el fotografo
Established
The M6 gets my vote.
However, I would not rule out a LTM setup such as a IIIF, IIIC body and a summitar lens as a less expensive first step.
With practice, they can be excellent shooters.
Eugenio Garcia is a photographer in Costa Rica who does amazing work with LTM cameras and lenses.
Check out his flickr and/ or website.
However, I would not rule out a LTM setup such as a IIIF, IIIC body and a summitar lens as a less expensive first step.
With practice, they can be excellent shooters.
Eugenio Garcia is a photographer in Costa Rica who does amazing work with LTM cameras and lenses.
Check out his flickr and/ or website.
RBruceCR
Well-known
Wow, this is quite a compendium of experience! Thank you all!
I would like to see London before i leave my existance, Vienna is a very nice city, used my Yashica there, Sindney would love to take you with the Leica and Saint Louis, very nice jazz, Washington will need a fast lens there, Seul, I had a good friend there while at Sacramento!
Thank you all! I am re-reading your posts again!
I would like to see London before i leave my existance, Vienna is a very nice city, used my Yashica there, Sindney would love to take you with the Leica and Saint Louis, very nice jazz, Washington will need a fast lens there, Seul, I had a good friend there while at Sacramento!
Thank you all! I am re-reading your posts again!
umcelinho
Marcelo
i found out i prefered rangefinders after using my late grandpa's yashica lynx 1000. by the time i didnt had the experience to meter by eye, so i went for an m6. fantastic camera, perfect exposures everytime but since i was too dependant of the meter i'd sometimes miss shots trying to get the "adequate" exposure.
after starting shooting with TLR i began to feel more confident with guesstimating exposure, and after shooting 2 b&w rolls in an m3 i had bought because of the dr summicron that was attached to it with zero shotsmissed due to bad metering i decided it would be better to sell the m6, get an m2 or m4 and keep the extra cash.
so i sold both the m3 and the m6 and bought an m4, after trying an m2 but deciding the quicker loading of the m4, and not having a loose part (take up spool) was better.
i have the m4 since october 2010 and it's a fantastic camera, it's as well built as the m3 and it's easy to use as the m6. to be fair, only after 1 year shooting with the m6 i could feel how smooth the m3 actually was, it wasn't something that i noticed when i was trying cameras before getting my first.
the m6 viewfinder did flare sometimes but i had never missed a shot because of it, so no complaints about it. i assume that applies to the m4-2 and the m4-p as well.
m2/3/4 are maintenance cameras, so they need to be adjusted from time to time to come back to specs, while m4-2/p/6 are built to tolerance, so not as smooth (though it's not THAT much of a big deal) but should require less adjustments over time (instead they might need to replace parts afterwards).
i think that for a start an m4-2 should have the best cost/benefit ratio between m cameras. one can always resell for what they paid for it and then get another if they miss another camera's features...
after starting shooting with TLR i began to feel more confident with guesstimating exposure, and after shooting 2 b&w rolls in an m3 i had bought because of the dr summicron that was attached to it with zero shotsmissed due to bad metering i decided it would be better to sell the m6, get an m2 or m4 and keep the extra cash.
so i sold both the m3 and the m6 and bought an m4, after trying an m2 but deciding the quicker loading of the m4, and not having a loose part (take up spool) was better.
i have the m4 since october 2010 and it's a fantastic camera, it's as well built as the m3 and it's easy to use as the m6. to be fair, only after 1 year shooting with the m6 i could feel how smooth the m3 actually was, it wasn't something that i noticed when i was trying cameras before getting my first.
the m6 viewfinder did flare sometimes but i had never missed a shot because of it, so no complaints about it. i assume that applies to the m4-2 and the m4-p as well.
m2/3/4 are maintenance cameras, so they need to be adjusted from time to time to come back to specs, while m4-2/p/6 are built to tolerance, so not as smooth (though it's not THAT much of a big deal) but should require less adjustments over time (instead they might need to replace parts afterwards).
i think that for a start an m4-2 should have the best cost/benefit ratio between m cameras. one can always resell for what they paid for it and then get another if they miss another camera's features...
Sparrow
Veteran
RBruceCR
Well-known
Thanks Marcelo, now I need to get one M and put my eye across and shoot!
I do however, like the Leica engraved marque and numbers on the top plate of the old cameras.
Thanks for all your experience!
I do however, like the Leica engraved marque and numbers on the top plate of the old cameras.
Thanks for all your experience!
filmfan
Well-known
I think that both the M6 and M3 are the best cameras made, and can be owned simultaneously. However, the best single camera average between these two is the M6 TTL with 0.85 viewfinder, which allows both 35 and 50mm framelines. For a 35+50 shooter, this is the best camera available in the M format (unless you are a vintage junkie in which case the M2 wins).
raid
Dad Photographer
I have both, so there is no need for me to average the cameras to an M6 TTL. I have read about some technical problems with the TTL bodies. Is this correct?
35photo
Well-known
It was the M6 for me...I got an M4 later on...
bwcolor
Veteran
I've only used the M3, M4 and M6TTL. I use the M3 for fast 50mm and all 90mm. I purchased the M6TTL over the M6 because of the slightly better meter, LED/shutter rotation in the same direction and also for the 0.58 viewfinder in that I mostly shoot with my 35mm lenses. I've not been to Costa Rica since the M6 was a current production, but given that all of these cameras are now old, you might think of more modern offerings if the repair of such cameras is better supported in your area. I love my Ikons and my R4a. They are different than the Leicas, but perhaps something to consider.
thegman
Veteran
I've had both, much preferred the M3. It's a personal choice, but I think it looks and feels a lot nicer. If you're shooting negative film, not slide film, I think a meter is optional, not required. Also, I'd skip the Leica meter and get the Voigtlander. The Leica meter is not guaranteed accurate, and I found it a a real fiddle. It makes the elegant M3 feel clumsy IMHO.
In the UK, an M3 is a lot less than an M6, especially DS models.
In the UK, an M3 is a lot less than an M6, especially DS models.
literiter
Well-known
raid
Dad Photographer
Is this a polarizer filter?
boomguy57
Well-known
As with all things, personal opinions begin to take on the appearance of eternal truth. It's really irrelevant how mechanically perfect the M3 is if you can't live without a meter or anything wider than 50mm for day-to-day use. Likewise, if someone loves the M5 for its size, others can't stand it for the same reason. If you need a internal meter, go for an M6, sure; if you don't care and shoot lots with the 35 focal length, go for the M2.
I have only owned the M3, M6, and the Minolta CL (don't discount non-Leica bodies, IMO). I have heard good things about the Zeiss Ikon, if you like AE. At the end of the day, I decided that my M6TTL 0.85 was the best for me. The VF is close to the M3 (which, in my opinion is the main draw for the M3), the internal meter is very convenient, and I much prefer the larger shutter speed dial--it also goes the same direction as the meter, which I find very intuitive.
I love my M3, mostly for the mechanical perfection of it, the simplicity, and the history. When I go shooting, I go for the M6 90% of the time; as a result, the M3 is now in the classifieds. Unless you still shoot exclusively film, I can't imagine why anyone would need two M bodies at this point in time other than as a novelty/collection.
As they say, that's my two cents. You decide what's best for you.
I have only owned the M3, M6, and the Minolta CL (don't discount non-Leica bodies, IMO). I have heard good things about the Zeiss Ikon, if you like AE. At the end of the day, I decided that my M6TTL 0.85 was the best for me. The VF is close to the M3 (which, in my opinion is the main draw for the M3), the internal meter is very convenient, and I much prefer the larger shutter speed dial--it also goes the same direction as the meter, which I find very intuitive.
I love my M3, mostly for the mechanical perfection of it, the simplicity, and the history. When I go shooting, I go for the M6 90% of the time; as a result, the M3 is now in the classifieds. Unless you still shoot exclusively film, I can't imagine why anyone would need two M bodies at this point in time other than as a novelty/collection.
As they say, that's my two cents. You decide what's best for you.
literiter
Well-known
boomguy57
Well-known
Somehow this turned into a Leica-porn thread... 
crispy12
Well-known
If you dislike the meter, you can simply take the batteries out. There will always be tricky lighting situations and unless one is completely adept at metering unaided I don't see how having a meter can be a disadvantage? Has anyone ever looked through the viewfinder of a recent DSLR, the amount of info there is much more than the red LED of M cameras.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Good, keep telling people this.
It'll leave more M4-2 and M4-P's on the market for others who actually do some research.
(to the OP, plenty of good things said in this forum *specifically* about those two cameras).