M6, M7, or MP: Which would best suit the following needs?

Best Leica M for 50mm (and in my oppinion for anything >=35) is by a long stretch the M3. It's VF and RF are unmatched by any other Leica (I had all of them and still have an MP, M6, M2) as is it's production quality.

For 50 and if you insist on a built-in meter:
If cost is no consideration get an 0.85 MP (or MP3).
Best value would be a 0.85 M6 non-TTL.

M7 - don't.
ZI - don't.
 
If you totally rely on the internal meter all the time, you might be happy with a camera with AE, like the M7 or ZI. While I prefer to use an external meter and set my shutter speed and forget it, in situations with changing light, AE is pretty useful. Point the camera at a midtone, lock the exposure, recompose, take a picture. Faster than turning the shutter dial, accomplishes the same thing. You also get an indicator of what the shutter speed is in the finder.

The way I look at it, if I'm using an external meter, and making decisions, I like manual. If I'm blindly following the arrows in the viewfinder and just adjusting the shutter speed to match, I might as well be using AE, since that is exactly what it does - turns the shutter dial for you.

Another thing to consider - I don't know which way the shutter speed dial turns on the CL, but in the M6TTL and M7, the dial turns in the same direction as the arrows in the finder to get the correct exposure. On the MP and M6, it turns in the opposite direction. Something to be aware of.

I've had no problems with my M7 or M6. They are both great cameras. I'm sure the MP and ZI are great as well. I wouldn't worry about reliability of any of these. If I were you, I'd look at a .85x mag finder to see how you like it. I'd also look for an M6, M7, or ZI, just based on cost considerations; the MP usually runs more money. The ZI or M6 will be most affordable. If you want .85x, the M7 is probably most affordable; maybe an M6TTL.

I will say, if you are buying used, check the camera out first OR buy from a very reliable store. There could always be problems, no matter what the camera. If you are getting an M7, look for one with the upgraded DX contacts or arrange to have it sent in (it might be free still...). M6's could possibly use a CLA due to age.
 
Last edited:
If you see your M as a wideangle camera, the beautifully built M3 is a pain because of the heavy and bulky lens spectacles or add-on viewfinder you need for anything wider than 50mm – that's why I set my own aside in favour of an M6.

I then bought a brand new M6 0.85 – but had such difficulty in seeing the wideangle frames that I swapped it with my brother for my dad's old M5.

Until I used it for an extended period, I thought the M5 was an eccentric choice by the old man: it has a complex metering system – as Roger pointed out – it is rather big and it is very heavy too. However, I found I could see the 35mm frame as easily as I could with the standard M6, I appreciated being able to see in the finder the shutter speed (you can start with the desired aperture set and then, with eye to finder, click to the correct speed – a kind of manual aperture priority). Above all, I found the built in meter to be very accurate, giving a higher percentage of spot-on exposures than the M6.

The M5 is ugly, and it looks especially daft with the more compact lenses. However, it balances quite nicely with 1.4/50s and 2/90s.

These days, M5s and classic M6s are relatively cheap too. The M6 wins on being compact and a classical good-looker. Personally, I cannot see the point in lashing out the extra money on the modern MP – all you get is the same functionality as an M6 dressed up in M3 clothes. Mais, chacq'un a son gout…

I've not used the ZM, but doesn't it suffer the same immobile rangefinder patch as the Epson R-D1? It's not a major issue, but if you are used to Leitz/Leica's more sophisticated finder it is all too easy, at least with the Epson, to centre the view using the R/F patch and get wonky compositions (at least if you are me). With all the Ms you can use the patch, consciously or not, as a kind of bull's eye.
 
You know, each camera is unique. The M7 is king for quck handling available light. The M6 and MP have basically the same handling characteristics. I also wouldn't give reliablity much consideration either as all three have electronic componnts that can fail. For this reason I think the M6 MP M7 issue is really without merit. I also agree you ought to reconsider a meterless M. It's a very freeing way to shoot and can be extremely precise with a good incident meter - taking the guesswork out of exposure. (Having said this if you are good with a reflected meter, shooting chromes with a m7 is an equally freeing experience just in a different way).

Hey, just because you have a metered m doesn't mean you have to always use it... You could buy an m7 and a good incident meter and use it in manual mode when you wanted this advantage also.

If funds aren't an issue you could get one of each! I like the M2/M7 combination myself. Whatever you do, have fun with it. That will do the most for your photography.
 
Peter: Right you are. (I missed the M2-style frame counter.) :eek:

Edit: The camera I pointed out appears to have a battery cover where the self-timer should be on an M3. Curious...


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
An M3 with an MR meter gives a rather good meter with all the positives of the M3 finder etc. The battery 'problem' is easily overcome by using hearing-aid batteries and a spacer. Just unblock only one of the air-holes to make them last half a year or more.
 
Go for the .85 MP. or the .85 M6 .I have no problem with the 35mm frame lilnes.The .85 M6 wa only available in Black, no Chrome bodies if that's important to you.
 
If you are shooting it exclusively with a 50mm you would have to be on drugs to get a 0.72 body over a 0.85. My advice: MP 0.85 if you can afford it and a M6 0.85 if you cant (and you can have the VF upgrade if you wish to reduce whiteout etc). In my view the 0.85 is miles better than the 0.72 for 50mm use. The lines are larger, focus more accurate and there is a much more natural feel in use.
 
Exhuming an old thread. This may be an odd question, but has anyone ever established, roughly or otherwise, which focal lengths M-body finders in .72 and .85 work out to? I mean, if one uses the entire finder as a frameline?
 
Biggles said:
Exhuming an old thread. This may be an odd question, but has anyone ever established, roughly or otherwise, which focal lengths M-body finders in .72 and .85 work out to? I mean, if one uses the entire finder as a frameline?
Click to expand...

... 0.72x ~ 28mm

....0.85x ~ 35mm

.... if one cares about parallax compensation.
 
Thank you! Since my only other favored focal length in rangerfinders is 40mm, and since I have such a lens, I'm definitely gonna look at .85 finders in absence of proper framelines.

As for Parallax, I'll just have my physician write me a prescription for it.
 
Biggles said:
After a few years of running around with a CL, I'm convinced it's an awful body to use my V2 50mm Summilux on. That dense, heavy lens seriously unbalances the camera. I'm therefore thinking of buying a user-grade conventional M body so I can use that wonderful Summilux.

I have absolutely no desire to own a meterless body, though, so it's M6, M7, or MP, if I stick to Leica-made. Seriously looking at Zeiss Ikon, too, but...

I would be using it strictly with the 50mm focal length. I don't like the look of anything wider than 40, and I don't enjoy using telephotos on rangefinders. A camera optimised for 28mm or 35mm lenses would be wasted on me. I'm keeping my CLs to use my 40.

Degree of automation, type of meter readout, rewind, black vs silver...none of that matters to me. Price isn't much of a factor, either, as long as I stay in the user-grade used market. Rangefinder accuracy, though, does matter. If any of these three has an edge over the others as regards their rangefinders either being more stable, more precise, or just plain easier to focus, an f/1.4 lens wide-open would be my excuse for wanting to know. I do an awful lot of low-light stuff.

So, what's the knee-jerk answer for the ideal metered, 50mm Summilux rear cap for photographing black cats in coal cellars?
Click to expand...

You forgot one. M5. My M5 balances very nicely with an 8.5cm/2.0 Nikkor, 5.0cm/1.4 Nikkor and 50mm/2.0 D.R. Summicron. No reason an M5 wouldn't be perfect for a 50mm/1.4 Summilux. Perfect balance and the best meter ever installed in a camera body.
That's my story and I've got the Kodachromes to prove it.

ps: No flare viewfinder as well.

and one more thing......the M5 works perfectly with a 28mm lens. Got the Kodachromes to prove that as well.
 
Last edited:
Actually saw an M5 for sale at a local dealer two weekends ago. Thing was the size of two M6s swaged together. The guy behind the counter had rickets from being in its shade.

I'm still kinda biased towards littler ones that can subsist on grass.

pho.jpg


Just lousy with that 300-gram lens on it, though.
 
Real men shoot with the M5. While enjoying a real burger & fries at the East Texas Burger Company. During a pause in street shooting activites.
Y'all wish 2 M6s were as good as one M5. :D :) :eek: :cool:
 
M5 is the one (I'm partial to my only M though)
I had a Voigtlander 50mm f/1.1 at one time, and it balanced nicely. the 50 Lux should be no problem,
The Semi-Spot meter is very good!
It has the quietest shutter of any M,
I have a black chrome, but the silver chrome is a great looking M also.
Only drawback, in dark lit places, the meter and shutter speeds are hard to see. But, in regular indoor lighting... not an issue.
You will like the weight/balance of the M5
 


The amazing thing is how different the M3, M6, M7, MP all feel and look to the hand and eye. I really think you can't go wrong with any of them.
 
Last edited:
I would go for either a 0,85 M6 TTL or a MP 0,85. With the 50 mm 0,85 works extremely well. If money is no object, get a MP 0.85 with only the 25/50/90 lines rather than having to contend with the 50/75 clutter.
As for best viewfinder, the Zeiss beats them all with a 1:1 50 mm and the AE function.
The M7 is nice, but apart from the 32 sec "time" versus the Zeiss 8 sec (in AE mode) you are left with a lot of change when getting the Zeiss versus the M7.
My pick would be the MP 0.85 - or the M6TTL 0.85 and have DAG remove the 75/28 frames. I have a M6 LHSA with the 0,85 set-up - but I find that I gravitate to the Zeiss for the finder. I dont like the bottom rewind, but it is not a deal breaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom