M6 vs M4

U

Unregistered

Guest
I am a somewhat advanced young photographer who is interested street shooting, and is aspiring to become a photojournalist. i am wondering if you knoweldgable people would be able to shed some light on the distinction between the m6 and m4 models. would i be better off saving some cash and going with the m4, or should i spend the extra amount for the m6. my basic set up would include one of those bodies and a reasonable priced lens (35mm or 50mm). i do believe that the m4 has no meter, if i choose that do you recommend i get one- or just trial and error until i master the art of light.

background: i love shooting street shots, i have a contax g, little by little my mind is demanding that i get a leica. future plans going to college for photography.

thanks for your help!


Eric Munster
 
What's wrong with the Contax G? If you have the 45mm get the 28mm and hit the streets.

If you are set on a Leica get an M4-P. Same as an M6 but no meter. Will cost less than an M4 and it will have the frame lines for the 28mm which the M4 doesn't have.

Good luck!
 
Save al little on the M4/M6 and get a nice M2 instead - spend teh saved money on a newer summicron 2,0 35 mm - the one just before asph, perhaps you can even afford a handheld meter to have on the side :)
 
Dear unregistered: I think you're going to get a lot of biased opinions and red herrings. From the very first reply I can see that you're probably going to end up with more questions than answers.

In a nutshell: M4 all brass, no light meter; M6 "classic" has light meter, zinc top plate (you won't care at this point, you're not a Solms snob) and M6 TTL has through-the-lens flash metering; both M6s need a battery for the light meter, and the film is much easier to load than M3/M2. If you're going to go the M2 route because of cost, then I may suggest the M4-2; it's an underpriced Leica; no light meter either.

And then there's the Bessa R2a, the R3a, etc. etc. etc. You're going to be barraged with suggestions. Good luck!
 
I recently bought a couple of Leica cameras, and M2 and an M3. I am an old, soon to be retired amature shooter looking for pleasure in my photography. These cameras are not quick to load, they are almost as old as I am, but they do offer a feel that I was looking for. They are perfect for me.

As you are a young aspiring PJ student, I would recommend an M6 (TTL or non-TTL). They are relatively newer cameras with built-in light meters (and believe me, even pros require light meters, maybe even especially pros). They offer more internal framelines for a variety of lenses, and are quicker to load and rewind.

IMHO
 
Street shooting with wide latitude B&W film almost negates the requirement for a TTL or built in automation. I bought a mint M4-P for $850 two weeks ago. Great bang for my photo buck.

The M6 would be considerably more - $$ better spent IMHO on glass.
 
Recently went meterless with an M4. Am pleasantly surprised how much latitude exists with Tri-X and HP5+ although I use a handheld incident meter for emotional support. I bought on a budget and put my money into a DR Summicron and Tele-Elmarit. Sunny 16 really does rule.

If I were trying to make money from my meager photo efforts, I guess I'd consider going metered to avoid the learning curve of educating myself to the light. However, if were young I'd go unmetered from the start - you've got nothing but time. And your eyes will learn so very much ...

The M4-P or M4-2 beckon at reasonable prices ... and the M2/M3 bodies stand unreconstructed in their magnificent simplicity.
 
Unregistered said:
I am a somewhat advanced young photographer who is interested street shooting, and is aspiring to become a photojournalist.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a pro PJ be more served by a digital camera? I doubt many news papers nowadays have the time or the equipment to deal with film anymore.


or just trial and error until i master the art of light.
Click to expand...

This can never hurt, even when using an all-dancin'-n'-singin' dSLR.


background: i love shooting street shots, i have a contax g, little by little my mind is demanding that i get a leica.
Click to expand...

This sounds more like a creeping case of GAS. :p


future plans going to college for photography.
Click to expand...

Photog courses also focus more and more on digital cameras as the photog business is probably 90% gone digital.

I admire you want a Leica but are you sure you want it for the right reasons? Many, if not most, of the most influential PJ shots were taken not with Leicas but Canon or Nikon SLRs.
 
anybody remember an article posted on pn about an up-and-coming pj with a silver hexar af hanging from his neck? i'm sure he also has a 20d or something, but rangefinders and film are still relevant. can't forget alex majoli and his olympus digicams, either.
 
If you are going to be a professional journalist and do not have a DSLR, then you should save your money for a Nikon D70 or Canon 20D. Seriously. Newspapers are not interested in film. They were jumping with joy to get rid of it back in 2000 when the Nikon D1 prices dropped to $5000 a camera. You have to learn how to use a DSLR and know photoshop backwards and forwards to be competitive professionally. The journalism program at the college I work near doesn't require a darkroom class any more -- waste of their student's time. The major paper near us won't consider hiring a staff photographer who isn't computer literate. The cost of a basic DSLR will be similar to or less than the investment in a used Leica. Get a body and a few prime lenses at first.

However, if you use plan to use a Leica for film in addition to a DSLR and have the money, then go for the M6. An M4-P would be very similar, but you really want the internal light meter in the M6 if you are making a living off the camera. Check out http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm for a quick comparison on various m's.

The cheapest route would be an M2 and a hand held meter. The M2 has a wide enough viewfinder to handle 35mm and 28mm lenses without external viewfinders. No frame for the 28mm, but the outsideedge of the window is close enough if you don't wear glasses. It is slower loading and rewinding than an M4 or M6 though and probably will require a CLA within a year or two of use unless you get one someone just cleaned.

John
 
A chromed M4 with it's engravings on top plate is a beaty. To me this is the most desirable M off all.

I have an M6 today. The black "chrome" makes the camera not so visible when shooting in the streets. Since the top plate is of zinc, it will sustain dents better. If you look at M2, M3, M4s, well used ones often are dented on the top plate.

For your purpose, if you really consider an M over a digital camera, I say a black M6.

Anders
 
Best source for quick M body information is one of the RFF sponsors:
http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm
The best bargains around are the Canadian made M4-2s. Very little more $$ than a German M2. Newer rewind knob, motor connector (although this means steel instead of brass gears -- less of the classic Leica feel in the film advance), different framelines. Other features you can compare on the cameraquest site. Less likely to need a $300 CLA or other service than an older M2.
For the M6 or M6TTL, there is built in exposure metering. The "TTL" model is the more recent one that has true through-the-lens metering with the electronics that can cut off the flash when the exposure is right. Not much of an advantage for most automatic flash units these days which have their own built in sensor, but could save a step or two if you need flash offset adjustments. Like flash with a filter on the lens. The other significant difference between the classic M6 and the M6TTL is that the shutter speed dial on the latter is larger and turns the opposite direction -- the same direction as the M7. The classic M6 turns the same as all the previous models plus the MP. This might be a consideration if you plan on adding or upgrading to MP or M7 in the future.
Among your choices, my recommendation is the classic M6 for you. Even less likely to need a CLA than the M4, and we all need a meter at least some of the time.
 
tough call, I would invest in a DSLR if you want to be a pro photojournalist, as much as I want to be a romantic, it's all a about JPegs these days. Since I have no aspirations at being a pro photojounralist I am overjoyed to play with old school gear, I am a happy M3 user and at some point in the next year I will pick up an M2/4/4-2/4-P I have not decided on the second body yet. The Leica/M mount rangefinder is your toy, the DSLR is your tool and I would look at Nikon for that.

Bill
 
Just out of interest: Why would you look at Nikon when 90% of pro journalists use Canon?
 
Last edited:
i'd go with an m2 if i were you...something about the handling of m3/2 bodies that is just buttery smooth...not to mention their simple finders...if you're shooting without a meter get a small handheld...take a reading in the sun...take a reading in the shade...remember those two settings and their permutations....you'd be surprised how well you can get along without a meter...i only use my meter around sunset and sunrise when light changes fairly rapidly...however, from about 10am-5pm it's pretty much consistent (living in S. California)....
 
jaapv said:
Just out of interest: Why would you look at Nikon when 90% of pro journalists use Canon?
Click to expand...

Honestly this is a misnomer.

Photojournalists often use Canon. I would list as Canon (1d, 1dm2 mainly), Nikon, Olympus (E-1 pretty exclusive in this type of use), Leica M. From my own observations... in that order.

If you are going to be a photojournalist. My thoughts would be getting an E-1 and a Leica CL (which would be your loud camera). Or an E-1 and G (my current choice). Resoning is weather restince. News comes without regard to weather.
 
Unless you are going to shoot journalistic style photos for publication in a book, then you would not find that ANY newspaper anymore has any inhouse facilities to deal with film images. Darkrooms dismantled, equipment put in the dumpster, etc.

Not to stop you from purchasing a good film camera, but if you intend to derive employment from photo-journalism (shooting newsphotos for newspapers), then you must provide digital files immediately after you shoot newsworthy events.
 
also depends on what type of photojournalism...if youre going to do spot news, get a digi...if you're intersted in long-term, intimate photo essays (eugene smith, eugene richards, mary ellen mark, salgado) where you can shoot and develop at your leisure...get the leica :)

or you can do both...when i do assignments for the local paper i'll shoot digi and after i get the shot i want, i'll shoot some for myself
 
A lot depends on what you are shooting, and what you mean by photojournalism. For breaking news stories digital is all but essential; for longer term stuff, features/books/fine art, film remains eminently usable. I will not insult you by assuming you do not know all this.

Which camera? For mono, there is a lot to be said for learning the light: an M2 or 3 or any of the 4s. But an M6 is good too. Beware of the M6ttl where the shutter speed dial goes in the opposite direction from ALL other Leicas except the M7.

Cheers,

Roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom