Leica M4-P or M6

[loon]

I am a visual journalism major at brooks institute and even though our entire course is structured around digital i think it would be beneficial to buy a nice film based camera. so heres the deal. i am deciding between an m6 and an m4-p. i know that the m4-p has no internal meter, but that is not really a concern because i am getting light meter, and i am already pretty good at measuring light.

so i guess what i am asking is how big of a difference is there between the two. am i better off saving nearly $500 by getting the m4-p and investing in a better lens, or should i get the m6? what should i be looking for when buying used.

my budget is somewhat strained because i am a college student so saving money is somewhat of a priority. but when it comes to photo equipment, i want something that will last, and have a good resale value.

I already own a contax g1 but it is too loud, the autofocus is unreliable.

any and all help would be great.

 

[Crasis]

The M6 is an M4-P with a light meter in it. A $500 light meter by your terms.

Think on that 🙂

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I have both, they are the same camera, one metered...one not. If you don't need an internal meter then by all means save your cash for some good glass.

Todd

 

[Kyle]

If the meter isn't important get the M4-P. As Crasis said, you're basically getting an M6 without a meter. Another thing, unless you need 28 and 75 framelines, don't discount a good M2 or M3.

 

[rogue_designer]

Get the M4-P if you are not bothered by using a meter (or guestimating).

I would say, especially if you are trying to save money. Sell the G1.

 

[BillBingham2]

I own both and each is a fine camera. I love my M6 classic just for the built in meter.

Take a look at the site below, about 2/5ths down the page is the Leica section with two good pages on which M to pick as well as what to look for.

http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm

Another place to look at is here:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/choosem.html

Learning to work without a built in meter is something that just takes time. If you are shooting B&W it can sometimes be easier.

Do not shy away from new CV glass, much easier on the wallet and almost as good as Leica or Zeiss.

I would go with the M6, but either way, you will not go wrong.

Welcome.

B2 (;->

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I owned both and used the M6 a lot more. They were the same camera, with the same 0.72 finder and the same framelines. When I was raising money for an R-D1, I sold the M4-P. However, if you are a student and are strapped for cash, I would say get the less expensive camera and spend the savings on some good used glass. $500 will get you some great CV glass these days.

Good luck, have fun, enjoy whichever camera you get.

 

[ghost]

just replace the contax with a hexar af.

 

[rover]

i know that the m4-p has no internal meter, but that is not really a concern because i am getting light meter, and i am already pretty good at measuring light.

so i guess what i am asking is how big of a difference is there between the two. am i better off saving nearly $500 by getting the m4-p and investing in a better lens, or should i get the m6?

my budget is somewhat strained because i am a college student so saving money is somewhat of a priority. but when it comes to photo equipment, i want something that will last, and have a good resale value.

Hi loon, I think the M4-p is exactly what you described. I have an M6 and the meter is great, but I like using unmetered bodies too. If the lack of a meter is not a hurdle for you, the M4-p is everything you state that you want.

 

[Grober]

I've owned both and enjoyed both. The feel of that now-sold M4-P is still in my dreams!

If you can live without a meter, get the M4-P but be careful about its shutter. Get a warranty if possible and then shoot a few rolls to check for light leaks. Just looking at the shutter with your naked eye doesn't get it. I loved my M4-P but had to send it to the shop FOUR separate times before the guy got the light leak fixed properly.

On the M6, ask if the owner got the rangefinder "patch problem" is solved. In low light levels early M6 cameras had a very annoying tendancy to completely white out the small focusing patch. I'm told the M4-P had the same problem but never experienced it on mine. BOTH my classic M6 cameras were bad when used in very low light.

Sold 'em all + a few lenses to build up cash for the M8 which UPS should heave onto my front doorstep in the next few days.

-g

 

[nightfly]

I've got an M4-P and I have no desire for anything else. For the money I'd get an M4-P and a CV lens and still have money left over for film. Or for a little more get a used Leica lens.

I shoot black and white and don't own a meter. I occasionally shoot slide film this way although usually for cross processing so overexposure is not a big deal. Since you say you know light pretty well, I find a meter more of a distraction. After many years of using non-metered cameras it's really a non-issue except at night for my style of shooting particularly if you are doing your own developing and can adjust on the back end for your average exposure.

 

[loon]

i am pretty set on the m4-p now. so about the glass...i am looking for a nice low light 35mm which type of lens do you recommend....cv-does that equal cosina voigtlander.....what about carl zeiss?

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

i am pretty set on the m4-p now. so about the glass...i am looking for a nice low light 35mm which type of lens do you recommend....cv-does that equal cosina voigtlander.....what about carl zeiss?

yes, CV is Cosina voigtlander.

low light lens means 2.0 or faster. I'd gues the cv 35/1.7 is your best bet.
The Leica glas in that range is quit expensive. The older Leica glas is not as good as the cv. Also Canon glas in that range will be outperformed by the cv lens. Personaly I'd buy the CV 40/1.4. But that's not a 35mm.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[nightfly]

Save up for a used Summicron 35. They are a bit pricey but pretty common used. The advantage is that you get a taste of Leica glass and it's a small fast lens. I haven't used the CV 2.5 or 1.7 but the 2.5 is reputed to be very contrasty (some say overly so) and the 1.7 looks pretty big to me. Neither really seems like a good compromise.

I mostly shoot with a CV 28 3.5 because I love the focal length and size and feel of the lens but I use the 35 Summicron when I need some more speed. It's also the prefect 1 lens kit for traveling. If I had to own one lens it would be the 35 Summicron. It does everything well and is compact and well made.

Everyone is going to say that you should get a 40mm Summicron but I'd advise against it, having done that to save some money myself because really I wanted a 35 and ended up selling it shortly after to get the 35 Summicron anyway so it ended up costing me more.

You can probably get the M4-P and the 35 Summicron for about $200 more than just the M6 body. Maybe get one of those Soviet Jupiter lenses or something to tide you over while you are saving up.

Another option is the 35 2.8 Summaron if you can live with a loss of speed.

 

[Uncle Bill]

I would sell the Contax G1, the M4-p and a 50 Nockton from Voightlander and you are set.

Bill

 

[Trius]

Bill: Loon said he wanted a fast 35, not a 50.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Justin Low]

I'd have to agree partially. The lens on the Minilux is fantastic, and I wish they'd make a LTM or M mount version. However, the M-Rokkor (CLE version) that I used didn't seem that bad.

 

[nightfly]

I actually like the quality of the photos from the 40mm Summicron I had, I just didn't like the focal length. If that doesn't bug you than it's a good choice. I think the photos look pretty much like my 35mm Summicron at less than half the price. The build quality of my Canadian 35 Summicron is a little nicer than my 40mm German Summicron but not twice as nice. I also prefer the focusing tab on the 35.

The 35 is just a nice lens in that it can look wide or normal depending on the situation where the 40 to me skews more toward looking like a 50. Feels like a generally less versitile focal length and probably why it's not really a standard despite arguments that it's more truly "normal" which I regard as pretty much crap. I think everyone sees a little differently as it's a quality of attention rather than physics or biology.