M3, M5 or M6

[Planar1.4]

I want a good working camera for a 50/1.4 or 50/1
I worry a bit about the age of the M3, and don't want to compete with collectors for a good working camera- but do like the idea of the brightness of the finder and magnification level. Lack of a meter may not be too much of an issue- I shoot a lot of ambient light B&W- so f1-2 at 60-125 would be my common setting. A hand held meter for outdoor use- and I have a few from cinematography and know how to use....

The M5 seems like a great compromise- but I also worry here about the "collectable status" making me pay more than what I need for a good worker. I know it is larger, and that the meter needs to be calibrated to work w/ non-mercury batteries (can the user do this, or must it be sent in?) and the finder is less magnification.

an M6 w/ .85 seems like a great option- flare issues aside- but price is high right now it seems.

what would this highly esteemed group recommend for me?

 

[SolaresLarrave]

The M6 is the very best choice. It's new enough so that you won't have any problems of compatibility. IMHO, the flare problems have been greatly exaggerated and you can avoid them by upgrading the viewfinder later. As long as you know that backlit subjects will cause it, you can avoid flare happening.

 

[dcsang]

M3.

Seriously.

Do not fear the age of these cameras - a decent user can be had for $600 USD - recent CLA's can be done for a decent price and it can take a beating and keep on snapping great photos.

The finder is gorgeous and second only to the Bessas in terms of brightness (imho). Hand metering is a breeze and will be a non-issue.

It would be your least expensive option I believe.

Cheers
Dave

 

[SolaresLarrave]

BTW, if you're using 50mm glass, the 0.58 will be too small. In fact, that magnification works best with wide angle lenses. Aim for any M6 with 0.72 magnification: easier to find, lower in price, good with all focal lenghts. At least, that's my experience! 🙂

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Dave is right too! I have an M3 that works like a charm. It simply happens that I usually recommend the M6 because not everybody can do sunny 16 well unless they have a lot of practice, and also it's easier to work with a camera with a built-in meter.

 

[rover]

M3.

Seriously.

Do not fear the age of these cameras - a decent user can be had for $600 USD - recent CLA's can be done for a decent price and it can take a beating and keep on snapping great photos.

The finder is gorgeous and second only to the Bessas in terms of brightness (imho). Hand metering is a breeze and will be a non-issue.

It would be your least expensive option I believe.

Cheers
Dave

Here here, I second the motion of our esteemed friend from Toronto.

 

[Ben Z]

I want a good working camera for a 50/1.4 or 50/1
I worry a bit about the age of the M3, and don't want to compete with collectors for a good working camera

Collectors only want mint physical condition, unless it's rare like a black-paint version, so a good-working camera with some nicks and scratches will not be priced that high. The problem is more of assuring yourself that one is truly a "good working camera". Unless it has had an overhaul by Leica or DAG in the last maybe 5 years at most, it's quite likely you'll need to get it done ($300). And there's always the possibility the rangefinder prism will come apart, which is another $250 to fix. I got my M3 for $750, overhauled about 2 yrs ago by DAG, the prism is fine so far but I can see the glazing around the periphery that's a telltale sign it could separate if it gets knocked hard. As as result (and also because I use a 35mm lens often), my M3 is more "because I always wanted one" than as a daily user. I would never go away on a trip with it. Also, I happen to have lucked out and it came with the add-on quick-loading spool, a standard flash port, and I picked up a rewind crank accessory for $50. Otherwise, the M3 is much slower to operate than the later ones.

The M5 seems like a great compromise- but I also worry here about the "collectable status" making me pay more than what I need for a good worker. I know it is larger, and that the meter needs to be calibrated to work w/ non-mercury batteries (can the user do this, or must it be sent in?) and the finder is less magnification.

Same thing applies as above w. respect to collectors. You can calibrate the meter yourself, but you will need the instructions on how to access the trim pots, and will take some patience and trial-and-error. FWIW the M5 is the only Leica M body I would never consider owning (well, ok, the CL but that's really a Minolta). Part of the appeal of the Leica to me is the size, and the M5 is b-i-g.

an M6 w/ .85 seems like a great option- flare issues aside- but price is high right now it seems.

The M6 classic with .85 tends to be expensive because it was only made for a short time and in small numbers. The M6TTL .85 sells for about the same or very slightly less than the .72. I don't have that much problem with the flare on my M6s. It happens rarely, but repositioning the camera back axis in relation to my face by a couple of mm's at most makes it vanish and is by now a reflex action on my part.

One thing to be considering if you get the f/1 is that they intrude on the viewfinder view quite a bit. The closer the 50mm frame is to the edges of the total view (eg M3 > M6.85 > the rest) the more it blocks. It's especially bad with the latest f/1 where the lens hood is not detachable.

These are substantial purchases, which I wouldn't do without checking it out yourself. The best-intentioned and most clearly-worded advice on the 'net is still the subjective opinion of an individual.

 

[Paulbe]

Either the M3 or the M6 will work great. The M3 feels heftier if that's something you want. But the M6 is really smooth too. If you are going to use either the Noctilux or the 75/1.4 you'll apprecaite the .9 finder in the M3. But with one of those fancy 1.25x magnifiers Leica sells---the M6 will do just fine.

You will have to be VERY careful anyway focusing the low light lens---they aren't kidding when they say DOF is tiny! Net result---either M3 or M6 and Dave is right---you can save a bunch of money with the M3 and a good CLA.

Paul

 

[FPjohn]

M3 then M6

M3 then M6

Hello:

A good M3, which you can evaluate before purchase, will do fine. A M6 is a bit more versatile but you surrender finder area and brightness. Both are worthy choices.

Best of light (Noctilux?) to you.

yours
Frank

 

[Planar1.4]

Great!
Thanks for everything-

I'll keep my eyes open for a good M3 I think- and recommendations on who to send to for service would be great!

So the Noctilux hood blocks viewfinder eh? Not good.

I'll start a new thread on lens, as this is the major expense....

 

[GeneW]

If you like shooting with a 35mm, you might also want to look for an M2. It has 35mm framelines but is otherwise M3ish in character.

Gene

 

[Planar1.4]

Yep, I don't know what it is but I have never been happy with my 35mm lens.
I just don't think that is for me- I've put probably 100 rolls through my G1 with it and never has one shot been outstanding to me. I like the 90 much better.
If I want wide, I go for wide. The 35 seems like a compromise lens to me the way I use it- and everything tends to look like it was shot with a P&S.
Just me I know- but at least I know what I like, right?

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

If you want to hit the ground running, get a M6TTL, new enough to not worry about CLA's yet. If you want the classic look and feel, get the M3 and send it to DAG (Don Goldberg) for a CLA. Can't lose either way.