35 mode because of the slow lenses.

I absolutely love my M6 and never leave the house with out it.