Hi,
After doing research and budgeting for a few months now [...] The crux of the issue is this: I know that the M6 body is better built than the CV [...] the increased ruggedness of the m6 with the decreased price point of the bessa [...] I cannot afford Leica glass, so whichever option I choose, i will be using CV or zeiss glass for a long time to come. [...] pleasure of use and superior results of owning really good equipment [...] bullseye to thieves [...] how much does the body factor in to the overall result of your photography? [...] Since I am leaning more toward the CV and 2 lenses option, I thought I would bring this to the leica section to make sure that there weren't any factors I am not taking in to consideration. Thank you all very much in advance for your time and advice.
I'd go with the Bessa. I went from the Bessa R to an M5. The M5 and the M6 have identical finders, except for some minor flare issues on the M6 and the more cluttered framelines on the M6 and different meter display. Unlike apparently everyone else, I
dont think the Leica finder is much better. The M5 wins in other respects, such as having a spot meter and better general ergonomics with my big hands, which you both won't get with the M6.
For god's sake
look through the M6 finder before saying that added framelines are an advantage! Over the Bessa it has the 28 and 135 framelines. The 135 I literally never used. The 28 on the M6 are next to invisible for me already without glasses; if you wear glasses you won't simply be seeing them, so they're useless. The 50 and 75 are always displayed together, so the 75 clutters up the 50 frame. I'm actually glad that the M5
doesn't have 75mm framelines. On the Bessa, on the other hand, the 50 and 75 framelines are displayed separately and don't interfere with each other.
The Bessa is a pretty rugged camera actually. If you drop it, any camera may break, a Leica no less, no matter how people rave about "built like a tank". I gave my Bessa a pretty rough treatment and wouldn't hesitate to do it again, see these pictures when I sold it:
The Bessa looked pretty roughed up, but it worked like a clockwork all the time. After giving my M5 the same treatment for a year and a half, the vulcanite comes off in flakes and the viewfinder window has a crack (not that I mind), so there's much legend to the legendary durability. The rangefinder is probably a bit more fiddly to adjust on the Bessa if it gets misaligned, but for the M6 you need a special tool, which you don't for the Bessa.
If presented with your choice, I'd lean towards the R2A. Running without batteries is overrated too, IMHO. You can get the Bessa's button cells everywhere in the world. If you're worried, tape a fresh set to the bottom of the camera. AE on the other hand is nice, I've missed it a number of times. In general the lens is more important than the body IMHO, but only if you compare between bodies with similar capabilities; no lens will give you automatic exposure; AE has a lot of added value.
Seriously think about getting a ZI body! It has AE, good ergonomics, and unlike the M6, the finder
is actually much better than that of the Bessa; in fact it is much better than Leica finders, too, with a bigger image, and more accurate than most Leica finders, too.
Meter sensitivity on the ZI goes down to EV 0 @ISO100 like on the M6, on the Bessas it goes to EV 1. Note: EV 0 means 1/4 second at f/1.4 and ISO 800 - so when the meter goes out you won't be able to handhold the camera anymore. If you carry a tripod, carry a good external meater - a Profisix goes to EV -6 and beats any in-camera meter hands down. I did a lot of low-light photography and never found the Bessa's sensitivity to be a problem.
The smugness factor is overrated. And if you take the smugness factor seriously, Leica aficionados apparently don't like the M6 all that much. They take smugness to the extreme: an M6 is a primitive, plebeian, half-electronic, half-plastic camera to some of them
😉 So if you want "the feeling", get an M2 or so, maybe for cheap as a second body one day, or an M4, and learn to use an external meter, it's part of "the feeling".
A thief
might be more attracted to the M6's red dot but I doubt it, most thieves steal things, not brands. You can always put lots of tape and Hello Kitty stickers all over your cameras to make them unattractive.
With the 2 lenses you'll be better off. I'm not sure whether it makes much sense to go for a 35 and a 50, maybe something more different would be better - a 50 and a 21, or a 35 and a 75. From the current lineups my choice would be a Voigtländer 21/f4 and a Zeiss 50/f1.5 (don't listen to Internet talk about the latter lens, look at pictures instead) or 50/f2. If you want a 35, instead of the 35/1.4 I'd lean towards the 35/1.2, which is a bit big, but has very good ergonomics and is one of the most beautiful lenses in the Voigtländer lineup in terms of images, and since you want a low-light lens the extra half stop won't hurt either.
Last piece of advice: Doing research for a few months can actually be very misleading if you do it on the Internet. One can never tell whether another person's affection for their own gear translates into a real photographic value for yourself. You'll read a lot of people raving about their Leicas, more than the Leica is actually worth as a camera IMHO. People tend to be a bit too emotionally invested in them if you see what I mean. They're good cameras, but they're not the camera to end all cameras no matter what people say, and other mothers have nice daughters, too.
Philipp
