Thoughts on a second M body

[oscroft]

With the spring and summer not too far away I'm thinking of my photographic needs for the coming year, and I think it might be time for another M body to accompany my M6 for general-purpose shooting (I've actually been thinking about another M for some time, so I have had time to ponder some of the options). Currently, my M-mount bodies consist of an M6, a CL, and a Bessa-R4A.

When I'm going out shooting, I really like to carry two bodies and two lenses (with maybe a third lens in the bag). If I'm doing extra-wide stuff, the R4A is the obvious choice (and it's wonderful - I carried the M6/R4A combination around Thailand last year). But I often like to take 35/75, 35/50, 50/75 or even 50/50 (sometimes b&w/colour, but sometimes just to use two different 50s together). Much as I love the R4A, I think its VF frames for 35 and 50 are a bit too small for comfortable use. The CL is great too, but in a different context - it's a real top quality "pocket" RF, but it's not really what I want when I'm out on a serious day's shooting with a bag of kit. I also have a couple of collapsible 50s, and a J-12 35/2.8 - the J-12 won't fit at all on the R4A/CL, and with the collapsibles I'd be worried about accidentally collapsing them and causing damage. My J-12 is a good one and produces some great results, but I've hardly ever used it because I hate using external viewfinders on my FSU bodies, and it blocks the meter on the M6. (Am I really suggesting I need another M body to use with a $50 FSU lens? Hmm - but then, it's results that count, not the cost of the kit).

I want to keep the cost down and new gear is not an option, so I've been thinking about looking for a decent user-grade M2 or M3. On the one hand, an M3 would be nice because its 0.91x VF would be great with a 75 (I have a CV 75), but on the other hand an M2 would be great for the J-12 (and I actually have a 1.25x magnifier for the M6, which works great with the 75 frame). But on the other other hand, the 0.91x of an M3 would be great for near-lifesize shooting with a 50 (it's hard to see the corners of the M6 50 framelines with the 1.25x thing). But then on whichever other hand I'm up to, switching between two cameras with the same VF magnification would be less intrusive. And it looks like M2s are going cheaper than M3s these days - a quick check with Ffordes shows M2s going for about £60 ($120) less than similarly-graded M3s. Or then, I guess another option might be an M4 - giving me essentially another M6 but without a meter. (Oh, and I've also thought about a Bessa R3A/M - the 1:1 VF and the 40mm frame would be nice). Overall, I probably currently favour an M2 (though I think the only reason I'd prefer one to an M4 is the price).

The lenses I'd really be wanting to use the 2-body kit with would be combinations selected from...
28/3.5 CV
35/2.5 CV
35/2.8 J-12
50/2.5 CV
50/2.8 Elmar-M
50/2 Summitar (uncoated)
75/2.5 CV
(and it would also be nice to be able to sometimes go out with a 3-lens FSU set of J-12, J-8 and J-9)

Obviously the decision is down to the way I work and the combinations I most prefer, but I'd appreciate any thoughts. Does anyone else shoot similarly to the way I do and have preferred camera body combinations? Are there any other options you think I should consider?

(And thanks for reading this far - I hadn't intended to waffle so much 🙂 )

 

[FPjohn]

Hello:

The old logic for a second body - having an instant choice of a different lens or film - still holds so you may as well follow your inclinations.

As to my own self observed behaviour, I find myself using a 25mm Skopar as the preferred lens on a IIIB, and 50mm and a 75mm as the all but fixed lenses on a M3 and M6 body.

It does not escape me that one body will take all three at cost of only a little inconvenience and less money.🙄

Yours
Frank

 

[Tom Diaz]

The lenses I'd really be wanting to use the 2-body kit with would be combinations selected from...
28/3.5 CV
35/2.5 CV
35/2.8 J-12
50/2.5 CV
50/2.8 Elmar-M
50/2 Summitar (uncoated)
75/2.5 CV
(and it would also be nice to be able to sometimes go out with a 3-lens FSU set of J-12, J-8 and J-9)

If I were you I would search high and low for an M4, M4-2, or M4-P, so I had first and foremost, VF frame support for as many of those lenses as possible. Second, with any actual Leica M you'd have a longer RF baseline for that 75mm or for faster lenses you might use in the future. Third, I say M4x because even with a Leica it's nice to have a younger more updated machine, beautiful as those M3s are. You might end up talking yourself into a second used (maybe not cosmetically great) M6 body, which would be nice. You are saving a lot of money on lenses...?

Other idea--have you thought about a Hexar RF? There are always those bugaboos about the slight focus shift, but a) that is supposedly correctable if you experience it, and b) that tends to keep the price down, and c) you are using relatively slow lenses anyway so you might not notice. I have not used one, but there is a lot of stuff about it on this site.

 

[oscroft]

As to my own self observed behaviour, I find myself using a 25mm Skopar as the preferred lens on a IIIB, and 50mm and a 75mm as the all but fixed lenses on a M3 and M6 body.

I like 25mm too. I also intend to get a new M-mount CV 25 this year to use on my R4A - I sold my uncoupled screw mount 25 because I couldn't handle having the VF framelines with near-maximum parallax error most of the time.

and 50mm and a 75mm as the all but fixed lenses on a M3 and M6 body

Yeah, I suppose what really matters is whether I use 50/75 or 35/50 more - I think probably the latter.

It does not escape me that one body will take all three at cost of only a little inconvenience and less money

Indeed - but fortunately it does seem to have escaped my wife, which is all that really counts 😀

 

[payasam]

The M3 has no 75 mm finder frame. Unlike your other bodies, it has no meter.

 

[oscroft]

If I were you I would search high and low for an M4, M4-2, or M4-P, so I had first and foremost, VF frame support for as many of those lenses as possible. Second, with any actual Leica M you'd have a longer RF baseline for that 75mm or for faster lenses you might use in the future. Third, I say M4x because even with a Leica it's nice to have a younger more updated machine, beautiful as those M3s are. You might end up talking yourself into a second used (maybe not cosmetically great) M6 body, which would be nice. You are saving a lot of money on lenses...?

That does make a lot of sense - having the VF coverage means not sacrificing anything with an M2 or an M3, and it really is only price that puts me off an M4. But as you say, those CV lenses really have saved me a lot of money.

Other idea--have you thought about a Hexar RF? There are always those bugaboos about the slight focus shift, but a) that is supposedly correctable if you experience it, and b) that tends to keep the price down, and c) you are using relatively slow lenses anyway so you might not notice. I have not used one, but there is a lot of stuff about it on this site

I hadn't, but that's a very interesting suggestion, thanks - I'll do a bit of research.

 

[oscroft]

The M3 has no 75 mm finder frame

Ah yes, good point - I'd forgotten it has a 90, thanks.

 

[Tom Diaz]

I hadn't, [thought about the Hexar] but that's a very interesting suggestion, thanks - I'll do a bit of research.

I see that a Japanese store has a mint "Limited edition" (the titanium plated one from about 2001) on sale for $800 something. Mint would be nice, since it's probably real hard to find a repair tech after the demise of Konica. (The Konica AF that I have is probably not repairable either, but I don't care because it seems to be so rugged, and they are less expensive.)

Hmmm. There is everything to be said for a real, honest to goodness Leica. They built up a large stock of parts for every camera they ever made, and there are tons of people who can fix'em. I liked the CV bodies I had and I like the ZI that I still have, but it's the Leicas that I know I can keep running pretty indefinitely.

 

[BillBingham2]

If you want an M, I'd go with a M4-P, it gives you a 75mm frame and feels like an M6 but with no meter. If you're not stuck on a Leica, then look at the R3M. It has a 1:1 finder and feels the same as the R4A. If you are into AE, then get the R3A. It's the only 1:1 RF out there with the frame lines for a 75mm on it.

Another approach might be to build double rear lens caps to speed up changing lenses and stay with one body. Take some epoxy glue and attach to lens caps back to back. Then take some sports tape (nice colors including white or black, hockey tape works well too) and wrap it around the caps to give you better grip. You can then very quickly change lenses with two hands (camera around your neck). They work great for M, F and OM mounts. Still working through some of the issues with the S (internal, external, depth, etc.) mount.

If you go with another Bessa, get the winder so you can hang you second camera from your right shoulder in ready position. IMHO it's the best accessory ever made for a camera. Very light weight, well built and adds a nice grip, winder and extra strap lug.

B2 (;->

 

[oscroft]

If you're not stuck on a Leica, then look at the R3M.

