Meterless M?

S

stupid_john

Newbie
Local time
6:41 PM
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
6
I started RF photography nearly a year.
A Bessa R2 carrying a 35mm Summicron.
However, the Bessa R2 cannot use my Summicron 50mm DR.
Now, I am considering buying an M camera.

I have been struggling with the following options:

Option 1)
Save enough $ and then buy a M6. That's it. (Camerquest suggests start with a metered M body, right?)

Option 2)
Buy a M2 or M3 now. The price of second hand M2 or M3 can be 2/3
of that of an M6. Quite attractive. In addition, M3 .91x magnification ratio
seems useful for the DR. However, my main concern is:

Will it be too inconvenient to use a meterless M?

Also, I am afraid of GAS, i.e. I will also buy the M6 eventually.:D


Please give your advice and share your expereince~:)
 
No, do it.

Buy an M2 or M3 and a handheld meter. Once you get used to seeing the light using a meterless camera is a dream, almost like having AE. You think ahead, set exposure prior to bringing the camera to your eye, point focus and shoot.

It is that easy after a little practice.
 
rover said:
No, do it.

Buy an M2 or M3 and a handheld meter. Once you get used to seeing the light using a meterless camera is a dream, almost like having AE. You think ahead, set exposure prior to bringing the camera to your eye, point focus and shoot.

It is that easy after a little practice.
Click to expand...


Ahhh...good question is which handheld meter would be best with the M? :)
 
>>Ahhh...good question is which handheld meter would be best with the M?<<

An incident meter that is very small, light and handheld. Mine was so small and light that I didn't notice it was still in one of my pockets and ran it through the laundry. It was a small Sekonic with a match needle.

In my experience, a large, heavy feature-filled light meter doesn't fit well with the shooting style of a rangefinder camera. I have an old Gossen LunaPro Six and just won't use it because of size and weight.

Once you learn to use an incident meter (this takes about an afternoon) you realize that the last 40 years of in-camera meter technology have been a paintful attempt at duplicating the accuracy of a basic incident reading.
 
Last edited:
My recommendation would be to buy a meterless M. For me, the M to buy was an M3, simply because I needed something to focus my 75/1.4 Summilux (which has a DOF so short, wide open, that it needs all the help it and I can get).

But that's not the reason I'd recommend a meterless M. The reason I do recommend it is because of what working purely manually can teach you about exposure. I'll admit, sometimes the lessons are harsh. But what that continues to teach me (I'm not there yet) is to make conscious decisions about exposure and to know why you're making them. I'm currently enjoying having an AE camera (my Hexar RF), a manual camera (my M3) and a fully automatic dSLR exercise. In many ways, though, the M3 is the one I like the best, even though I mostly get better shots from the Hexar RF. With the Hexar RF I get something close enough to be saved. With the M3, the usual result is either absolutely correct, or its completly unusable (because of my own personal photographic pathologies).

But I've found my AE shooting with the Hexar RF and my dSLR have benefited from both my successes and failures with the M3.

...Mike
 
I recently purchased an M6 for exactly this reason. I wanted a metered body that I could use in a similar manner to the old slr's I used to use. I found that it actually slowed me down, admittedly some of this is the simple matter of learning to adjust to a new camera, but I took the advice of many and started using a handheld meter. This has been a relevation as far as work speed goes. I now meter for whatever light is around and when I see something I can raise the camera, compose and focus without having to worry about adjusting aperture or speed too much. You can also zone focus if you want to be even faster.

Having said this I'm still glad I've got the M6 with its meter as a back up should my handheld ones batteries die or worse. I would definitely buy a meterless M body as my second body though.

BTW - My handheld is a Sekonic L-308B Flashmate that I use in the studio. Does a great job for incident readings and fits in my pocket perfectly.

Good luck making your decision!
 
I say go for an M2 or M3 and hand held meter. My primary camera is an M2. I used a Gossen Pilot 2 for a long time. It has both reflective and incident measurement, is small and requires no batteries. Not so good in low light though, which is why I purchased a VC II last fall. I now use both (or none). A month or so ago I also picked up a used Bessa R2 because I felt I needed a camera with an onboard meter, and I just couldn't come up with the funds for my first choice, an M6. I have found that I am having alot of trouble getting used to using the in-camera meter. I've now shot several rolls of film with the R2, but I still find myself wanting to check out the general lighting, meter it, set the camera, and concentrate on focusing and taking pictures. I very often use the R2's meter to take one reading that I judge to be "average" for the circumstances, and then set the aperture and shutter and fire away without regard to the meter until something significant changes in the lighting. Good enough results for me, but I'm not a pro, I do this for enjoyment.
 
I have M6 and quickly learnt to appreciate its metering. The key (IMO) is understanding and masterign zone system - a very powerful knowledge and experience that aims you to nearly any lightign situation with simplest, yet precise and reliable in-camera metering as in M6. I just learnt to evaluate the relative brightness of the patterns relatively to average gray so you can meter off anything and compensate accordinlgy. With little practice takes almost no time.
Besides, recently acquired a used Polaris digital meter - very handy one yet non-expensive, Small and light enough to fit your pocket and palm, allows both, incident and reflected (as well as flash metering if necessary).
So, the aproach is to use the incident when shooting in more or less even lighting (take one reading once and shoot away, take another reading if light changes noticeably). Shoting distant subjects with different illuminaiton then in my proximity - here in-camera meter along with zone system evaluation skills come handy....
 
An M3 would be great for your DR, if you want a small meter that fits the M3 like it was made for it, get an VC Meter II from Cameraquest, works great!

Todd
 
stupid_john said:
Now, I am considering buying an M camera.

I have been struggling with the following options:

Option 1)
Save enough $ and then buy a M6. That's it. (Camerquest suggests start with a metered M body, right?)

Option 2)
Buy a M2 or M3 now. The price of second hand M2 or M3 can be 2/3
of that of an M6. Quite attractive.
Click to expand...

Option 3)

Read the reviews at CameraQuest and photo.net and buy an M5. Cheap, great spot meter with convenient user interface, and simply the best M of them all. Better than an M4 either way, and doubly so if you add a clunky, wobbly, scratchy Leicameter to the M4. (See, I'm entirely objective now that I've got an M5. <maniacallaugh>) :p :p :p

Phil*infected*ipp
 
Last edited:
I don't have a meterless M but would like to get an M3. I do have a Sekonic Twinmate meter that is very simple to use and would recommend it as a small, even retro looking meter. But once in a while I take the batteries out of my MP and voila! Meterless M.

Meter or no meter I do feel that the M3 or M5 are great cameras. I'd buy both!
 
get the M2 or M3!

for handheld metering, i use the gossen sixtomat digital.
simple, easy to use.

just a little bit bulky compared to the very small meters.

regards,
sebastian
 
From what you have written I think that you really want that M6. As for prices...if you shop around the M6 will not be that much more. You also need to check framelines for each camera as they vary. M3 is 50-90-135 while M2 is 35-50-90. Check that I believe that I am correct. There are differences. M5 is a big camera. M4's are uncommon. As for meter a good small meter...VCII...which is recommended is about $180 S&H. Add that to the cost of the camera. The TTL's are more than the Classic. If you are doing street shooting and you are not a professional films today have a full stop latitude in each direction which is good because lighting varies greatly when you are running on the street catching the shots as they go by. On the other hand memorizing the sunny 16 rule is very easy combing it with the film latitude. Also, the older the camera the more problems that may occur. The M6s seem to be around generally in excellent shape as people are trading them up for the newer models (Leica users keep their cameras in excellent shape if not pristine).
 
In my own experience I've found metered M's to be much easier for my photography.
When I'm out on the street looking for pictures, I prefer not having to think (or in my case, guess) about exposure when all I want to do is make images.
I've owned a number of non-metered M's (m2, m4-2, m4-p) and although I like their simplicity, I still prefer my M5 and M6. In fact, I've sold them all except for my M5 and M6's.
On the other hand, a M2 with a CVII meter is a great place to start ..
 
I suggest to make it dependent on your lens choice. If your favorite FL is 50, buy an M3, if it's 35, buy an M2,
if it's 28, buy an M4P or M6.

Incident metering with a nice digital meter is much quicker than the in-camera meter. The in-camera meter is most useful
when doing informal portraits and you don't want to waive a light meter around ... YMMV.

Roland.
 
toss a gossen digisix in your pocket for when you don't want to rely in sunny 16. It's small and robust - just don't forget it's there when you do the laundry.

Cheaper than the VCII - you can mount it on top of the cam if you want. Offers either reflective or incident readings.

As for which cam - my dream is a black M2R, but you won't save any money looking for one of those. M4 is next on my list. But one in good shape goes for about the same as an M6.

Maybe an M4-2 or M4-P is about the right balance?
 
I'll throw my vote in with the folks who suggest you get a meterless camera. It will teach you more about exposing and photography to use a meterless camera, and yes, the lessons are sometimes harsh, but you'll get it pretty quickly, and in the end your photography and your confidence should both improve. I started RF shooting with an M3, and after a while thought I wanted a meter body, for all the same reasons anyone wants a metered body. But in the end I sold my M6 and stuck with the M3. I found the meter diodes distracting and ultimately unneccesary. Now, the M7 or another body with AE would be nice to have. What's the point of an internal meter if it's not coupled with the ability to really speed your shooting? Anyway, the M3 has a spectacular finder. I shoot with two of them now and largely immune to camera body GAS- except that I'd love to add a Hexar RF for the AE and it's low-magnification (wider angle) finder.
 
Well, I like the meter in my M6. I don't obsess about it, and if I think I know better I adjust appropriately, but I'm glad the meter is there, it's one less thing to carry. Spot metering takes a bit of getting used to, but it made me learn about the zone system, which is useful in difficult mixed lighting. And I do a lot of shooting by the sea, in very changeable light, and a meter definitely helps, even though I can generally work without one if I have to.

Ian
 
It's good to shoot meterless for awhile so that you understand the process. I found that I handled a metered camera much differently -- and more confidently -- after I'd spent awhile shooting meterless.
 
VinceC said:
In my experience, a large, heavy feature-filled light meter doesn't fit well with the shooting style of a rangefinder camera.
Click to expand...

is the VCII considered large or a decent non-intrusive size?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom