M6 viewfinder under-rated?

[windraider]

Most website & forums rate the M6 lowly for its flare-prone viewfinder & RF patch white-out in certain lighting conditions. On the other hand they rave about the fabulous viewfinder of the MP & M3.

Now I wear glasses but had never had the viewfinder or RF patch white-out on me when handling the M5 and M6 (although there were a few occasions I couldn’t find the RF patch when my fingers blocked the tiny RF window 🙄 or when my eyes weren’t centered). I also don’t quite grasp the issue of viewfinder flare – I mean there are harsh lighting conditions that make looking thru the viewfinder difficult but this had no direct impact to the RF patch. I only have trouble focusing under low light or when subject has low contrast. Am I missing something here?😕

To satisfy my curiosity, I got my hands on a M7( fitted with a 0.72x MP finder) and a very good condition M3 (reputed for its flare proof viewfinder) and last weekend I decided to compare them with an early unmodified Classic M6 s/no 165xxxx.
Apart from the difference in LED display, I found no significant difference in the viewing & focusing quality between the M7 & M6. The condition of the M3 finder that I had was clean, clear & bright. I found it slightly dimmer and bluish with the yellowish tinge on the RF patch plus the greater magnification, as described in most forums & websites – but the RF patch seemed a tad less contrasty than the newer Ms, perhaps due to age.

Anyway I mounted them on a tripod and with my peepers glued to the viewfinders, I swiveled and angled the whole evening in a room lit with different light sources from florescent tubes to a single incandescent bulb. Findings:
1) Couldn’t get any of the RF patches to white-out. The only time I got a white-out was when I shone an LED torch at close distance into the viewfinder (ie the large clear window directly in front of the viewfinder), but this was the same effect for all 3 cameras.
2) Between M7 & M6 - no significant improvement or deterioration of viewing quality between cameras regardless of light conditions.
3) Between M3 & M6 – M3 finder was dimmer and harder to focus under low light but no significant advantage noticed in using the M3’s finder in various lighting conditions.

All these got me thinking, are all the noises made about the difference in quality of viewfinders just plain hype?
Are bored equipment collectors making mountains out of molehills on undiscernable differences that have little real world advantage for real world photography?
While it is fun to discuss the little unique quirks in each model, I think it would be helpful to new & aspiring Leica (or RF or any camera) owners to be objective when giving our opinions on the different models and downplay the hype on minute details.
My opinions on Leicas (if anybody is interested):
1) Any model is great for photography – it is more important that they are in good working condition.
2) Difference is in features (ie magnification, framelines, metering, rewind crank, egronomics etc) – get the model with the features that suit your needs
3) After (1) &(2) no model has any discernible advantage over the other that would make a difference in real world photography.


PEACE:angel:

 

[oscroft]

I got my M6 Classic earlier this year - my first ever Leica. I'm certainly not a collector, and while I'd heard of the viewfinder flare issue with the M6, it wasn't something I'd really given much thought to.

I've now shot about 20 rolls with the M6, and have used it in a wide variety of lighting conditions (in different parts of the world), and I can say for certain that I do sometimes get viewfinder flare. And once or twice I have even noticed the RF patch white-out.

However, the flare is pretty rare and really doesn't stop me from framing. And the RF patch white-out is ever more rare, and just moving the camera slightly is enough to make it go away so I can focus. But apart from the rare occurrences of the problems, the VF is excellent - almost as good as the VF in my Bessa R4A.

So yes, the M6 VF problem is definitely real, and it isn't only perfectionist collectors who notice it. But in real life shooting it isn't a big deal.

 

[alexz]

I also was quite doubtful in all that M6 flare issue that produced quite loud noise on the Net, until experienced one in my M6 few weeks after purchasing (used, late Classic, non-modified). It became quite noticeable on sunny days, in particular in portrait orientation sometimes severely interfaring with focusing which is quite annoying. Having said that, it only happens when a stray rays hit the finder and at times the patch is just indiscernable. Quite annoying at a times I must confess.
I plan on VF upgrade on my M6 in a foresable future.

 

[Rafael]

It sounds as though you did a very good test windraider. Thanks for sharing the results with us.

I agree with the other posters who have thus far claimed that the issues with the M6 finder are real. I have an 0.85x M6 Classic which is reputed to be even more flare-prone than the 0.72x M6. I have had flare and white-out problems, but only under artificial light. If money were no object, I would get the VF upgraded. And I likely still will sometime in the future. But I agree with you that the problems are manageable and certainly don't detract hugely from the usability of the camera. Nevertheless, these are problems with the M6 finder that I have never experienced with my M4.

 

[ferider]

All these got me thinking, are all the noises made about the difference in quality of viewfinders just plain hype?
Are bored equipment collectors making mountains out of molehills on undiscernable differences that have little real world advantage for real world photography?

yes and no.

I find the 0.72 M6 ("classic") to be one of the most usable Leicas.

The rare times that the VF flares, I deal with it. Typically it is a situation
in which the lens might flare as well.

I think it depends on magnification (the .85 flares more) and on how
you hold it. In portrait situations, I hold it viewfinder down, most people
hold it viewfinder up. Maybe that causes more problems.

I like the M3 for magnification/EBL mostly. You might not have had
the best sample.

Roland.

 

[Pablito]

I have two late M6 classics, one with and one without the finder upgrade. The upgrade helps most in very low light. In normal lighting, it's barely noticeable. I agree w/ windraider that much has been made of a relatively minor issue. It all comes down to useability. My M4-P, for instance, probably has a better finder than my M6 without the upgrade, and it's a slightly smoother camera. But I only use it for work that requires 3 bodies because I'd rather have the meter in the M6.

 

[Tim Gray]

I've had problems with flare and whiteout - aren't they actually the same thing? Anyway, I get it when there's a light source to the left of the finder. Not sure of the exact angle, but switching from landscape to portrait (or vice versa) helps in focusing since that moves the light source from the left of the viewfinder to the top or bottom. I'm also not sure if there is a difference when there is only one light source or multiple.

I would imagine shooting in portrait with the viewfinder towards the ground would avoid the whiteout most of the time.

I find it annoying. Sure I can work around it, but it is annoying and will be either upgrading my viewfinder or camera at some point to not have to deal with it.

 

[joebt]

I have a 50 year old M3 DS and a M6TTL 0.72. The flare, whiteout, whatever you want to call it is real. I was about to just buy an MP and be done with the M6TTL.

In addition, my M6TTL will not focus my 90mm Cron. I have taken shots where it looks focused in the rangefinder patch and stopped down to F/8 and the picture is still out of focus. My 35 Cron, 50 Cron, and 50 Lux all work fine on the same M6TTL body, and the 90 works perfectly on my M3 DS.

How much does it cost to get the viewfinder upgraded?

I never considered it before, but that's not a bad idea at all.

I still say the M3 Viewfinder is light years ahead of the M6TTL 0.72 viewfinder. In fact, I'm looking at buying the M3 Single Stroke right now.

 

[Rafael]

How much does it cost to get the viewfinder upgraded?

If I remember correctly, DAG will do it for about $275.

 

[alternatve]

When my RF patch flares out or when I get viewfinder flare, I move the camera or my body. It works and it doesn't take much to do, so I don't get the hype about it.

Samuel

 

[Lance]

My M6 whites out when the place I have to focus is darker than the surrounding or there is a light coming more or less directly into the viewfinder - or the frame line illuminating window as I believe this is where the problem is.

Have you ever tried covering the illumination window when the patch whites out? The problem disappear with the framelines...

I don't know if there is a change in design between the different models except the M3 that has a more advanced rangefinder design.

The Leicagoodies' Shade seem to deal with the problem in some cases but with some lightloss to the framelines.

If the upgrade only deals with the rangefinder and not with the frameline illuminating window, then I can't see how it should help anything except actual flare to the rangefinder. I myself have not have any problems with flare, only whiteout of the patch.

