M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
m4 or m6??
- Thread starter xavi
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 55
- Views: Views 4K
Andy Aitken
Registered Loser
Nothing wrong with the M6?!?!
How about that all the framelines are the wrong size.
You already have the best camera Leica ever made. I bet you'd regret trading it for an M6. If you must have a meter the VCII works great - yes it's different from having a TTL meter but in many ways I find it better.
How about that all the framelines are the wrong size.
You already have the best camera Leica ever made. I bet you'd regret trading it for an M6. If you must have a meter the VCII works great - yes it's different from having a TTL meter but in many ways I find it better.
pvdhaar
Peter
That argument doesn't fly..nobbylon said:
If built-in meters were great, why would Nikon (and the same holds for Canon and anyone else for that matter) have upped the number of measuring matrix elements to a staggering 1005 over the years?
Answer: to compensate for the fact that built-in meters measure reflectance, and not light.
The only true reason for a built-in meter is convenience..
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Not so sure that's so clear, really? I used unmetered Ms only for years. Never owned an M5 until recently, so the M6 was the first metered M I owned - bought two in 1984. I was and remain very happy to have a meter readout in the finder so that when, for example, I turn from my sister and her husband in the window of the restaurant on Mothers Day to my mother over in the shadows I can, if I need to, adjust the exposure. (In real life, I'll just read the difference once and adjust w/o the meter thereafter, but having the meter onboard is a real plus in many cases.) There is absolutely no question that the nicest M body I've every owned, which is quite a few, is an M4, but that doesn't make it the best photogaphic tool, and certainly doesn't make it *everyone's* best tool.
Fair and forgotten point. Actually, what bugs me more than the size is (1) the jumble (the 75mm frames particularly annoy me) and (2) the change in shape of the 90mm frames (which I use a lot). The best framelines IMO were in the M3 (as long as you didn't want 35mm!), with the M2/M4/M5 (and, yes, M4-2) up next.
dreamsandart
Well-known
It all comes down to... how you use your camera, and not everyone is the same here.
I love my M4 - there I said it - for its basic features, built quality, 'history' [with me], and... how it handles, or the 'style' of making photography with it. There is something special and basic about looking at the light and knowing what the exposure setting is from experience, or taking a reading from a handheld meter or looking down at an MR meter and then bringing the camera up only when the exposure is needed. The advantages over the M6? The finder is the main point with more accurate frames (still not perfect), and a rangefinder patch that doesn't white-out very often, also the over-all built feel, a self-timer (and yes it does come in handy with family and friends), and even the 'cool' factor with the engravings and brass top plate... Wetzlar MOJO...
As I've said, I had an M6 for many years and it did what I asked of it without any hick-ups and its a very nice camera. Sometimes its just nice to throw the camera over your shoulder and not think about an extra thing like a light meter, and with slide film light meters are a bit more important. The M6 can do everything an M4 can do with a bit less 'cool' maybe, but makes up for it with a meter on board - if you need it. Like a handheld meter you can take a reading and then not think too much about exposures down the line, but it is a lot faster working with changing light. And with a TTL meter its fairly easy to see where you are taking a meter reading from, an advantage in difficult light. As for the frames, once you understand the differences in camera frame to negative you can make the adjustments.
The best Leica... maybe the M5. If you can work with its size, it has the most advanced feature set, best meter, built like a tank with the Wetzlar finish and quality, and handles great.
I love my M4 - there I said it - for its basic features, built quality, 'history' [with me], and... how it handles, or the 'style' of making photography with it. There is something special and basic about looking at the light and knowing what the exposure setting is from experience, or taking a reading from a handheld meter or looking down at an MR meter and then bringing the camera up only when the exposure is needed. The advantages over the M6? The finder is the main point with more accurate frames (still not perfect), and a rangefinder patch that doesn't white-out very often, also the over-all built feel, a self-timer (and yes it does come in handy with family and friends), and even the 'cool' factor with the engravings and brass top plate... Wetzlar MOJO...
As I've said, I had an M6 for many years and it did what I asked of it without any hick-ups and its a very nice camera. Sometimes its just nice to throw the camera over your shoulder and not think about an extra thing like a light meter, and with slide film light meters are a bit more important. The M6 can do everything an M4 can do with a bit less 'cool' maybe, but makes up for it with a meter on board - if you need it. Like a handheld meter you can take a reading and then not think too much about exposures down the line, but it is a lot faster working with changing light. And with a TTL meter its fairly easy to see where you are taking a meter reading from, an advantage in difficult light. As for the frames, once you understand the differences in camera frame to negative you can make the adjustments.
The best Leica... maybe the M5. If you can work with its size, it has the most advanced feature set, best meter, built like a tank with the Wetzlar finish and quality, and handles great.
oscroft
Veteran
With respect, that in no way counters the argument that photographers want built-in meters (which is the argument that you claim doesn't fly).
nobbylon
Veteran
Peter,
not quite sure what point you are making. Yes I agree with you that the reason meters where put in cameras was for the convenience but that's what I was saying. A lot of photogs like the convenience of an inbuilt meter.
I've used cameras with inbuilt meters since 70's and the only times when i've had exposures wrong was my own fault not using AE intelligently. I use my R's in mainly aperture spot mode and manual now and then and have found the M6 spot meter superb. Have not had a bad exposure yet with it.
I think inbuilt meters are great and yes Nikon and Canon have developed their systems to the n'th degree but aren't these matrix systems designed like this to out smart so to speak, tricky lighting situations for AE modes? It's all about convenience. If you use the internal spot meters and meter how you like then results will hopefully be as you want them. As I said in my original post, for me an M was about carrying as little as possible. Going to places and not looking like a tourist with a huge slr and camera bag full of goodies. Knowing that I can slip camera with lens in my overcoat pocket.
My personal list of requirements was,
1/ pockatable with lens
2/ strong
3/ meter
4/ LEICA
As a last thought I would say my perfect M (film) would be an MP with an M6 rewind.
Not for build quality or brass top or cool factor but simply because its the latest version of a manual M. Funny how Leica chose to put a meter in it
kind regards all john
not quite sure what point you are making. Yes I agree with you that the reason meters where put in cameras was for the convenience but that's what I was saying. A lot of photogs like the convenience of an inbuilt meter.
I've used cameras with inbuilt meters since 70's and the only times when i've had exposures wrong was my own fault not using AE intelligently. I use my R's in mainly aperture spot mode and manual now and then and have found the M6 spot meter superb. Have not had a bad exposure yet with it.
I think inbuilt meters are great and yes Nikon and Canon have developed their systems to the n'th degree but aren't these matrix systems designed like this to out smart so to speak, tricky lighting situations for AE modes? It's all about convenience. If you use the internal spot meters and meter how you like then results will hopefully be as you want them. As I said in my original post, for me an M was about carrying as little as possible. Going to places and not looking like a tourist with a huge slr and camera bag full of goodies. Knowing that I can slip camera with lens in my overcoat pocket.
My personal list of requirements was,
1/ pockatable with lens
2/ strong
3/ meter
4/ LEICA
As a last thought I would say my perfect M (film) would be an MP with an M6 rewind.
Not for build quality or brass top or cool factor but simply because its the latest version of a manual M. Funny how Leica chose to put a meter in it
kind regards all john
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
xavi
Member
UFFF!!, i can't belive this. So many questions in one!!.
I like my M4, but i like it because it permit me to take pictures. It's just a tool, nice tool, ok, but a tool. So, if i can "reach" another tool (quite similar by the way) that permit me to take "better" pictures, i'll do it. But, i'm not sure if M6 is better tool than M4, not more beautiful or somethihs like that. And the light meter is important for me.
Please, peace!!!
I like my M4, but i like it because it permit me to take pictures. It's just a tool, nice tool, ok, but a tool. So, if i can "reach" another tool (quite similar by the way) that permit me to take "better" pictures, i'll do it. But, i'm not sure if M6 is better tool than M4, not more beautiful or somethihs like that. And the light meter is important for me.
Please, peace!!!
nobbylon
Veteran
Magus, sorry what I should have said was ' selective exposure meter' which is more spot type rather than average,
regards john
regards john
photogdave
Shops local
I own both and use them both for different purposes. I don't really like the M6 meter but it's handy in situation where an incident meter won't work. So the M6 gets high speed B&W film and I use it for shooting candids in low light.
The M4 usually has colour slide or slow B&W for special purpose, holiday, family photos etc. where I can take my time.
During the darker months my M6 lives in my bag on a daily basis. Now that it's bright and sunny, it's the M4.
Xavi, I would keep the M4 and if budget is a concern, try and pick up a nice used Bessa from the classifieds here, and you'll have a fine rangefinder camera with good metering.
The M4 usually has colour slide or slow B&W for special purpose, holiday, family photos etc. where I can take my time.
During the darker months my M6 lives in my bag on a daily basis. Now that it's bright and sunny, it's the M4.
Xavi, I would keep the M4 and if budget is a concern, try and pick up a nice used Bessa from the classifieds here, and you'll have a fine rangefinder camera with good metering.
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
The M6 metering pattern, at least as tested by Modern and Pop Photo back in 84/85, looked pretty much like the old Nikon center-weighted averaging, IIRC.
The M5, ahh yes. Thing is, it's not quite the same platform. So much to like and prefer there on so many grounds, but it just doesn't "read" the same to the hands. That's totally personal (but this whole discussion is about personal opinions).
For me, head says M6 classic, especially in the .85x version because of the lenses I use...heart says M4...but really, just give me one and let me take pictures....
The M5, ahh yes. Thing is, it's not quite the same platform.
So much to like and prefer there on so many grounds, but it just doesn't "read" the same to the hands. That's totally personal (but this whole discussion is about personal opinions).For me, head says M6 classic, especially in the .85x version because of the lenses I use...heart says M4...but really, just give me one and let me take pictures....
venchka
Veteran
I say go for the average.
M4 + M6 / 2 = M5
Sell the M4. Buy an M5. Maybe you will have a bit of change left over. A nano second after your index finger finds the shutter speed dial you will ask yourself why EVERY camera isn't made the same way. The viewfinder is equal to the M4. A week after you've had it the size won't matter. The meter. Ah yes, the meter. The best light meter I have ever used, in a camera or in my hand.
There you have it. Fit & finish & build equal to or better than the M4. The viewfinder and meter the M6 wishes it had. The best user layout of virtually any camera ever. The M5.
Or not. It is too big and too ugly afterall.
M4 + M6 / 2 = M5
Sell the M4. Buy an M5. Maybe you will have a bit of change left over. A nano second after your index finger finds the shutter speed dial you will ask yourself why EVERY camera isn't made the same way. The viewfinder is equal to the M4. A week after you've had it the size won't matter. The meter. Ah yes, the meter. The best light meter I have ever used, in a camera or in my hand.
There you have it. Fit & finish & build equal to or better than the M4. The viewfinder and meter the M6 wishes it had. The best user layout of virtually any camera ever. The M5.
Or not. It is too big and too ugly afterall.
Artorius
Caribbean Traveler
I think it depends on how you shoot. I have found the internal meter of the M6 slows me down. I get the camera to my eye, see the red arrows before I even think of focus or framing, and concentrate on getting them lined up properly. I find the shot I wanted is usually gone before the arrows are correct. Now, with my M3 and either the Leica MR, or the Sekonic L308-s I take a reading before the camera gets eye level, and can keep shooting until the light condition change. It is so nice to look into the viewfinder without the annoying red LEDs. Sometimes I pull the battery out of the 6 and use it like my 3. If you shoot like me, then the M4 is a keeper. But, if you need to measure every pic, go for the M6. I love my M6 for the finder frames, 28 75 90. If I got my hands on an M4, the finder would be upgraded to the M6/MP finder when sent in for a CLA.
pvdhaar
Peter
I merely wanted to point out that there are two ways to use a meter, and that built-in meters lure you into going into one of these two modes..nobbylon said:
One is to meter every scene as it presents itself in the finder, and adjust the exposure untill the meter needle is in the middle. At this point, you have to compensate for the subject. Dark subject need under- and light objects need over exposure from the measured value. Everytime you change subject, you adjust the exposure..
The other is to use a middle grey subject, measure only once, and then don't touch the controls anymore untill the light changes. For this way of working, you can use a built-in meter, but you could just as well use a handheld one; the light doesn't constantly change..
richard_l
Well-known
The M6 may be more practical for some who use polarizers or contrast filters, since metering through the filter makes it unnecessary to compensate manually for the filter factor.
Richard
Richard
pvdhaar
Peter
Polarizers and ND-grads are an SLR's forte I guess. But even then, the recommended procedure for using ND-grads is to measure the darkest part without a filter first.richard_l said:
alexz
Well-known
ErikFive said:If you want a built in meter on your camera go with the M6. I didnt like that I had to take my eye of the viewfinder to check the meter.
If you have a problem with the finder just buy a SHADE from Leicagoodies:
http://www.leicagoodies.com/ 13$ incl shipping or uppgrade to the MP finder.
Edit: I dont have the built in meter in my head as some here has
Eric, did you have the chance to actually use leicagoodie's SHADE ? I was wondering how good it works in reality as reported by actual users. I also experience flareness of my M6's which at a time is really annoying, but the RF upgrade to MP's isn't currently an option due to necessity to ship the camera abroad back and forth..(can be done locally in my country), perhaps is some far future...
So if their patch is indeed as effective in real situations as they advertise, I'd tend to think 13-15$ to be well spent...
alexz
Well-known
Thanks. In fact I was a bit doubtful in regard of farmelins/focusing patch brightness once their shade is attached since it appears to limit the light entering the window.
But perhaps just a mere of 13-15$ worth the shoot...
But perhaps just a mere of 13-15$ worth the shoot...
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited: