This reminds me of guitars. Get the fender Squire because it's a great bang for the buck. But then buy the USA Strat because it just plays easier, sounds better, and is built better. Then play a Classic Vibe 70's Strat and realize I can get the same sound and feel as the gitfiddle that cost me 6 times as much. 😛 I did it with Les Pauls too. Ended up back with the $400 Korean made late 80's custom with new pups because it plays as well or better than any $3K model I've played.
Good analogy, and quite accurate.
Well, I'd want the metering, so it's an M6. But either M3 or M6, where I've never held one or even seen one, is a lot of coin to drop. Besides, I think my photography needs to improve to justify having one. What I do know is the few times I've used my Retina and Signet 80 I have really enjoyed it. Much more than an SLR.
I think you have some common misconceptions about this...
"I think my photography needs to improve to justify having one" is a pretty harsh assessment of yourself. If you enjoy using a camera (system,) that's justification enough in and of itself. Your ability to make photographs is independent of your equipment. Images may be easier or more difficult to make depending on how comfortable you are with your gear, and how competent the gear itself is, but
your processes are and should be independent of your gear.
That said, I switched back to Leica last year (after refusing to pay the price of re-admission for a LOT of years) because I realized that I just plain enjoy shooting a coupled-rangefinder camera more than an SLR. I like the smaller, lighter lenses; I like an interchangeable lens system; and I like shooting large-aperture primes. The process of rangefinder cameras suits my style of shooting more closely than SLR cameras do.
So, my system is easier and more convenient for me to use. Subsequently I appreciate and enjoy using it more. But my process for seeing images hasn't changed (or improved) at all from how I've shot for the past 40 years or so as how I see the world hasn't changed.
And regarding the meter issue, you don't
really need a meter. In some cases, a meter can actually impede your ability to make the image as you tend to fuss with them for "perfect" exposure rather than concentrating on making the image itself. Usually your "calibrated eye" (using the sunny 16 rule) will get you within a stop of the "correct" exposure and the latitude of the film (or sensor) will be adequate to carry the image. Carrying a meter can be useful for establishing a base-line exposure at a venue, but once I've done that, I generally stick it back in the bag and merely adjust for opening shadows, or detail in highlights as appropriate. That method is fast, easy, and lets you concentrate on framing the image rather than fiddling with the camera. I zone-focus a great deal too, especially in bright conditions. Obviously that doesn't work as well at large apertures though.
