Why should/would I want to upgrade?

I have never had any issues with flaring in the VF of my M6. The finder is very clear and easily focused. When you say flare is it like a flare on a picture?
 
As the others have said it, if you have to ask, then you don't need the MP or M7. Perhaps spend the money on a ultra wide angle lens like the 12 or 15mm and have a bit of occasional fun with it. But if you are considering a M7, do also give the the Zeiss Ikon some thought. Superb handling and ease of use (with a bigger viewfinder).

Cheers,
 
cosmonaut said:
I have never had any issues with flaring in the VF of my M6. The finder is very clear and easily focused. When you say flare is it like a flare on a picture?
Click to expand...

The RF patch goes white. It happes only in certain lighting conditions, but when it does, you just can't focus without changing viewpoint slightly. The worst I ever had was at a folk music festival, open air, at night, where the stage lights repeatedly flared out my M4-P (similar or, reputedly, identical finder to M6) but not my M2.

Cheers,

R.
 
Functionally speaking there is nothing whatsoever a Leica MP offers over that of an M6 classic. And think of an M7 as an M6 TTL with aperture priority auto with two manual speeds thrown in as back-up.

If you’re after the flare resistant finder (not a ‘new’ feature for Leica M cameras by the way) then your M6 can be upgraded for ~$200.
 
I've had an M6 since '85 and never felt a need to change to another M. Might like a an M2 to play with but will keep my M6 till I can no longer shoot.
 
Well I have never had a flare issue, ever and I have shot under all kinds of lighting situations. Maybe I am lucky or it has been upgraded and I don't know it. One of the better points I like about my M6 is it's bright clear finder. But I did really like the frame lines on the M3.
 
cosmonaut said:
Well I have never had a flare issue, ever and I have shot under all kinds of lighting situations. Maybe I am lucky or it has been upgraded and I don't know it. One of the better points I like about my M6 is it's bright clear finder. But I did really like the frame lines on the M3.
Click to expand...
I quote myself from an earlier post: . . . like most 'problems' with Leicas, it's quite easy to imagine from internet babble that the difference is, in fact, considerably greater that it is.

But if you've never encountered it, then you're right. Either you've been lucky, or the finder's been upgraded.

Cheers,

R.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
The M3 finder is better for 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm lenses. Higher magnification. I use an M3 and an M2 for much the same reason- M3 for a fast 50 and 90, the M2 for a 35 or 50/2. They complement each other. The M3+M4 setup should be superb.

But you knew that...and I love stating the obvious.
Click to expand...


DOH!!! :bang:
 
Minor point not yet mentioned about the M7... Not only AE but the shutter timing is electronically controlled. Simply more accurate than the mechanically controlled shutters across the speed range.

If you're a slide shooter without a lot of latitude this could be a nice feature. I've had an M6, very nice capably camera. Love my M7.

Kent

PS- "More accurate shutter" also means you carry spare batteries, unless you like shooting at only two speeds. No biggie for me but it is to some people.
 
Kent brings up a very good point with the batteries. As much as I love my big SLR's, I like cameras without batteries so I never have to worry about being without a shot.
 
Pirate said:
Kent brings up a very good point with the batteries. As much as I love my big SLR's, I like cameras without batteries so I never have to worry about being without a shot.
Click to expand...

That is one of the reasons I like to still shoot film. I have been out plenty of times when my digital cameras batteries died.
 
I shoot an M6 0.85 that I purchased new in '98. No desire to change cameras whatsoever. It's the best camera I've ever used. I may upgrade the finder when I do a CLA later this year, but it's not a big deal; I've used an M3 (my dad had one that he bought new in '65), and in practice I prefer the M6. The M6TTL, M7 and MP offer nothing that I require and in some respects are steps backwards (e.g., inferior metering indicators, a lot more money for not a lot more value).

(Dons flame-proof suit.) And the M8/9 bodies resemble the Excelsior more than the Enterprise, a "Porsche" Cayenne more than a Porsche 356. If you're going to shoot a rotund camera it might as well be a D700 or a 5DII. (Doffs flame-proof suit.)
 
Last edited:
I own a M6ttl .58 with a Megaperls 1.15 magnifier permanently attached. I just can't imagine there's a better camera out there than this (though of course others might disagree.) And as this is the only Leica I've ever owned I can't compare it with other models. But for me having a camera and learning to use it instinctly is a far better route to taking good photos than continually seeking to upgrade gear. I'd stick with your M6.
 
"Well I have never had a flare issue, ever and I have shot under all kinds of lighting situations. Maybe I am lucky or it has been upgraded and I don't know it."

I am in the same situation with my M6, wondering if the finder has been upgraded sometime in the past. It is a great camera, and I find it consistently wonderful to shoot with.
 
I found the finder flare of my M7 annoying when I owned it.

I think finder flare is an issue closely related to the way you shoot ... if you tend to shoot into the light a lot, which I do, you notice it far more.
 
Keith,

Older M7s did not have the "MP finder fix". Do you know if yours had the revised finder?

I have owned both the old and the newer version and the revised finder is quite a bit better.

Kent
 
Mine was without and to send it out of the country for the finder upgrade would have cost a lot.

I happily moved on to a Zeiss Ikon and have no regrets aside from missing the very solid feel of the M7!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom