Leica M6 vs Nikon FM

[Vic]

This is very true, but not indeed an important feature to ME, as I have 4 new cells for the M7 always sitting in my bag.
I only compared the FM3a / M6/ M7, as these are the 3 cameras, I actually use - the M7 the most of them, while I do now most with the M8.2.

Many of the "works without batteries people" indeed must reside in very remote areas most of the year compared to the coffee shop next corner
Even without carrying a spare, I'd get one anywhere, I am on my feet.
The good thing about them is, they fit my M6, my M7 and even my 20 year old HP 32SII RPN calculator, I use at work (it runs about 5 years on a charge of 3 cells though) ;-)

My apologies, you are absolutely right.

What has always puzzled me is that people relentlessly point out the lack of speeds when there is no battery, or ask about camera battery availability, when they are using mobile phones and laptops, and never ask the same questions about their mobile phones, laptops, or even car batteries or other electronic gadgets. The camera is singled out for the "lack of battery" guillotine every time. I get sucked into this mindset too, as you can tell by my writing about it.

 

[Frontman]

weight, portability, quiet, all the lenses for M6 are light weight and excellent...Nikon need to choose which lens to buy...in the 35mm f2.0 range they are as expensive as Ms. F3HP is probably a better camera than the FM for the money. M6 v. FM ... M6...my personal opionion only.

You can get a clean 35/2 Nikkor AIS for under $200. In fact, I picked up a mint FE with a mint 35/2 and paid less than $200 for the pair. Even the Nikkor 35/1.4 AIS costs a fraction of anything made by Leica in the same focal length/aperture range.

I prefer the FM/FM2/FA/FE2 over the F3 because of their smaller size and faster flash synch speeds, as well as their having a hot shoe on top of the prism.

I won't say the M6 is a better camera than the FM, for it's price it's certainly not. But the M6 is the camera I would prefer to carry (I just returned from a weekend of shooting with my M6 TTL).

 

[menos]

No Vic, your point is valid. There are products, where a battery dependance is existing with the need of SPECIAL batteries, that are not widely available, expensive or both.

AAs and the cells, used in the electronic Ms are in a better category.
Sure, you need them, to operate the gear, but surely you can have them with you or get them easily.

Bad is it, if this "battery dependance" introduces issues, which have not been surfacing during the M3 - M4 times - electronic issues, sucking battery juice and killing a camera.
But these as well are out of the order issues (maybe the ones, that lead to the bad reliability image, the M7 has ?).

 

[menos]

You can get a clean 35/2 Nikkor AIS for under $200. In fact, I picked up a mint FE with a mint 35/2 and paid less than $200 for the pair. Even the Nikkor 35/1.4 AIS costs a fraction of anything made by Leica in the same focal length/aperture range.

I prefer the FM/FM2/FA/FE2 over the F3 because of their smaller size and faster flash synch speeds, as well as their having a hot shoe on top of the prism.

I won't say the M6 is a better camera than the FM, for it's price it's certainly not. But the M6 is the camera I would prefer to carry (I just returned from a weekend of shooting with my M6 TTL).

This is a great point towards the manual Nikons (/Canons, Minoltas, Olympus', …).
I got people asking me lately, if I would advise them a specific Leica M for their very, very thin budget, as they wanted to try film and a manual camera.
I just tell them, they are nuts, to even think about it, as they can have a great manual camera for a few hundred dollars!

Even the "luxury" Nikon FM3a + 50 f1.6 costs less than half, ANY M6 calls for and you have already a good lens!
If budget is thin, wear approximately heavy and photos the end product, for pete's sake, get an old Nikon MF 35mm camera !

If you want a RF - get one, if you want a good manual camera for cheap, that actually works after run over by a truck - get a nice manual SLR.

 

[Keith]

Now, what is the difference between a Smartcar and a Harley Davidson? :angel:

You can question the Smartcar's owner over their dubious choice of vehicle.

The Harley owner ... I wouldn't risk it!

 

[Steve_F]

I can shoot wide open 50/1.8 with my favourite ISO 100 on a bright sunny day as my FM3A goes to 1/4000.
My M6 TTL has been in to have its top off twice in 10 months. My FM3A never in 7 years.
If I had to take one into the back of beyond with no back-up in all weathers - I WOULD NOT consider my Leica over my Nikon.


Steve.

