boomguy57
Well-known
I have been asking myself the same question...I have an M3 and a CL now, and would like to swap one of them for the M6.
One one hand, I tell myself to trade the M3 for the M6 for the light meter, which I do miss in the M3. But, I love the finder on the M3 and 50 is my favorite lens.
On the other hand, I tell myself to keep the M3 for the finder and get the M6 for those times that I just want to bring a body and not bother with the external light meter. BUT...I do love the 40/2 with the CL (I would miss the 40 framelines on the M6) and I love the small size of the CL (but the short baselength will be an issue when I get a faster lens).
So which way to go...?
-T
One one hand, I tell myself to trade the M3 for the M6 for the light meter, which I do miss in the M3. But, I love the finder on the M3 and 50 is my favorite lens.
On the other hand, I tell myself to keep the M3 for the finder and get the M6 for those times that I just want to bring a body and not bother with the external light meter. BUT...I do love the 40/2 with the CL (I would miss the 40 framelines on the M6) and I love the small size of the CL (but the short baselength will be an issue when I get a faster lens).
So which way to go...?
-T
huntjump
Well-known
i think its all about personal preference. I owned the m3 and cl, among other M's, and found all the other M's sold and my M6 still around. try it if u can, or buy it and resell if u dont like it
kennethcooke
Established
If this is an example of your work. Why would you change. The only thing an M6 will give you is prestige. I assure you that I speak with knowledge on this subjectI really like my CL with Zeiss 50m ZM planar. It was a compromise as I did not have the funds for a M6, which I had promised myself. Now I have found some extra money from some healthy eBay sales. So, would you sell your CL to buy a M6 or am I just being greedy? I hate that gear feeling that gnaws!
Good excuse for another CL shot
anjoca76
Well-known
I did just that. I started with a CL and recently picked up an M6, with the idea in mind that the M6 would replace my CL. It eventually will, but I haven't gotten around to putting it up for sale yet, mostly for sentimental reasons.
There is a lot more the M6 has going for it than "prestige" over the CL. The film loading is MUCH easier, it has more frame lines, and its build quality is more robust.
That said, there is not a huge difference as far as picturetaking ability between the two. My CL has served me well and is a pleasure to use. Its rangefinder patch never flares, unlike my M6, which flares far more often than I care for, and the CL is lighter and stealthier (if that sort of thing matters to you). And perhaps it's most underrated feature is the placement of the exposure dial, which is far better than the Ms and make so much more sense.
Probably the main reason I got the M6 is because it can be serviced by any number of technicians, whereas many don't work on the CL (Youxin comes to mind, among others). For that reason, it's arguably costlier to own the CL in the long run.
There are definitely differences between the two, but the CL gets a bad rap. It's a wonderful camera, nitpicking aside.
There is a lot more the M6 has going for it than "prestige" over the CL. The film loading is MUCH easier, it has more frame lines, and its build quality is more robust.
That said, there is not a huge difference as far as picturetaking ability between the two. My CL has served me well and is a pleasure to use. Its rangefinder patch never flares, unlike my M6, which flares far more often than I care for, and the CL is lighter and stealthier (if that sort of thing matters to you). And perhaps it's most underrated feature is the placement of the exposure dial, which is far better than the Ms and make so much more sense.
Probably the main reason I got the M6 is because it can be serviced by any number of technicians, whereas many don't work on the CL (Youxin comes to mind, among others). For that reason, it's arguably costlier to own the CL in the long run.
There are definitely differences between the two, but the CL gets a bad rap. It's a wonderful camera, nitpicking aside.
redisburning
Well-known
lots of cameras are good cameras.
shades of subtlety separate their quality; and each subsequent value costs more than the previous.
if you really only enjoy photography for the photographs (which is a fine, and noble, outlook) then it's probably not the right choice. some of us, and around here maybe even most of us, enjoy the entire process from shooting, to processing, as well the image itself. Having a camera that you personally feel is better and nicer, but not the point that you use it less, is worth it if you belong to that second group.
I got a new OM lens so I have been spending some time shooting my OM-1 lately. It's a really nice camera, and one I will keep always. But it just reinforces how my M2 is better in so many, yet so subtle, ways. The smoothness of the film advance, the moment of absolute confidence when the patch hits MAXIMUM contrast, the lack of extra knobs and dials, the comfortable lozange shape with no self timer. Whether that is enough to make it worth it, to me it was but to my father and his father before it wasn't.
shades of subtlety separate their quality; and each subsequent value costs more than the previous.
if you really only enjoy photography for the photographs (which is a fine, and noble, outlook) then it's probably not the right choice. some of us, and around here maybe even most of us, enjoy the entire process from shooting, to processing, as well the image itself. Having a camera that you personally feel is better and nicer, but not the point that you use it less, is worth it if you belong to that second group.
I got a new OM lens so I have been spending some time shooting my OM-1 lately. It's a really nice camera, and one I will keep always. But it just reinforces how my M2 is better in so many, yet so subtle, ways. The smoothness of the film advance, the moment of absolute confidence when the patch hits MAXIMUM contrast, the lack of extra knobs and dials, the comfortable lozange shape with no self timer. Whether that is enough to make it worth it, to me it was but to my father and his father before it wasn't.
River Dog
Always looking
I have been living with the CL and 40mm Rokkor for a while and I have no ambition towards the M6 anymore. Selling the ZM 50/2 and buying a X100 as my main digital instead. The CL/40mm combo is just fine for me.
Peter_S
Peter_S
Of course the CL can take as good photos as the M6. The differences are subtle but to me they are:
- Most (I do anyways) will focus the M6 faster, with less back-forth focussing going on. Of course that is not an issue with static objects.
- the film advance lever is smoother and faster on the M6. This may or may not be an issue for you. It is for me.
- film loading. Surely it can be done with the CL. But it is faster and esier with the M6. Does that matter for you? Perhaps. For me it does.
- I find metering is easier with the M6, my eye needs to wander of the subject to read the CL meter, but can stay locked on the subject with the M6.
That said, the CL feels super nice and has its advantages. I appreciate its weight and form and I am glad I bought one (after much information here on RFF). I would almost argue that M6 and CL are different enough that they go nicely together.
I would not want to only use the CL, but for quite a while I used the M6 for 90% of my photography and quite happily so. Get one if you can. Of course if budget is low there is always the stellar Contax G2...another story but one worth reading into. My M6 had to go in the end because I missed some of the swiftness of the G2. Perhaps CL + G2 makes sense for you?
Good luck with your decision!
- Most (I do anyways) will focus the M6 faster, with less back-forth focussing going on. Of course that is not an issue with static objects.
- the film advance lever is smoother and faster on the M6. This may or may not be an issue for you. It is for me.
- film loading. Surely it can be done with the CL. But it is faster and esier with the M6. Does that matter for you? Perhaps. For me it does.
- I find metering is easier with the M6, my eye needs to wander of the subject to read the CL meter, but can stay locked on the subject with the M6.
That said, the CL feels super nice and has its advantages. I appreciate its weight and form and I am glad I bought one (after much information here on RFF). I would almost argue that M6 and CL are different enough that they go nicely together.
I would not want to only use the CL, but for quite a while I used the M6 for 90% of my photography and quite happily so. Get one if you can. Of course if budget is low there is always the stellar Contax G2...another story but one worth reading into. My M6 had to go in the end because I missed some of the swiftness of the G2. Perhaps CL + G2 makes sense for you?
Good luck with your decision!
splaash
Member
I love the CL but am looking for a 11F both seem about the same value in price but the CL is a very good leica with meter
The 11F is a classic very compact Leica id love to use in place of my Russian 111C
The 11F is a classic very compact Leica id love to use in place of my Russian 111C
k0vic
bangphoto.co.uk
I was in the same spot a while ago and here's how I played it out.
I think the problem with the CL is that it isn't an M. It's a great camera in its own right but it will always have that basic fact hanging over it. If it's an M you want then unfortunately the only solution is to buy an M. Yes a Zeiss Ikon or Bessa or even Hexar may do things better or be cheaper but the fact is that they also are not M's.
I'm afraid it's basically the clever glamour of Leica M cameras, until you've had a "real" one then you'll always wonder what you may be missing.
They'll all create the same images but it's how they make you feel whilst doing so it what you essentially pay for.
Well to me it is. If that's important to you then get an M6, it won't make you a "better" photographer, but it might make you feel like one.
I think the problem with the CL is that it isn't an M. It's a great camera in its own right but it will always have that basic fact hanging over it. If it's an M you want then unfortunately the only solution is to buy an M. Yes a Zeiss Ikon or Bessa or even Hexar may do things better or be cheaper but the fact is that they also are not M's.
I'm afraid it's basically the clever glamour of Leica M cameras, until you've had a "real" one then you'll always wonder what you may be missing.
They'll all create the same images but it's how they make you feel whilst doing so it what you essentially pay for.
Well to me it is. If that's important to you then get an M6, it won't make you a "better" photographer, but it might make you feel like one.