Ah, yes, that's what I meant - not an R2A/M.

If you want an M, I'd go with a M4-P, it gives you a 75mm frame and feels like an M6 but with no meter.

Yes, the more I think about it, the more an M4 seems like the best option - maybe I should just spend the extra money and get one.

 

[oscroft]

Hmmm. There is everything to be said for a real, honest to goodness Leica. They built up a large stock of parts for every camera they ever made, and there are tons of people who can fix'em. I liked the CV bodies I had and I like the ZI that I still have, but it's the Leicas that I know I can keep running pretty indefinitely.

Yep, I know what you mean. I like the CV I have and those I've had (I also had a couple of Ls and an R, which I sold to help finance the R4A), I like the other RFs I have, and I (very much) like my Olympus OMs. (I've never had a ZI, but I'm sure I'd like them, and I'm sure I'd like a Hexar RF). But when I use the M6 it's a whole different chunk of camera that I know can be kept on working for longer than I'll last.

 

[shadowfox]

Another approach might be to build double rear lens caps to speed up changing lenses and stay with one body. Take some epoxy glue and attach to lens caps back to back. Then take some sports tape (nice colors including white or black, hockey tape works well too) and wrap it around the caps to give you better grip. You can then very quickly change lenses with two hands (camera around your neck). They work great for M, F and OM mounts. Still working through some of the issues with the S (internal, external, depth, etc.) mount.

Bill, this is ingenious! I have to try this with my M42 lenses. 😀

oscroft, M4-P will make an excellent backup, not to mention cheaper (if you're patiently scouting it).

 

[oscroft]

Another approach might be to build double rear lens caps to speed up changing lenses and stay with one body. Take some epoxy glue and attach to lens caps back to back. Then take some sports tape (nice colors including white or black, hockey tape works well too) and wrap it around the caps to give you better grip. You can then very quickly change lenses with two hands (camera around your neck). They work great for M, F and OM mounts. Still working through some of the issues with the S (internal, external, depth, etc.) mount

I've just come back to this after ferreting around my collection of lens caps. I love it, and I think I'll do it as well as getting a new M 🙂 (and I'll do one for my OM lenses too). Thanks for the idea.

 

[nicoy3k]

Why not an R2M or R3M?

 

[oscroft]

Why not an R2M or R3M?

Yes, an R3M/A is one of the options I mentioned (I'd go for an R3 rather than an R2 to get the 1:1 VF and the 40mm framelines).

 

[bobbyrab]

I've got two M's, a .58 and a .72, I mainly shoot with a 25, 35, and 50, and if I had to choose one camera it would be the .58, it works at 25 without an external veiwfinder, is perfect with a 35, reasonable with the 50, and with your magnifier would make a reasonable VF with the 75. Just a thought.

 

[oscroft]

I've got two M's, a .58 and a .72, I mainly shoot with a 25, 35, and 50, and if I had to choose one camera it would be the .58, it works at 25 without an external veiwfinder, is perfect with a 35, reasonable with the 50, and with your magnifier would make a reasonable VF with the 75. Just a thought.

I hadn't considered that, thanks - all ideas gratefully welcomed.

 

[mfunnell]

Two points:

Other idea--have you thought about a Hexar RF? There are always those bugaboos about the slight focus shift.

The Hexar RF is a great camera (I have two) and AFAIK the focus issue is a crock. For example, I have no trouble focusing a Leica 75/1.4 wide open (well, not much more than with my M3).

The M3 has no 75 mm finder frame.

But it is easy to estimate. Use the preview lever to bring up the 90mm frameline - the 50mm frameline stays there and 75 is roughly half-way between the two. After a while you'll just judge it by eye.

...Mike

 

[Dogman]

I just use two M6 bodies. One black chrome, one silver chrome. No confusion over controls when switching bodies.

 

[oscroft]

But it is easy to estimate. Use the preview lever to bring up the 90mm frameline - the 50mm frameline stays there and 75 is roughly half-way between the two. After a while you'll just judge it by eye.

Ah, so the 50 stays there with the M3 - that's interesting.

I just use two M6 bodies. One black chrome, one silver chrome. No confusion over controls when switching bodies.

Hmm, yes, there's a lot to be said for keeping it simple and consistent.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts - they're greatly appreciated.