 

[nakedcellist]

I have a FE2 which I bought for not much money and it is a great camera, made some nice pictures with it and it is extremely sturdy, I dropped it on the street while biking and it still works perfectly. However, personally, I focus better with my M6, and I like the smaller size and the quieter shutter of the M6. Also: my FE2 batteries where used up very quickly, while with the M6, I still can shoot without battery. Nowadays I only use my M6 (and M8) but I intend to use the FE2 with a roll of Kodachrome. Because of the Paul Simon song..

 

[rob.nyc1]

This is an old thread, thought I'd opine...

My main two cameras are the Nikon SP 2005 (high-end rangefinder), and the Nikon FM. Logic points me to the FM:

- It covers more ground than the rangefinder. From portraiture to macro to street, it does it all and you don't have to think twice about picking it up for any type of shoot.

- You see exactly what the lens sees. I find my compositions are a lot more precise and intentional. This attribute is really important on a shoot where every shot matters.

- The FM lends to a more relaxing shooting experience than with a multi-thousand dollar camera. Because the FM is a dime a dozen, you can get one mint for < $200, so I'm never worried about knocking it around if I'm out and about on the street. CLAs are cheaper too

- On a related note, the F-mount lenses can be had for super cheap and produce stunning results. You can produce beautiful print-quality photos with a $50 E-series lens. If a lens succumbs to mold or a scratch, you could have it replaced that day without breaking the bank.

That said, there are intangible attractions to the rangefinder system that make the SP my favorite camera. The 1:1 viewfinder feels like an extension of my eye. With the SLR, it feels like I'm using a tool to capture a photo. With the SP, I feel like I'm freezing a memory.

 

[james.liam]

The lenses that you can mount. E.g., the FM hasn't got anything remotely approaching the 35 'lux ASPH (the 24 and 28/1.4's don't count because they are designed for AF and comparatively huge).

CV 2/40 SL? Damned nifty lens. ASPH too.

 

[kshapero]

why do you do this?

and why do people answer him?

Like I said over 9 years ago, I was killing time. And it's a valid question. So there.

 

[Emile de Leon]

I own both..bought new back in the day...
FM for work..
M6 for me...
M6 gets used..
FM..just sits around still in mint condition from 1978..

 

[css9450]

M6 or FM? FM, every time.

 

[Godfrey]

Having owned both FM (actually three, two FM and one FM2n) and an M6 at the same time. The FM is the more versatile due to it being an SLR ... access to long lenses, no problems with focusing close up and parallax, more available lenses at lower prices, etc etc. Both have decent built-in meters. Neither are perfect. Both are durable and useful cameras, and both are excellent cameras capable of taking excellent photographs.

Both are long out of production and sell for relatively modest amounts of money now. Lenses of all kinds are available for both at whatever premium price (or bargain price) you want to pay.

Pick the one you like and that does the job for you, that's all.

G

 

[Ricoh]

^ I have a 'classic' M6 but no Nikon, so can not comment. But what I would say is that the M6's are going for 'silly' money. I paid £800 about 3 years ago, but today I'd need to cough up nearly double for an example in the same condition.

 

[mpaniagua]

Whoa! almost reaching 3 pages!!

Like said before, FM feels cheap on the hand and M6 feels dense. FM has proven to be a greatly dependable camera so feels/looks can be deceiving.

SLR are way more versatile on the situations that ca be comfortably used, but rangefinder are way more fun to use so, whatever you cup the tea is, thats it the right one.

Marcelo

 

[kshapero]

^ I have a 'classic' M6 but no Nikon, so can not comment. But what I would say is that the M6's are going for 'silly' money. I paid £800 about 3 years ago, but today I'd need to cough up nearly double for an example in the same condition.

Yes I noticed that. Crazy, eh?

 

[Deleted member 65559]

^ I have a 'classic' M6 but no Nikon, so can not comment. But what I would say is that the M6's are going for 'silly' money. I paid £800 about 3 years ago, but today I'd need to cough up nearly double for an example in the same condition.

Even more amusing is the fact that looking at Ebay today, there are deluxe point & shoots (Contax T3 etc) that list for more than a used Leica M6...

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

The only regret I have selling my M6 over a year ago is a profit foregone. I hated the metering and much much prefer my M3. I also hate the metering on my FM2n but love that on my FE.

 

[dogberryjr]

^ I have a 'classic' M6 but no Nikon, so can not comment. But what I would say is that the M6's are going for 'silly' money. I paid £800 about 3 years ago, but today I'd need to cough up nearly double for an example in the same condition.

I guess I haven't been paying attention of late. I saw your post, then went to check prices on used M bodies. Holy smokes. Tamarkin wants $2600 for an M6, Igor has one M6 and one M7 available, and KEH has a single M3.

Where did all the 35mm M bodies go?