Leica M6 out of sight

[gnuyork]

James,

I think one of the reasons for "R" lens increases is video. I don't see this going away. It seems many videographers covet Leica "R" glass. Pretty much they want the "Leica look."

Cal

I think this is true. I know at least one person who got a great deal on a set of R lenses for his RED camera.

 

[fad gadget]

Not with wider angle lenses, which it was designed for.

The RF precision is less accurate on the .58.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Not with wider angle lenses, which it was designed for.

Could you elaborate please? I don't really follow how the accuracy of an interchangeable lens rangefinder camera can vary according to the lens fitted to it.

 

[Calzone]

I think this is true. I know at least one person who got a great deal on a set of R lenses for his RED camera.

G,

Yep, the "R" lenses for guys that shoot a Red is mucho popular.

I also have seen some impressive Sony A7 rigs with "cages" and follow focus.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

James: I don't think this "fad", as you call it, will pass anytime soon. With every day life become more & more technological & sophisticated to the point where nobody understand anymore how things work, the desire to go back to "simple things" like film nostalgia is here to stay, if not increasing.

G,

I think the MMonochrom already is a bit of a cult camera because of what you say. CMOS sensors are less costly, so the CCD sensor with its unique rendering will never be recreated for economic reasons and will be desired and coveted due to its difference.

Also the MM warts and all out of any digital camera is rather basic, simple and rather primitive, thus making it most like a film camera.

I know the M-246 and M10 are more advanced, but for the purist, or the old retro film shooter the MM is the digital camera that is most like a film camera.

I would also say as an original owner (my MM is now 7 years old) that due to the CCD sensor combined with the lack of Bayer Filter Array that it is likely the most demanding digital camera camera ever made in regards to exposure because it is the camera that so easily enables one to blow the highlights.

Less forgiving than a CMOS sensor, and no Bayer Filter Array to rescue highlights, but a perfect exposure is well rewarded. The MM made me a better and more precise photographer.

BTW $8K at the time made the MM a very expensive camera. Other than the sensor replacement and overhaul for free, no problems over 7 years an still running strong. It is still a great creative tool and a great camera.

Best $8K I ever spent.

Cal

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Not with wider angle lenses, which it was designed for.

Could you elaborate please? I don't really follow how the accuracy of an interchangeable lens rangefinder camera can vary according to the lens fitted to it.

Wide-angle lenses have more DOF latitude, so effective RF base-length (the RF patch is smaller in a .58 finder) is far less critical.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

G,

Also the MM warts and all out of any digital camera is rather basic, simple and rather primitive, thus making it most like a film camera.

I know the M-246 and M10 are more advanced, but for the purist, or the old retro film shooter the MM is the digital camera that is most like a film camera.

I would also say as an original owner (my MM is now 7 years old) that due to the CCD sensor combined with the lack of Bayer Filter Array that it is likely the most demanding digital camera camera ever made in regards to exposure because it is the camera that so easily enables one to blow the highlights.

Less forgiving than a CMOS sensor, and no Bayer Filter Array to rescue highlights, but a perfect exposure is well rewarded. The MM made me a better and more precise photographer.

BTW $8K at the time made the MM a very expensive camera. Other than the sensor replacement and overhaul for free, no problems over 7 years an still running strong. It is still a great creative tool and a great camera.

Cal

My friend Keith Moss, mostly a film photographer now, but he used to shoot an original MM as a Leica photographer, and he said it was demanding, but once you got it right and sorted the post processing, it produced absolutely stunning results.

 

[Calzone]

My friend Keith Moss, mostly a film photographer now, but he used to shoot an original MM as a Leica photographer, and he said it was demanding, but once you got it right and sorted the post processing, it produced absolutely stunning results.

Charles,

Don't tell anyone, but here is a secret: I discovered that Heliopan filters marked "Digital" have additional UV and IR filters built in that diminish clipping and help promote these "Moby Dick" shaped histograms that print so well.

Think about making clean files that are optimized at time of image capture so that post processing is minimized. Basically shoot like a large format shooter who contact prints, except shooting small format digital.

I even use a 2X Heliopan "Digital" yellow filter so I don't need to boost contrast in post. The idea here is not to add digital noise/artifact from using sliders and tone curves extensively so I can print mucho big.

I also print using Piezography so I am printing with 7 shades of black glossy on Baryta coated papers for a silver wet print look.

Piezography displays its superior resolution, blacker-blacks, and expanded tonal range the best in large prints. Pretty much I can print detail that can't be seen on my 27 calibrated EIZO dimmed down to 50 Lux in a darkened room.

The big prints don't lie (20x30 image size on 24x36 sheet).

BTW on my color Leicas (SL and CL) I use Heliopan UV filters marked "Digital" for cleaner histograms. Think how IR and UV signals are not in the visual spectum and only add a noise that raises thresholds.

Also Piezography and the MM is a match made in heaven.

Cal

 

[fad gadget]

Wide-angle lenses have more DOF latitude, so effective RF base-length (the RF patch is smaller in a .58 finder) is far less critical.

Precisely.

cheers/k.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Charles,

Don't tell anyone, but here is a secret: I discovered that Heliopan filters marked "Digital" have additional UV and IR filters built in that diminish clipping and help promote these "Moby Dick" shaped histograms that print so well.

Think about making clean files that are optimized at time of image capture so that post processing is minimized. Basically shoot like a large format shooter who contact prints, except shooting small format digital.

I even use a 2X Heliopan "Digital" yellow filter so I don't need to boost contrast in post. The idea here is not to add digital noise/artifact from using sliders and tone curves extensively so I can print mucho big.

I also print using Piezography so I am printing with 7 shades of black glossy on Baryta coated papers for a silver wet print look.

Piezography displays its superior resolution, blacker-blacks, and expanded tonal range the best in large prints. Pretty much I can print detail that can't be seen on my 27 calibrated EIZO dimmed down to 50 Lux in a darkened room.

The big prints don't lie (20x30 image size on 24x36 sheet).

BTW on my color Leicas (SL and CL) I use Heliopan UV filters marked "Digital" for cleaner histograms. Think how IR and UV signals are not in the visual spectum and only add a noise that raises thresholds.

Also Piezography and the MM is a match made in heaven.

Cal

Fascinating, thank you!

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Wide-angle lenses have more DOF latitude, so effective RF base-length (the RF patch is smaller in a .58 finder) is far less critical.

With respect, that is not the same thing at all as RF system accuracy. Hence my query.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

The RF precision is less accurate on the .58.

Not with wider angle lenses, which it was designed for.

Could you elaborate please? I don't really follow how the accuracy of an interchangeable lens rangefinder camera can vary according to the lens fitted to it.

Wide-angle lenses have more DOF latitude, so effective RF base-length (the RF patch is smaller in a .58 finder) is far less critical.

Precisely.

cheers/k.

I should elaborate perhaps that I appreciated your response, Bill—thank you. And I quite agree that, using wider angle lenses means the finder magnification is less critical. That said, James's earlier comment was correct. There are two concepts in play (and you touched on both of them). One—overall accuracy of a rangefinder; two—depth of field characteristics of a lens or lenses. An increase in the latter does not actually increase the former, other things being equal.

 

[Skiff]

Here more background information (NBC report) why the prices of the Leica M6 and film cameras in general are increasing: the film renaissance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YotUW5WcOh8&feature=emb_logo

Kodak is explaining that their film production has doubled (!) in the last four years.

 

[Huss]

Kodak is explaining that their film production has doubled (!) in the last four years.

Four years ago we made 100 rolls. This year we made 200.

🙂

 

[Livesteamer]

In regards to RF accuracy the key is effective base length. All the M cameras have the same base length but there are four different magnifications that influence the effective base length. Best is the M3 with a .91 magnification finder followed by the .85, .72 and the .58 being the least, effective base length but with a wide lens it is good enough. Longer, faster lenses need the higher magnification finders for increased accuracy in focusing. Others might explain it better. Joe

 

[Huss]

What it comes down to with the magnification is that it allows specific frame lines to be used easily.
.91 allows 50mm as the widest.
.85 allows 35mm as the widest, and it is hard to see
.72 allows 28mm as the widest, and it is hard to see (you cannot see it unless you move your eye around the frame)
.58 allows you to EASILY see 28mm frame lines.

So you pick the magnification w with regards to your primary lens usage. Even though I have a couple of M3s, I prefer the .72 in my M-A, M4-2, M7, M5 as I like to use 35mm lenses as the primary.

 

[james.liam]

What it comes down to with the magnification is that it allows specific frame lines to be used easily.
.91 allows 50mm as the widest.
.85 allows 35mm as the widest, and it is hard to see
.72 allows 28mm as the widest, and it is hard to see (you cannot see it unless you move your eye around the frame)
.58 allows you to EASILY see 28mm frame lines.

So you pick the magnification w with regards to your primary lens usage. Even though I have a couple of M3s, I prefer the .72 in my M-A, M4-2, M7, M5 as I like to use 35mm lenses as the primary.

Perfect explanation of the differences as they relate to real-life, Huss.

 

[pyeh]

In fact I like the 0.58 vf for 35mm lenses because it gives that bit more surrounding space. That might be because I wear glasses and as well, I don't put the camera right up against them. Jonmanjiro put me on to this blessed feature. Also, you can sort of get away with using the whole view for 24mm. 35 and 24 are my two fave focal lengths.
On the other hand 0.58 is hopeless for 50mm lenses so I got my 0.72 converted to 0.85. Wonderful.

 

[zischga]

There is currently a M6 TTL in silver for sale in my area.
Body only for 1450€, it seems to be in very good condition.
What do you think about the price, ebay seems to be a lot more expensive.
I've been thinking of buying this body + a summicron 50 for ideally under 2k.

 

[james.liam]

There is currently a M6 TTL in silver for sale in my area.
Body only for 1450€, it seems to be in very good condition.
What do you think about the price, ebay seems to be a lot more expensive.
I've been thinking of buying this body + a summicron 50 for ideally under 2k.

If the shutter times are correct and the meter working properly, it’s OK. Otherwise, add 250€ for a CLA.