M7 or M6

[G01]

Hi
So I was looking at used M7s and M6s and wondering which to get. For the former I have big deal of savings to do.

However, the M7 has an electronic shutter ctrl and a AE. Knowing what these do (accuracy + relaxed pic taking by conc solely on subject w/o having to worry much) is it such a big deal?
Am I loosing out a lot if I am choosing a M6TTL?

Furthermore when I looked at this guy's pic on the Leica web page it made me slightly cautious judging by the better quality of the pics with the M7. Please check out the gallery.
http://www.vannicalanca.com/en/index2.htm

Please advice
thanks again
G

 

[Rich Silfver]

Re: M7 or M6

/.../the M7 has an electronic shutter ctrl and a AE. Knowing what these do (accuracy + relaxed pic taking by conc solely on subject w/o having to worry much) /.../

I think you may want to ask yourself why you would want to buy a Leica of all cameras. I really don't want to sound harsh here but maybe an autofocus DSLR or film SLR (maybe an R-Leica) may be more what you want?

I'm not sure HCB 'and the others' worried too much when they used a manual Leica. It's a different style of shooting and it requires the photographer to think and become even more aware of what his extended eye is doing and enables you full control of how to 'guide'/direct that eye so that it's in tune with your own vision.

As you're chosing between a M6TTL and an M7 it seems as if you consider in-camera metering important - and that's ofcourse a personal decision - but if you start worrying about if the M6TTL's level of automation is 'enough' compared to the M7 then you may want to reconsider buying into a system that has a high price-tag on it for three main reasons;
- Insane Leica collectors and the 'Leica legend',
- The availability of some truly great glass, and
- A VERY solid camera that allows the photographer to take FULL
control of the exposure (and on some models allows you to be
more 'relaxed' about that control).

Furthermore when I looked at this guy's pic on the Leica web page it made me slightly cautious judging by the better quality of the pics with the M7. Please check out the gallery.
http://www.vannicalanca.com/en/index2.htm
G

Pictures are 'better' because of the glass infront of the film, post-processing (digital or prints) and the photographer's eye. I severely doubt that the camera model had anything to do with you perceiving those images as 'better'.

This last statement of yours makes me worry that you are chasing magic bullets. This link explains that concept somewhat even though it's focused more on LF photography but it carries the same message: "One can't buy the way to great photography" ( http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html )

I do not mean to slam you in ANY way at all (heck I'm even considering buying a Leica (M3) myself these days cause I'm contemplating becoming a camera fondler and cause I think it would be fun) and there is nothing wrong with automated cameras - I just wanted to make sure that you spend your hard-earned money on something that meets your need and not just...chasing magic bullets 🙂

 

[back alley]

http://www.halfhill.com/cameras.html

a guide to choosing a camera - might be helpful

joe

 

[jmsfoto]

The 7 is a great camera and the Auto is remarcable
for accuracy. But the 6 is a great value and a wonderful camera I would get the 6 and spend the x-tra $ on a good lens.

 

[Doug]

To someone whose photographic experience has been with "do-everything" automated gear, the thought of no AE may be intimidating! Not to mention crude and primitive: no zooms, no auto focus, no matrix metering, no exposure modes... So if that is your experience, G01, then I sympathize with your uncertainty.

I think Richard makes some good points. And it seems particularly useful when contemplating a very expensive leap of faith... to reconsider.

Many of RF Forum's members are enthusiastic about leaf-shutter RF cameras of the 60's, 70's and 80's. These have fixed lenses, often around 40mm, and may be pretty speedy. They often have built-in meters and offer auto exposure. They go for ridiculoulsly low prices these days, under $100. I have one myself, an Olympus 35RC, and it's a fun little camera, and the lens is sharp.

With such a camera, you could learn whether you like the RF kind of photography, and enjoy learning the basics at very low cost or risk.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

G01, I'm curious as to what is it you have in mind. In other words, what do you want a Leica for? That's where you should start, and not by wondering whether you should get an all-can-do camera vs. a "rudimentary" M6TTL.

When push comes to shove, the camera doesn't not determine the quality of your photos; it's the lens... and the most important component of the combo is the eye behind the lens. Take care!

 

[mothra]

These are all good points -- buy a super cheap all-manual rangefinder. Use it for a while. If you hate it, spend the big money on an auto-everything digital or film SLR with a full-auto mode. (Most SLRs these days let you treat them like a giant point and shoot.) If you like it, spend your money on a Leica or Voigtlander body and a good lens or two.

 

[G01]

Guys,
Thanks all you guys for the good suggestions. I found rsilfverberg's link hilarious and blantantly true stripped of all pretentions. I completely agree (well, it kinda obvious) The thing is that I find that kind of an obsession with superficiality in my fiield of work (science---a lot of extremely bad scientists are after eqipment.)

Now, why I want a leica? I have and use a SLR. I just wanted a change and switch to RFs. I have been given the impression that RFs are these mysterious peices of objects that can perform some unbelievable magic only if in the hands of the right magicians. Its the eye and the lens...manual...and a whole load of pretentious elitist cliches which ACTUALLY hold true for ANY THING YOU DO...not just photography. And I was so nervous. However, last night for the first time I spent a couple of hours in a RF shop and used these models..the principle of the RF is so beautiful and in many ways personal...something I do in my daily work. After checking out these models, the mystery was shed and the truth revealed...Its just a whole lot of farce. May be its a bit challenging, bit like people in the forum has pointed out but you get over it. The RF is an awesome machine and someone who has not used it has missed out. I won't.

Furthermore, photography for me is an emerging hobby NOT work, and it doesn't harm to have a beautiful object to enjoy and use for a hobby after a hard week's work in the high pressure world of science. The leica is a beautiful camera..as good as a 100$ leaf-shutter RF...but looks more elegant. That's why I wanna get a leica. I do not plan to become a RF expert or a Robert Frank ( O.K, May be I will but not intentionally! 🙂)

Ya bout the M7. Look I was just curious. The link that I sent you actually shows a different quality of the photos taken by the same "eye". So it can't be a difference in talent to spell it out. And the electronically controlled shutter may have something to do with it. So I was curious whether the elctronics was indeed a net improvement in the machine and it would be better to get it. That's it!

Thanks
G

 

[strangedoctor]

Honestly, AE is very useful. I HAVE missed some great shots because I had to take the M6 out, put the thing to my nose to check exposure, focus, and then the action was passé.
(Using slide film the exposure must be exact. But with negative film you have a LOT of latitude for exposure mistakes, so it's arguable that a skilled cameradude can be without meter. I used my M3 sans meter on a trip to Cuba as a challenge and torture to myself. Most photos were fine.)

With an M7 you could just set the focus and shoot without ever looking in the finder (after practice you can "see" what the camera is looking at without the viewfinder). Not bad.

I worked up quite a nervous guilty sweat when I bought my M6 -- an outrageous sum. But, F---k it! Life is short, enjoy it...I'm sure it will retain its value anyway.

 

[HelenB]

I hardly ever use the AE function on my M7 - I use it like an M6. It's good to get into the habit of continuously estimating exposure and distance to likely subject. In many of the places I photograph in, AE would be too easily fooled by light sources in the frame behind the subject. So I'd say that AE was nice to have, but not essential. I have no plans to swap my M6s for M7s.

I started with a Zorki 4 and the 50/2 lens, and used that for years. There is no fundamental or important difference between the pictures I took with the Zorki and the ones I take with a Leica.

Best,
Helen

 

[G01]

Helen,
I have a question about the manual M7.
Now the M7 has an electronic shutter control...Its said to be more accurate. The electronic shutter ctrl is on whether you are on manual or auto...doesn't matter. What I am asking is whethr THIS ELECTRONIC SHUTTER CONTROL
inherently changes the quality of pics in the M7? (This is beyond the issue of manual vs AE)
So is the M7 ACTUALLY A BETTER CAMERA? A NET IMPROVEMENT in Leica if you will?
Put in another way: Is the electronic M7 a better manual M than its predecessors that you guys posess when on a manual mode?

Thanks G

 

[HelenB]

Hi G,

First: the mechanically controlled M shutters aren't exactly innacurate - the 1/1000 is usually a bit slow, maybe 1/700, but the rest are OK. My dealer is happy to check my shutter speeds whenever I ask, so I know that my M6s are as accurate as I need them to be.

That said, there is no reason for M7 pictures to be any 'better' than M6 pictures if the M7 is in manual.

If the M7 is in AE there might be a slight improvement because it is stepless - but only a slight improvement and I doubt whether anyone would notice, given all other metering inaccuracies. Getting this improvement would mean using a grey card technique (not necessarily with a grey card) and exposure lock. With care and some fuss, you might gain a quarter or a sixth of a stop improvement. However, if you used finer aperture control on an M6 (ie set between the half stops) and an external meter that was calibrated and read in tenth-stops you could achieve similar 'accuracy'. Unless you are doing critical work, setting the lens at half-stops and the shutter at full stops is good enough.

In the movies, with all the money and expensive equipment, we're happy with third-stop accuracy for film. It's those digital guys who think they need the tenth-stop accuracy.

Of course, if someone doesn't know how to use a meter, using an M7 (or any decent camera) in full auto will make their pictures better.

I've written this in a hurry, so ask if anything is unclear.

Best,
Helen

 

[G01]

Helen,
I have used SLRs before..not my thing.
Checked out a bunch of RFs last night @Leica's. T'was so goooood! I think its a beautiful system..so simple and elegant.

Anyways, Q: I do not know how to and do not use a light meter at all. Am I in trouble with the M6 ? See, what I understand is playing around with those 2 red arrows in the viewfinder and changing your aper and shutter accordingly towards the direc should in principle do the job...right? O.K I play around with the stops 1/2 through etc..and then the shutter to match the motion ofthe sub or whatever....Then why does the light meter come here again? I though the camera had a exp meter already.
I hope its no trouble to ask you so many questions and thanks for so many valuable suggestions to my endless queries.

G

 

[HelenB]

Hi G,

When I referred to not knowing how to use a meter, I meant all meters, whether TTL or external.

I only referred to using an external meter with the M6 as a way of getting greater accuracy - but I want to make it clear that I see little reason to require anything better than the nearest half-stop or so that the M6 gives for the kind of work that rangefinders do.

Sorry for any confusion.

Best,
Helen

 

[Rich Silfver]

G,
when I bought into a MF system I was really hesistant about what brand to get - so I rented a Hasselblad for a weekend and fell in love (well as much 'in love' as you can with a camera..) with it. (I also tried a Bronica and that amount of plastic and the touch and feel of it was not what I wanted).

Not sure if one can rent Leica's just like one rents DSLR's and MF/LF equipment - but if you can..that would be a cheap way to figure out how you feel about the M6TTL vs the 7.

 

[pvdhaar]

Personally I think AE is quite overrated, in fact adjusting exposure for each scene may not always be what you need.

There are some aspects to consider:

First, AE measures reflected light and tries to render the total as a middle grey tone. That means that you'll have to adjust the meter reading whenever you take a picture of something that's not middle grey. As an alternative of adjusting exposure, you can of course do the 'measure something grey and then recompose' dance, but that defeats the purpose of speedy operation as well.

Instead, you'll find that unless you keep going from in the shade to out of it and the other way round between each shot, that ambient (as opposed to reflected) light levels are relatively constant. It's perfectly possible to measure from the pavement (middle grey) once, shoot everything outdoors at that exposure.
Not only will you get recognisable images, but they will in fact turn out better because blacks will be rendered black and whites will be rendered white.

Then there's the lattitude of film. Especially B&W film offers a high margin of error.

Before spending big bucks on a M7 or M6, just try to shoot a roll of B&W film with a camera set to 1/125@f8. Check out the results and be amazed...

Ever wondered how single use cameras work?

 

[G01]

Peter,
That is EXACTLY what I am looking for in a photograph!
"It's perfectly possible to measure from the pavement (middle grey) once, shoot everything outdoors at that exposure.
Not only will you get recognisable images, but they will in fact turn out better because blacks will be rendered black and whites will be rendered white."

And of course I very well may wish to make things to be overexposed or underexposed while authoring the photo.

Also will it be trouble for you to illustrate your point using your excellent photo (in gallery) "the city awakes" ? (or any of your photos for that matter)

Also, what kind of loss would you expect to see in a color photo under the same conditions?

Thanks very very much for the great suggs.
G

 

[pvdhaar]

Unfortunately, the scan of that picture doesn't even show the range of tones and tonality that the print does. On the screen the sky appears completely washed out, which it isn't in the print, but here goes..

In this picture, I was shooting straight into the sun, which is at the top left of the picture. An auto-exposure would have made most of the sky about middle grey. The sun would have been white, but the rest of the scene would have been pitch black.

Had I used AE and measured the pavement HERE in the full shade and then recomposed, the top of the picture would have been washed out entirely, as well as the building in the distance.

Instead while cycling around, I had already set the exposure to what as far as I can remember was something like 1/125@f11 for another scene which was nothing special to write home about, except that it was excellent measuring material.

Quote:
""Also, what kind of loss would you expect to see in a color photo under the same conditions?""

In my experience, most color print films (with the notable exception of Fuji Reala) also have quite some exposure margin, but it's different from B&W film. They respond well to overexposure, but not to underexposure (example: Agfa Vista 400 which I use as if it were a 200ISO film). I guess that for the city awakes photo in color, I would have used f8 instead of f11, everything else being equal. In printing I would simply have asked for a 1stop darker print.