M3 entry route to Leicadom or is it M6?

I jumped from a IIIf to an M6. As I already had a Bessa R3A with AE, the M6 was a rather emotional purchase in that I thought I should own a Leica before I died. So I sold the R3A.
Never bought any Leica glass - too expensive and the CV lenses for the Bessa are well regarded. No regrets there.

You know what? The Leica is superbly built and feels nice in the hand but the Bessa does the same job - no question - and is much more affordable. If it wasn't for the fact that I frequently use 21mm, 25mm and 35mm lenses I'd probably sell the M6 and get a Bessa R2A. You will note I still have an R4A!
I'd keep the motor bike and look for a Bessa and CV lenses. The only trick is to choose the one with the viewfinder that best matches the focal lengths you want to use. The R2A (or M) covers from 35mm to 90mm. If you want to shoot wider just get an accessory viewfinder to slip on when you have that lens in use.
 
ruby.monkey said:
and I'd be willing to bet that a small hand-held meter (such as a Sekonic TwinMate) is faster and more convenient to use than a clip-on or in-body meter without autoexposure.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this - I bought an M4-P with the MR meter. After persevering with it for a while, I found it to be very long winded in use. I now use the very meter that ruby monkey mentioned.

Good luck in your choice.

Best regards
RoyM
 
I also prefer not having a camera mounted external meter and took years to cope with the M6 inboard meter. With the M2 and a 35 I have a Gossen hand held meter. I meter with that for the ambient light using the incident method. I then set the shutter speed and aperture and often prefocus with that lens and then the camera is only up to the eye for the shot. Plus you end up trusting sunny 16 more and not metering for each shot and it is much less hassle all round.
 
Well, I'll offer my 2 pence as I own two M cameras--and they happen to be the M3 and the M6 (0.72 classic).

I started with the M3, and loved it--and still do. Then I got a chance to pick up an M6 from my favourite camera crack dealer (we've got a wonderful old camera shop down in Croydon, South London) at a very good price about a year and a half later.

My personal experience--I tend to use the M6 a lot more than the M3 nowadays.

That isn't necessarily because the M6 is a better camera. I just find that using the camera's meter is a little faster than calculating Sunny F16, which I am pretty adept at and use most of the time (normally successfully) with the M3 (I also carry around a Sekonic L-308s). Unlike with a hand-held or external meter, you don't need to take your eye from the viewfinder to get a reading, which to me makes the M6 a bit faster. For street shooting, that's important.

And, if you were planning on using the 35 as your chief lens, I'd say the M6 would be the ideal choice--its viewfinder and the 35 are a perfect match. I've got a Summaron with goggles, which works fine on both cameras but is a much better fit with the M3's finder. If I had a 35 without goggles, I'd use the M6 even more than I do now.

All that being said, the M3 does have several advantages. I find the viewfinder overall much better than that of the M6. The M6's will flare in certain circumstances, and does it quite often. There are ways to remedy it--but they slow you down by crucial fractions of a second at times and it's just irritating in general.

If the 50 were my main lens, and/or I were wanting to practice getting good at using Sunny 16 instinctively (which, however, you can and should also do with the M6 in order to confirm what its meter tells you), then the M3 is better--the M3's viewfinder is as perfectly matched to the 50 as the M6's is with the 35. And the M3's finder is a lot easier to use with a 90 mm lens, too.

Finally, I don't find the loading of the M3 to be much slower than the M6, once you get used to it. And I found a cheap spare takeup spool on eBay which I carry in my bag. If I'm really going to be shooting fast, I just put a roll of film on the extra spool and keep it in my bag/pocket, so I can just pull it out and pop it in when needed. What is much slower on the M3 is the rewind--I greatly prefer the M6's.

Cost? You'll probably find the M3 to be cheaper by a few hundred dollars. In London, a user M3 goes for around £450, while you won't see an M6 of any flavour at less than £600, and usually you're looking at at least 50-100 quid more than that. M6s with the 0.85 finder and the TTL typically run over £800 owing to comparative rarity and perceived greater utility.

Still, as has been pointed out here, *any* Leica body is fine, as long as it fits your budget. Each has advantages and disadvantages--but you'll never be able to tell from the prints which body a shot was made with. Get the cheapest body you can, and put your money into good glass. (Given the prices of Leica glass nowadays, I'd say go with the Zeiss lenses if you're buying new--they're optically on par in real-world use with the Leica stuff at nearly 1/3 the price.)
 
I have had my M3 for twenty years but now that I have started wearing glasses I find myself picking up my M4-p most often. Now if you want a real entry level experience let me recommend a nice IIIf kit..... most bang for your buck IMHO. I was like many of the M4-p haters that have never owned one, for years I would have been able to spout off the many reasons I would never want one of those, that all melted away when I had a chance to shoot with one and now I am defiantly a convert
 
As I'm sure you'll do Robert: listen to everybody (including Ken Rockwell whose humour I like and who talks a lot of sense), taking all this and your own research into account, and gradually form your own views, keeping an open mind and a willingness to change, sometimes quite dramatically.

For my part, I've got an M7 which I only use as if it was an M6, so if I was beginning again I'd probably get an M6 which of course would be newer than the other models being considered.

The two main factors you'll need to decide on are viewfinder magnification (the standard 0.72 or the 0.85) and internal meter. The first is hard to decide even if you've used both over a period of time. Just trying them for half and hour or even a day or two is better than nothing but isn't foolproof. Although there was a time when I thought I much preferred the 0.85, over the years I've come to prefer the 0.72, simply because it's pleasant viewing and covers all the lenses I'll want to use. I also use a CL and it's 0.6 viewfinder is acceptable, so 0.72 might be seen as a sort of golden mean.

The internal meter is easier to decide on. It's very handy to have one, it's very accurate and you know where you're pointing it. The metering zone is such a large area, depending on the lens in use, that it's not really a spot meter, more a centre-weighted average, and it works very well. But if you decide on a meter-less model the advice in previous posts is very helpful. My CL meter is too much of a true spot meter for my liking, and I'm very happy with the very small Sekonic Twinmate L-208 which I carry with the CL. It's accurate enough for black and white film. (I tried the Gossen Digisix but my sample behaved exactly the same as Dante Stella's, and I couldn't get it to give consistent readings - google for his website if you want more details).

As I'm sure you appreciate, the camera body is only your starting point: you've got other things to think about afterwards: the lenses, each with their own character and followers, the emulsions, developers, etc.

As to the lens aspect of Leicadom: the lenses needn't be the latest and most advanced. Without any doubt whatsoever, the lens that has given me the greatest pleasure and my most enjoyable prints is the very humble 35mm f3.5 Summaron in M mount. I can't stop looking at the images. My lens was made in 1954 and it's permanently fixed to the M7, with my 50 Summicron relegated to the CL! There is something really special in the tones it gives and the "way" it shows its sharpness, the way it delineates its edges. It's not just a lucky one-off either - I had another one in the 90s which I used on an M4-P, and that was exactly the same.

Happy hunting and good luck!
 
It's a difficult question I think, but there are no *wrong* answers. There are no truly terrible cameras in the M lineup. It principally depends on whether you're more a 50mm or 35mm person.

I think an external meter is more flexible, particularly if you're using BW film with a wide exposure latitude.

~S
 
I have owned my present M2 since 1980 and use it often. I bought a M3 shortly thereafter but didn't like the fact that there are no frame lines for 35m lenses and sold it to fund my brand new ( at the time ) M4-P.

I still have my M2 and M4-P and have enjoyed using these cameras for over 30 years.

I have found, that in my case, I seldom use any other lens but the 35mm, 50mm and recently the Voigtlander 15mm Heliar. The little Heliar is a interesting lens.

The accessories I have and you may find useful will be the Leicameter MR4 and the swing-out polarizer.
 
I've owned a M3 for a very long time and I've had the opportunity to try the M2, M4 and M6, as well as the Cosina Voigtlander R3M. For me, the M3 remains the best choice, because my favourite lenses for film are, in order: the 50, 90 and 15 (I use the same lineup on my Canon 5D). I'm not a fan of moderate wide angles, but really like ultrawides, so I'll be using an external VF, anyway.

If I were forced to change, I'd go for the CV, which has the next best VF, of those I have tried, for the lenses I like to use. Of the other 3, I'd pick the classic M4 over the M6, purely because I find the older camera more pleasing as an object and for no other reason
 
I'm just beginning my walk down Leica-lane. After drooling over everything relating to the M3 for a year or two I went and bought the M6. The added convenience of the built-in meter was the kicker for me. I also wear glasses so the 0.72 finder suits me fine.
To each his own I guess, but I don't think you can go wrong with the M6.
 
When I use the M3/M6 set side by side, I have to smile each time I press the shutter release on the M3, reminding me each time that the M3 is built in a way that may be very difficult for Leica to match with later models. Forget surpassing the M3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom