Sell the M6 and get a Zeiss Ikon, or not?

[jljohn]

I would love to get some perspective from anyone who has gone through following sort of decision with an M6 (or any camera for that matter).

I have an M6 classic with a 35mm summicron IV that I got in February. I love the look and feel of the kit in my hand, but I just don't feel like I'm getting along with it as a photo making tool (dumb way to describe the issue, but that's really the only way I can think of to put it.) In these 5 months, I have put 30-35 rolls though the camera. But, in those 5 months, I have had to send it off three times to Sherry K (MP modification, full CLA, meter repair). Also, I have come to realize that I am not a huge fan of the 35mm yet--I like the look of the Zeiss and ASPH Leica lenses better than the pre-ASPH lenses. Finally, I am finding the large spot meter a bit challenging. I am used to a true spot for medium format B&W, full-scene average for older SLRs, and Matrix for the Nikon Digital, but i am still not quite comfortable with the Leica spot.

So, I am waiting for the camera to come back from Sherry, and I am sitting here wondering, should I: (1) keep my MP modified, CLA'd, and repaired M6 and 35mm and shoot a 100 rolls or so before deciding, (2) sell both and get a Zeiss Ikon with Zeiss lens kit, or (3) sell just the 35mm Summicron and replace it with a Zeiss equivalent and see where it goes.

At this point, I feel like I can and do make better photographs with my trusty old K1000 and it beat up 50mm f/2 lens. But, for many reasons, I really want to find a rangefinder that really works me. What would you do in this situation, and why? Your thoughts are much appreciated. Thanks!

Jeremy

 

[ferider]

I like the look of the Zeiss and ASPH Leica lenses better than the pre-ASPH lenses...

Just to understand you better, Jeremy, how did you conclude this ?

Finally, I am finding the large spot meter a bit challenging. I am used to a true spot for medium format B&W, full-scene average for older SLRs, and Matrix for the Nikon Digital, but i am still not quite comfortable with the Leica spot.

Have you looked at the ZI metering pattern ?

It does sound like there are other issues, that a switch to ZI/ZMlens might not solve for you. It strikes me that you don't mention AE, which is the biggest advantage of a ZI.

Best,

Roland.

 

[thomasw_]

It sounds to me as though you have given the RF a good try with a 35mm lens. Have you considered that a RF may not be your way at all? Or it may be that you are not working with 1. more automation, i.e., aperture priority etc., and 2. the best suited focal length for your work. The ZI does make shooting a bit quicker; my wife uses one and likes the weight and speedy functionality with AE and the very bright VF. The downside of the ZI is that they quite readily go out of alignment; between my wife and I, we have used 3 ZIs and they all have had alignment difficulties. Based on my experience with the ZI, if I had only one RF, I would NOT choose a ZI to be "the one", as it is not reliable enough. Given one camera, a M6 or a ZI, I'd stick with the M6 for sure, especially as you have invested a lot in improving it.

My 2 cents.

 

[Peter_Jones]

Is it possible that a 50mm focal length would better suit you than 35mm ?

 

[35mmdelux]

Keep the Leica and buy a ZI. Shoot both until you can figure which you prefer to keep. Selling the Leica and regretting it later would be costly.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What do you believe the ZI will do for you that the M6 doesn't?

What's wrong with Zeiss lenses on the M6?

Cheers,

R.

 

[jljohn]

Thanks so much! Given the questions and comments, I will clarify a bit. First, I say that I like the look of the Zeiss and ASPH lenses more than the pre-ASPH lenses for two reasons: first, I have a bit of experience with modern zeiss lenses in other (non-rangefinder) formats. From what I have seen, on the web, the ZM lenses seem to share a family of characteristics with other modern Zeiss lenses. Second, I have spent a lot of time looking at samples from the various lenses online, including several recent head-to-head comparisons here. I know that it is hard to tell absolute sharpness and contrast from an online sample, but other differences like the evenness of the sharpness across the entire image, rendering, bokeh, etc are visible. In the end, I find images coming from the Zeiss lenses (35mm biogon and 50mm planar) preferable to the pre-asph 35mm summicron and current 50mm summicron).

As I try to think specifically about what I like and don't like about this setup, I can honestly say that I love using a Rangefinder. I love the size; I love the feel of invisibility when I am using it; I can focus it much faster than the K1000, and I love being able to see more area than the image being captured. So I don't want to walk away from rangefinders yet. In terms of automation, the M6 is exactly the same as the K1000 (meter only, the rest is up to me). So automation is not a problem. The 35mm v. 50mm may be a real issue here. I have a lot of experience with normal lenses (50mm on SLRs and Digital, 80mm on the Blad).

Maybe it is simply a confidence issue? Given the issues that have popped up, and my lack of comfortability with the meter, I have yet to have real confidence in the M6 in my hands. Second, while I have used zooms that cover the 35mm focal length, I have not spent much time with a 35mm prime. If this is the case, maybe I should sell the 35mm, buy that 50mm planar I have been thinking about, and see if the M6 grows on me.

Finally, regarding the ZI: I am not perfectly convinced that the ZI would be the way to go. It could be an M5, M7, ZI, R2A/R3A/R2M/R3M, etc. Without moving the conversation into what rangefinder I should pick if I sell the M6 let's just say that the ZI seems like the one that best corrects my perceived issues with the M6 in that it is a new camera and should have fewer problems than the M6 and it has a center weighted metering pattern. The automation is not an issue - I do want a rangefinder with a meter, but it does not have to have aperture priority. I do appreciate comments on the ZI, but the focus of the question is, should I dump the M6 and move to something else.

Again, thank you. These few comments are already helping think through this decision more clearly.

 

[filmfan]

You're not going to suddenly be able to take better photos with a ZI if you were not already with the M6. If you don't like the M6 (which is rather odd if I may say so), then you probably wont like the ZI.

 

[mfogiel]

The ZI has 2 big advantages over the M6: bigger and clearer viewfinder, and the AE. However, the AE is of a weighed assymatrical type, so you also have to learn how to use it. Besides that, ZI is really an ideal 35mm fl camera, although it covers well frames between 28 and 85mm, so if the real point is that you want to shoot 50mm, you will probably be better off with an 0.85x magnification found in an M6ttl, MP or M7. While I have not used the particular Summicron you have, I do not think Zeiss lenses will be dramatically different. They might have more bite and better performance in colour, but they will not make a breakthrough in your photography. I would insist some more on using your M6, perhaps adding a nice 50mm lens to see how it works. I can recommend the 50/2 Zeiss Biogon, as a reference lens in this fl, and you can find it second hand fairly cheaply. All ZM lenses have a fairly consistent signature and sharpness, so you will be able to see how you like it relative to your Leica lens.Finally, I use M7 and ZI because I like AE, and I do not see a substantial difference in the metering performance. I think that you should first decide what is your primary FL, and then get the specific body for it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jeremy,

The meter repair should be once-and-for-all, and the other two things (MP finder, CLA) were elective. I really think Filmfan is right - and not just about the ZI, but about any other RF camera. You are conflating two issues here: liking the newer lenses (which makes perfect sense, though there are plenty who would argue equally enthusiastically for the older ones) and an uncertainty about the camera. I think I'd trust a well-serviced old Leica over the ZI, and that's not because the ZI is a bad camera. Actually, I think I'd trust a well-serviced Leica over just about anything.

I always thought the 35 Summicron was overrated too (heresy in the ears of many) but there's no reason not to try a different lens. Or indeed, as someone else says, a different focal length.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Leica All Day]

Hey Jeremy, I was in a simliar situation last year.....I had some problems with my m6ttl and I sent it to Sherry for a shutter repair, a C.L.A. and meter repair......while it was away, I thought about getting an Ikon, and I still do sometimes....but I am giving my camera "one last try"......

Even if/when something goes wrong with it, I doubt I will ever get rid of it...I bought it new and it has been through a lot......I think I 'd rather just save up and buy an Ikon and give it a try.....but I can't see getting rid of my camera now.....espcially after all the love that it got from Sherry......(and the money that I put into it)

I guess to answer your question

"should I dump the M6 and move to something else."

I say... use it....you already got it all fixed up by one of the best...

cheers, michael

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I don't know the condition of your camera when you received it, but your MP-modified, CLA'd, and Krauter-repaired M6 should be good to go for 20 years of hard shooting. Why don't you see if you can get the good of her work out of the camera?

Now, I have more cameras than sense and have often fell prey to the blandishments of one or another new bodies. I know that you will be happier if you love your tools. Sounds like your problem with the M6 was with its mechanical reliability, not with how it forced you to work. If mechanical function were not a problem, do you think you could be happy with the way the M6 fits your shooting style?

In my case, I have gradually shifted to manual controls on all of my film RF cameras. I treat them a little like small LF cameras -- meant to be used with your brain switched to the "on" position. So AE, which I had briefly with the M7 and have with the Contax G2, is not so much of an issue. I still use AE with my Nikon F4, F5, D3 . . . and it works great. But I never hanker for it with an RF camera, probably because when I am using an RF, I am thinking in a different way.

Ben Marks

 

[ferider]

Even though many here would like to believe that, it is, IMO, impossible via the majority of 800x600 web posts to find the minuscule differences between 35/2 Summicron pre-asph, Summicron asph and ZM Biogon. People show you differences, but most of them are due to different films, post-processing, etc. Like Roger, I think the Summicron v4 is overrated - however, it is still a very good lens applied by many for great photography, successfully. Also, it is overrated by the same sort of people that will tell you loudly that a Biogon is so much better than a Summicron, or vice versa.

Your M6 with MP finder and upgraded meter is pretty much the best user Leica you can have - it might give you reliable service for the rest of your life. Still the ZI will be different in handling, sound, weight, AE, etc. There are lots of happy ZI and Leica users out there - this should tell you that it's a personal decision. Which one is better for you, really only you can decide.

So, under the bottom line, nobody here can tell you what will work better for you. You'll have to try yourself. Or give up RFs alltogether, if they don't feel right.

I wouldn't sell the M6 right away, as said above, very unlikely you will get back on the used market what you invested.

Roland.

 

[rayfoxlee]

Jeremy, this does sound like one of those situations when you could throw endless amounts of cash at the 'problem' without finding a resolution. The 35mm FL, IMHO, is where rangefinders excel. I have 15, 24, 35, 50 and 90mm FLs from both Leica and Voigtlander. I would encourage you to persevere, although having shot so many rolls, I too have some nagging doubts that something is seriously amiss for you with the current setup.

The ideal might be for you would be to borrow a, say, 24mm and 50mm and shoot half a dozen rolls with each and see how your picture taking changes. You might just be someone who naturally 'sees' potential pictures at 50mm rather than 50mm.

As far as the M6 repairs are concerned, you should have a fantastic camera when it is all done. How might you feel if your brand new Z1 develops a fault after a short time - such things happen!

I hope you sort this.

Best wishes

Ray

 

[Vincent.G]

Jeremy, drop me a PM when your M6 returns to you. I'll be happy to buy it from you. I am looking for a M6 now.

 

[jljohn]

Roland,

I think that you are right about comparing lenses by looking at a computer screen, to some extent, but I have trouble with your statement that it is "impossible . . . to see the miniscule differences." Take a look at the thread from 2 weeks ago called "This weekend with a 35/2.8 C-Biogon & 35 Sumicron v. IV." (I don't know how to link the thread.) Two pictures under similar circumstances, and I can tell which is which. Six people almost immediately identified which image was from the zeiss lens. And those images was take on a small sensor digital camera! It seems patent that we can compare and evaluate lenses on the screen to some level of effectiveness.

Now, if you simply meant by your statement that we can see the big differences, but not the small ones, then I agree, but if you mean (as I read) that the differences are only miniscule and we cannot see them on the screen, then I think that statement is incorrect.

I do not mean to pick, and I appreciate the input you've given. I just wonder how you can account for many people's ability to identify lenses based on images on the screen if you believe that the differences cannot be seen.

Jeremy

 

[Roger Hicks]

Even though many here would like to believe that, it is, IMO, impossible via the majority of 800x600 web posts to find the minuscule differences between 35/2 Summicron pre-asph, Summicron asph and ZM Biogon. People show you differences, but most of them are due to different films, post-processing, etc. Like Roger, I think the Summicron v4 is overrated - however, it is still a very good lens applied by many for great photography, successfully. Also, it is overrated by the same sort of people that will tell you loudly that a Biogon is so much better than a Summicron, or vice versa.

Your M6 with MP finder and upgraded meter is pretty much the best user Leica you can have - it might give you reliable service for the rest of your life. Still the ZI will be different in handling, sound, weight, AE, etc. There are lots of happy ZI and Leica users out there - this should tell you that it's a personal decision. Which one is better for you, really only you can decide.

So, under the bottom line, nobody here can tell you what will work better for you. You'll have to try yourself. Or give up RFs alltogether, if they don't feel right.

I wouldn't sell the M6 right away, as said above, very unlikely you will get back on the used market what you invested.

Roland.

Dear Roland,

We could not agree more about the excellence of the Summicron, or about the fact that it is possible to overrate even excellence, elevating it to divine perfection.

Even with lenses that are grossly different -- such as a 50/1,2 Canon or a 50/1,5 C-Sonnar -- I could use either, and wouldn't worry too much, though obviously, I have my preferences. Arguably, lens choice is even more personal than camera choice.

I am also as sure as you are that even the gross differences will only be visible in some pictures (combinations of apertures and lighting conditions), and that even then, they will very seldom be apparent at 600x800 pixels.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ferider]

Here is Benjamin's thread, Jeremy: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92889.

You are right, some people recognized the difference. And nothing against preferences for small differences either way .... My point was different though: if you look at Benjamin's photos, both photos are very similar, both lenses render well. The lens differences have no impact on subjective image quality, IMO. As Ben wrote in the same thread: Both are freaking fabulous lenses..

I am still responding to your original sentiment about M6 and Summicron v4:

".... but I just don't feel like I'm getting along with it as a photo making tool ...."

The tiny rendering differences (if they exist), how can they possibly be a "make or break" criterion ?

I am a moderator of the flickr M-mount forum (see my signature). Our members have collected a few more than 41k pictures taken with different Leica mount lenses. Have a look at Summicron and Biogon galleries, and see in what flavors they come, how much more photographer and medium (choice of film, film vs digital, etc) matter than which modern lens you pick.

Good luck,

Roland.

 

[jawarden]

Hi Jeremy,

I think sometimes we need a new toy/tool to shake up the routine and expand creatively. If you can afford the expense of the sale/purchase, why not give it a try? The ZI and lenses are not objectively better than the Leica IMO, but if a bigger, brighter viewfinder (or whatever) puts you in the zone photographically, so be it. The switch is hard to justify otherwise, given your recent investment to make the Leica perfect.

At the moment I'm a one-camera-one-lens guy (ZI and 35mm Biogon) but that is subject to change at the drop of a hat.

🙂

Jeff

 

[Schlapp]

Sell the leica and but more film for the k1000