 

[JNewell]

Correct (as in exactly correct 🙁 ) eye position mitigates or eliminates the flare issue. It isn't very obvious, especially with the .72 and .58 finders, but the Leica M rangefinder is sensitive to eye position. Put a magnifier on, put the camera on a tripod, focus on a near-ish object and then move your eye around and you'll see the images go a little out of alignment. I have an M6 classic .72x with the retrofit and an M6 classic .85x without. Some day I'll get the .85x retrofitted too, but it's very usable as is, and the occasional flare reminds me to keep my eye centered.

 

[kevin m]

Correct (as in exactly correct ) eye position mitigates or eliminates the flare issue.

Still, the problem is unique to the finder in the later cameras, M6, M6TTL, etc. I owned an M2 along with my TTL's and it never flared no matter what I did with my eye. Some people seem to experience it, some don't. If you do and it bothers you, then have DAG do the flnder upgrade.

Have him remove some extraneous framelines while he's in there, too. 😉

 

[shadowfox]

Two types of people in this regard:

- Type one, those who tried to fix or get around a problem before using the camera extensively and actually experience the problem.

- Type two, those who dived right in and discover that the problem is not a big deal, or decide much later to switch after making sure that they can't live with the problem.

Usually in the end, Type two people end up with a bunch of keeper pictures; while Type one people end up with a bunch of hyperlinks to articles, charts and graphs.

Just an observation. 😀

 

[JNewell]

Another observation...this was not as much of a problem before the advent of the World Wide Web.

Really.

The WWW has changed what we "know," and how important we think things are.

 

[Lance]

I think it's quite important. If I loose a shot because my subject is darker than the surroundings and it's impossible to focus without moving, turning the camera or some other work-around, then it's not not important.

 

[drewbarb]

I used an M3 for years, and decided I wanted to try a camera with a lower magnification finder, and maybe be able to use a Rapidwinder, so I bought an M6 classic. From the start, I had a lot of trouble with finder flare. I had not read about the issue, but I assumed there was a problem with my camera, so I sent it off for repair. The service tech told me about the "known flare problem", and said that my camera was fine. Some people seem to have more trouble with this that others, and perhaps I was spoiled by several years of shooting with the M3 before I ever shot with a later M, but I found the M6 almost unusable in comparison. I tried a couple of other bodies, M6 classics and an M4-P, but they all gave me trouble with flare to some degree. Now I shoot with a pair of M3's. I have a goggled 35mm lens, and I prefer the high mag finder anyway- the 50mm lens is my normal and gets easily 50% of my shooting- but it's largely the finders flaring that drove me back to the M3. It didn't happen all the time, but just about every time I went out to shoot with the later cameras, I would have the RF patch disappear on my at some point, and it took my attention away from my subjects. I agree that a lot of people make a big noise on the net about these little problems, probably often as a result of reading about them rather than experiencing them, but I was not one of those.

I'm curious to try an M2- I'd love to use a 35mm lens without goggles- but I know the M3 won't flare on me. The light path in the M3's finder is completely different from the later M's, and it makes a difference to me. My surroundings and my subjects should get all my attention, not my equipment.

 

[Pablito]

Don't expect a miracle cure if you get the M6 finder upgrade, it will still flare sometimes. Most noticeable improvement is low light focusing.

Other than that I agree with shadowfox😀 😀

joebt, you need to get your 90mm Summicron looked at. It's the lens not the finder that's causing the focus problem.

 

[Dogman]

I have two M6 classics. I've had them for 5-6 years, bought used in "like new minus" condition with the original boxes, etc. Neither look very new anymore. I've shot a lot of film through them and I've experienced the white-out of the rangefinder patch on a very few occasions. Considering how many times I've missed focus due to my own shortcomings, the times I've missed exposures by my own errors, the times I've performed other bone-headed manuevers that screwed up my pictures, the white-outs don't compare.

 

[Tim Gray]

Considering how many times I've missed focus due to my own shortcomings, the times I've missed exposures by my own errors, the times I've performed other bone-headed manuevers that screwed up my pictures, the white-outs don't compare.

I'd have to agree with this statement.