TomN
Established
this is fairly well common knowledge right?
http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm
the m4 is the last of 'classic' m's, made in Wetzlar
http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm
the m4 is the last of 'classic' m's, made in Wetzlar
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
While there may be small differences in build quality (and major differences in design philosophy i.e. adjust vs. replace), to my experience there is minimal practical difference between the M4, M4-2, M4-P and M6. Other than the meter in the M6, of course.
lic4
Well-known
I agree that when you're out doing serious work with the camera (M2, M6, etc) it pretty much feels the same, unless you rely on the internal meter. I like the option of the internal meter myself. I can load the M6 much faster, so it's what I take. A stroll around the city, non serious work - the M2 has a better feel to it. I guess it depends on where your focus is, sometimes it's strictly the work, other times, you just want to enjoy the camera. Nothing wrong with either.
FrankS
Registered User
I prefer the uncluttered, one frame line at a time, of the M2. For me, this outweighed the convenience of an internal meter.
maddoc
... likes film again.
... this is just one of the myth about Leica, which have not much to do with reality, IMHO.
I have used two M4 and two M4-P (amongst M6, MP, some M3, M2, M5) and couldn't find anything "better build" using the older models compared to the newer models (despite that my copy of the MP was the worst of them) The only thing being better build (compared to the succeeding models)l is the rewind crank of the M4.
Sure, they feel different mainly due the different covering, the usually worn out brass gear (... "butter-smooth film advance") and have lower-contrast VF (the coating of the VF of modern M cameras has much been improved).
Cheers,
Gabor
ferider
Veteran
I agree with you Gabor. Plus, I'm addicted to 28mm ....
Roland.
Roland.
KM-25
Well-known
In my experience, the M6TTL is the most pro oriented M made. Full mechanical operation, 28 frame lines, outstanding TTL and a shutter speed dial I can use with gloves on with ease.
All my other M bodies have singular features that make it a better choice then the M6 for very specific tasks. But if I can only tote one body, it is an M6 hands down.
All my other M bodies have singular features that make it a better choice then the M6 for very specific tasks. But if I can only tote one body, it is an M6 hands down.
fbf
Well-known
I bought both m4p and m6ttl because of Gabor. 
I don't regret a tiny bit, especially with the rapidwinder attached. I love them both and the only difference is the onboard meter.
I don't regret a tiny bit, especially with the rapidwinder attached. I love them both and the only difference is the onboard meter.Lilserenity
Well-known
I recently bought an M2 and have not handled a M6 before (or indeed actually any other Leica) so really I cannot say on which I'd choose, I'm not informed enough.
That said the M2 is a natty little camera, I love the simplicity of the view finder (though I largely ignore much of the activity in say my EOS 3's finder) and just the general build of it makes it feel like it was hewn from a solid piece of brass.
I also really love the fact that at a quick glance to an untrained eye, it's a slightly larger looking compact camera which is priceless for candid work. It's alsp nice that with the MR meter attached it's a virtually anonymous camera unlike my Canon which seems to go to pains to tell everybody what you are using and I hate nothing more than those stupid modern SLR straps that have things like Nikon D700 emblazoned on them... Fine if you're a fashionista but if you don't want to be a target for mugging...
Finally I have the MR meter it does slow things down if you are not sure of shutter speed but if I have negative in there I can generally take one reading and adjust from there. If I shoot slide, well I have only shot one roll so far and I admit I did frequently check my exposure knowing all too well about narrow latitude.
I can see tyhe convenience of the built in meter but sometimes I find that taking the camera away from my eyes to meter or to 'find' the meter button allows me to pause and sometimes rethink my composition as sometimes I find I can get too locked into viewing the world entirely through a view finder and I need to look at the wider picture and observe that more.
That said the M2 is a natty little camera, I love the simplicity of the view finder (though I largely ignore much of the activity in say my EOS 3's finder) and just the general build of it makes it feel like it was hewn from a solid piece of brass.
I also really love the fact that at a quick glance to an untrained eye, it's a slightly larger looking compact camera which is priceless for candid work. It's alsp nice that with the MR meter attached it's a virtually anonymous camera unlike my Canon which seems to go to pains to tell everybody what you are using and I hate nothing more than those stupid modern SLR straps that have things like Nikon D700 emblazoned on them... Fine if you're a fashionista but if you don't want to be a target for mugging...
Finally I have the MR meter it does slow things down if you are not sure of shutter speed but if I have negative in there I can generally take one reading and adjust from there. If I shoot slide, well I have only shot one roll so far and I admit I did frequently check my exposure knowing all too well about narrow latitude.
I can see tyhe convenience of the built in meter but sometimes I find that taking the camera away from my eyes to meter or to 'find' the meter button allows me to pause and sometimes rethink my composition as sometimes I find I can get too locked into viewing the world entirely through a view finder and I need to look at the wider picture and observe that more.
mirrored
Established
I have read M2 is more prone to flare than M3. I have used M6 now for a month and I feel too much trouble to focus. Metering annoying me too: it would be much better meter first and then rise the camera to eye - that is often important seconds to models act.
Now I think M4 most for my second change to RF (and maybe M3 for a 50mm FL). If focusing would be problem still, I will turn some different camera type.
What are those techniques?
I have read mentioned that first M4-2 have different viewfinder quality than later, but not what is the serie number when chanced to "economy style".
Now I think M4 most for my second change to RF (and maybe M3 for a 50mm FL). If focusing would be problem still, I will turn some different camera type.
What are those techniques?
I have read mentioned that first M4-2 have different viewfinder quality than later, but not what is the serie number when chanced to "economy style".
Last edited:
mirrored
Established
I already have love-hate relation to my first M-Leica. Perfect camera doesn't exist. Primary is developing personal photography skills - if not help enough, looking all different type camera. Still I would be glad to hear what techniques are possible to reduce finder flare.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
Still I would be glad to hear what techniques are possible to reduce finder flare.
That's an easy one ...
When the rangefinder patch whites out, slightly (just a little) change the camera position by either shifting it a little or twisting it a few degrees. This way the rangefinder patch becomes more clearly visible again to focus properly. I have tried once one of these "shades", you can simply stick onto the frame line illumination window. Sure, it reduces flare by ~ 50 % but also reduces the contrast in the RF patch at about the same amount ...
richard_l
Well-known
What Gabor says. Or you could just put a finger (or something) over the framelines illumination window while focussing. I suppose the main problem is that flare happens so seldom that when it does occur one gets flustered and forgets how simple it is to fix.That's an easy one ...
I have tried once one of these "shades", you can simply stick onto the frame line illumination window. Sure, it reduces flare by ~ 50 % but also reduces the contrast in the RF patch at about the same amount ...
Richard
mirrored
Established
Thank you!
Just happened: I saw "want to buy M6" -advertise and most propably my first M-Leica is gone tomorrow with same price I paid. I am released because it was too fine overal condition without any marks of using which I would make for sure. Now looking for M4.
Just happened: I saw "want to buy M6" -advertise and most propably my first M-Leica is gone tomorrow with same price I paid. I am released because it was too fine overal condition without any marks of using which I would make for sure. Now looking for M4.
mamypoko
Member
I have both a M2 and a M4-P and I actually love both of them.
The M2 seems to me a slightly more refined camera, the shutter release is very smooth and I like the simple framelines.
The M4-P feels more rugged and I actually prefer the film advance lever on the M4-P as compared to the M2.
One thing about the M2 is the film loading system which may seem quite cumbersome to some due to the spool, although for me I am used to it as I am a casual shooter.
You can always get an external meter to use with the M2, the Voigtlander one is pretty good although I usually shoot meterless.
As always no camera is perfect and hopefully you are able to find the one that you like!
The M2 seems to me a slightly more refined camera, the shutter release is very smooth and I like the simple framelines.
The M4-P feels more rugged and I actually prefer the film advance lever on the M4-P as compared to the M2.
One thing about the M2 is the film loading system which may seem quite cumbersome to some due to the spool, although for me I am used to it as I am a casual shooter.
You can always get an external meter to use with the M2, the Voigtlander one is pretty good although I usually shoot meterless.
As always no camera is perfect and hopefully you are able to find the one that you like!
oscroft
Veteran
It's interesting to see this thread restarted, and to see the results - because over the same period I've been using my M2 and M6 a lot.
Those are my two Leica M bodies, and I got the M2 second - not very long ago.
I think an M2 and an M6 make for a great combination, but of the two, I like the M2 better - I went to Thailand for 2 months last year with just the M2 and a 35mm lens, and I think it's as close to perfection as a body/lens combo can be.
When I'm shooting B&W (which is what I mostly do), I actually find the meterless M2 quicker to use than the metered M6. That's because I do my metering (fairly carefully, with a Digisix) at the start of a session, then from shot to shot I just guess whether it needs a stop or so either side of my metered figure, and that's a lot quicker than metering every shot - I'll only meter again if the light changes significantly or if I move to very differently lit subject matter.
With the M6, I find I the meter LEDs distract me and slow me down. Even if I know the exposure is fine, if the LEDs suggest I'm even slightly out I just can't resist messing about with it - I'm psychologically unable to ignore the LEDs. (I know I could take the batteries out, but I don't really need to because I have an M2).
I do also find the M6 frames confusing. Some people never make a mistake and use the wrong frame, but I sometimes do (not often, but enough to be annoying) - I shot half a roll last year using a 75mm lens, but framing with the 50mm frame, for example. On the other hand, I like having a 28mm frame (especially as my CV 28/3.5 is a candidate for my favourite ever lens).
So that's my general take really - one of each makes for a great combination that covers situations when you want to meter each shot (shooting colour transperencies, for example), and situations when you just want to meter once/guess/shoot. And you've got the best of both worlds with framelines - the cleaner but less flexible M2 frames, or the more flexible but cluttered M6 frames, as the situation requires.
Those are my two Leica M bodies, and I got the M2 second - not very long ago.
I think an M2 and an M6 make for a great combination, but of the two, I like the M2 better - I went to Thailand for 2 months last year with just the M2 and a 35mm lens, and I think it's as close to perfection as a body/lens combo can be.
When I'm shooting B&W (which is what I mostly do), I actually find the meterless M2 quicker to use than the metered M6. That's because I do my metering (fairly carefully, with a Digisix) at the start of a session, then from shot to shot I just guess whether it needs a stop or so either side of my metered figure, and that's a lot quicker than metering every shot - I'll only meter again if the light changes significantly or if I move to very differently lit subject matter.
With the M6, I find I the meter LEDs distract me and slow me down. Even if I know the exposure is fine, if the LEDs suggest I'm even slightly out I just can't resist messing about with it - I'm psychologically unable to ignore the LEDs. (I know I could take the batteries out, but I don't really need to because I have an M2).
I do also find the M6 frames confusing. Some people never make a mistake and use the wrong frame, but I sometimes do (not often, but enough to be annoying) - I shot half a roll last year using a 75mm lens, but framing with the 50mm frame, for example. On the other hand, I like having a 28mm frame (especially as my CV 28/3.5 is a candidate for my favourite ever lens).
So that's my general take really - one of each makes for a great combination that covers situations when you want to meter each shot (shooting colour transperencies, for example), and situations when you just want to meter once/guess/shoot. And you've got the best of both worlds with framelines - the cleaner but less flexible M2 frames, or the more flexible but cluttered M6 frames, as the situation requires.
doitashimash1te
Well-known
I voted neither - reason: I have both already.
samuelphoto
Established
filmfan
Well-known
Well, I was in the same predicament.
I just got an M2 (my first M-mount Leica) today.
The M2 was half the price, giving me more $ to work with on a lens.
I just got an M2 (my first M-mount Leica) today.
The M2 was half the price, giving me more $ to work with on a lens.
v3cron
Well-known
I have an M4-2 and just got an M2. The biggest difference to me is the RF patch - the M2 is MUCH better for focusing. I think, and someone can correct me if I'm off, that the M6 RF is more similar to the M4-2 due to the downgraded optical configuration, compared to the pre-M4 cameras.
I'll be selling my M4-2 for another M2 shortly. I have the Quick Load kit, and I don't notice any more difficulty in loading the M2 compared to the M4-2. In fact, the leader doesn't slip out like the tulip type sometimes can.
Also, I find the finish, aesthetics, and general feel of the M2 is superior to later cameras, but that is subjective. I also like knob rewind.
I'll be selling my M4-2 for another M2 shortly. I have the Quick Load kit, and I don't notice any more difficulty in loading the M2 compared to the M4-2. In fact, the leader doesn't slip out like the tulip type sometimes can.
Also, I find the finish, aesthetics, and general feel of the M2 is superior to later cameras, but that is subjective. I also like knob rewind.