M4 if you like using external light meter?

[Wayne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It looks like it will be another 6 months or so until I get my M3 back from CLA. Mad money, earned through refereeing football, i.e. American football, is buring a hole in my pocket, and enjoyment of my recently purchased M8 makes me yearn to start using film again.....Today.....or next month at the latest.

 

I do not mind...actually like...playing around with external light meter. I notice that the difference in price between used M4 and M6 leica cameras is around 25% when considering "mint" or "near mint" cameras. I have read much high praise of the M6 as the best mechanical leica rangefinder, but most of this praise seems to center on the in-camera light metering. Looking at photos of the M4 and M6, I cannot see a significant difference between them.

 

My cheif concerns in choosing between the M4 and M6 has little or nothing to do with in-camera light meter. I am particulary interested in things like 1) build quality/reliability 2) availability of full service, if needed, 3) rangefinder function. In these three areas, does the M6 represent better value than the M4?

 

Thanks for your patience with this very basic question. I appreciate any insight. Especially from those who own, or have owned, both cameras.

[earleygallery]

My cheif concerns in choosing between the M4 and M6 has little or nothing to do with in-camera light meter. I am particulary interested in things like 1) build quality/reliability 2) availability of full service, if needed, 3) rangefinder function. In these three areas, does the M6 represent better value than the M4?

 

 

Any M camera is a good camera, and choice is mostly a personal thing.

 

I suspect most people will err in favour of the M4, for it's more classic style and construction. The M6 can suffer from 'corrosion' of the top plate (actually a reaction between the base metal and coating), and the rangefinder patch can flare out in some light.

 

However the M6 is of course much newer and has the built in meter which many would choose in preference.

 

The choice, as they say, is yours.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Wayne]

Thanks for the info on the M6 corrosion. I have noticed some nice looking M6 cameras that seem to have developed a pox on the top plate: nothing that one would recognize as full corrosion, but rather, numerous small pimples covering the top plate. Is this what you are talking about? Is it something that happens to all of the cameras, or is something that is related to the environment the camera has been kept/used in? If it is just a matter of small pimples, and does not advance to anything worse, I believe I could live with it.

[earleygallery]

Yes it's just cosmetic. Not all are affected and I'd guess a good one should stay good by now. But if you don't care about it, you can pick up a cheaper M6!

[250swb]

If you don't mind a hand held light meter and still want all the benefits of and M6, such as build quality, all the framelines, and a cheaper price than an M4, then look at an M4-P. Built to take a motordrive (so over engineered), if well serviced as slick as an M3, it is the perfect backup because when you get your M3 back it still gives you an alternative with all the other framelines!

 

 

Steve

[spydrxx]

Had an M4 for 43 years loved it. At same time owned an M6 for about 2 years. Good camera,exposure  right on the button, but in the end I kept the M4 and sold the M6...I just liked the M4 better.

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

fwiw, I have both the Wetzlar M4 and the M6 classic non-TTL Solms version.  I had the finder of the M6 upgraded to the MP but I'm not 100% sure if it really was worth the cost (I was kind of okay with it before.)  I don't have corrosion issues with the M6 top plate (the bottom plate is brass.)  I use both equally, sometimes with color neg in one and B+W in the other at the same time.  With reversal film I use the M6 mainly due to the meter (the M6 meter does fine with modern E-6 films; it's not 100% necessary to use an external incident meter, imho.)  With negative film you'll eventually find you can estimate exposure and be pretty much right on.  Use a smart phone exposure meter app for those times you need a guide.

 

I find the M4 to advance film with a smoother, quieter feel.  But that's likely due to the brass gears that are getting worn.  Don Goldberg (DAG), who services my cameras, said that the M4 was being made when the apprenticeship program was still in operation at Leitz Wetzlar (where he was an apprentice.) That meant the cameras were being assembled by workers in their later stages of skill and parts were sometimes reworked to fit during assembly.  He told me that they were built very well by trained workers but so are the later Leica cameras (M6, etc..) The only real difference is that parts were later designed to fit perfectly and less skilled labor could assemble them easily.

 

But all that (to me) is more about nostalgia and romancing the mythology.  Any Leica film camera will do the job of helping you make images and to feel transparent in the hand (imho, the best thing about a Leica is that they can 'disappear' and become an extension of your mind/eye; yes, a cliche but true.)  The previous suggestion from Steve about the M4-P is a good one if you want a meterless camera.  It's newer than the M4 and used prices are good.  It's just as good as the M4 (or any Leica camera.)  As far as framelines go, you can always have them changed if desired during your next service.

 

My advice would to buy the Leica camera model that fits your budget and that is in the best condition and well looked after (and with a return policy/warranty of some sort so you can try it out.) They're all good.....

[dpitt]

Not sure if it will matter to you but there is a difference in available framelines:

M4 : 35, 50, 90, 135mm (35mm shares 135mm)

M6: (0.72) 

28mm & 90mm, 35mm & 135mm and 50mm & 75mm frames.

 

So you will gain 28 and 75 mm lines with the M6. Although some will prefer the uncluttered view without 28 and 75 mm frames on the M4.

 

The M4 was only available in 0.72 finder.

The M6 (mostly M6TTL) was also available in 0.58 or 0.85 finder.

[sblitz]

Had both, greatly preferred the M4, flared less, felt better in my hands, loved the sound, enjoyed it, but that is me, you will take the same pictures with the M6  ..... beware though that the later model M6 has improved meter/electronics relative to the earlier ones according to a Leica engineer. 

[Wayne]

Thanks again for all the great responses. I suppose it is a normal consequence of having access to vast experience and knowledge to find oneself in a quandry over what- initially- seemed a fairly simple decision. I do not regret it. It has caused me to consider things I would not, otherwise, have considered.

 

I am not certain which rangefinder magnification would suit me best; furthermore, I am not sure I even understand the some of the common knowledge out there concerning the various rationale for one magnification over another.

 

I do wear glasses. My M8 has 0.72 magnification. I have never seen the 0.72 magnification as a hindrance to focus effort. However, many of my images are softer- not horribly so- than I would prefer. I have always put this down to lack of experience or less than ideal lighting. But, now I am wondering if 0.85 magnification would provide any advantage in my effort to accurately allign the rangefinder patch. I note that the M4 is available only in 0.72 magnification and the M6 is availble in both 0.72 and 0.85.

 

So, what I have decided to do is purchase a 1.15. magnifier with adjustable diopter and try it out on my M8. I figure the magnifier will bring the magnification of the M8 rangefinder to 0.82. If I find it to be an advantage, I will probably go with a 0.85 M6. Otherwise, I will go with the M4.

 

Thanks again for all the comments.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Wayne

[TomB_tx]

I've had an M4 since 1968, and an M6 since they first came out in the 80s. The M6 meter is very nice, but the M4 VF is better. I tend to enjoy the M4 with an MR4 meter more. With the M6 meter LEDs in view all the time I tend to tweak every exposure too much. With the MR4 I tend to meter the scene once, then just judge the subject tone a bit. 

[sblitz]

+1

[Jeff S]

 

So, what I have decided to do is purchase a 1.15. magnifier with adjustable diopter and try it out on my M8. I figure the magnifier will bring the magnification of the M8 rangefinder to 0.82. If I find it to be an advantage, I will probably go with a 0.85 M6. Otherwise, I will go with the M4.

 

 

The M8 has .68x magnification....1.25x would be .85.

 

Be careful, though, before using a magnifier....and certainly before purchasing a camera with a fixed .85 magnification.

 

First and foremost, make sure your eyes are corrected for 2m virtual distance to the focus patch, including correction for any astigmatism.  Magnifiers will only magnify any uncorrected issues.  And, not all magnifiers are created equally performance-wise, and might somewhat reduce VF contrast.

 

Second, while a camera with .85 mag might help with longer lenses, you might find it problematic seeing the whole VF using lenses 35mm and wider with your glasses (on full frame...remember the M8 also has a cropped FOV).  Some reviews also indicate potential for greater VF flare on certain models with .85 mag.  

 

Always best to experiment before committing.  I'm fortunate that my glasses (that correct for distance and astigmatism) allow me to see the VF patch clearly as well as distant subjects.  There are diopters that correct for astigmatism, too, but I much prefer just leaving my glasses on and not fiddling with diopters and magnifiers.  YMMV....eyes are different and experiences are quite personal, despite mathematics that might suggest otherwise.

 

Jeff

Edited August 20, 2015 by Jeff S

[Wayne]

Thanks for the correction on the M8 viewfinder. My glasses do correct for astigmatism and I do not believe my eyes, with glasses, are a source of compromise when it comes to using the M8 viewfinder. I just have difficulty judging that exact moment when image in rangefinder aligns properly.  To my judgement, there are a few degrees of focus ring rotation where the match in the rangefinder patch seems to be perfect. I guess that is where my soft focus problem is coming from. When I can stop down there is no problem; but I like to shoot available light and often shoot wide open.

 

I have been experimenting with rangefinder use and have found that I get better results when focus and shoot fairly quickly. Evidently, in my case- 55 years old- my eyes fatigue pretty rapidly, causing extended concentration on the rangefinder patch to be an excercise in diminishing returns in fairly short order.

 

I purchased my magnifier from Japanese/Japan Images. It seems a high quality optic. I suppose with its use on the M8 I will right between the 0.72 of the M4 and a 0.85 on M6. The more I think about it, the more I lean M4. I am not a Luddite, but am one who is skeptical about technological "improvement" to things that seem to work excellently as they are.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Wayne

[Jeff S]

To be sure to eliminate other possible variables, e.g., RF alignment, lens focus shift/focus alignment and/or user technique/stability, always useful to set up some target test shots using a tripod.

 

Jeff

[Herr Barnack]

If you are considering an M4, don't overlook the M4-P.  I have photographed with an M4-P for several years and it has never let me down.  It is one of the most sturdy and dependable of film M cameras.

[Matlock]

I think that this topic has been answered pretty well. Remember that it is the lens that is the vital element, provided the camera is correctly adjusted (rangefinder etc.) the picture will be identical whatever the camera. This reminds me of an analogy in the pen world. Many years ago I inherited a solid gold Parker 61 ballpoint and it is a joy to use (although I prefer a fountain pen). However the Parker refil for my pen also fits my £3.50 Parker Jotter. The writing on the page is identical for both pens but the Parker 61 is a much more pleasent experience.So go for the Leica M that you prefer and enjoy the picture taking experience, after all, that is what it is about.

[rpavich]

Thanks for the correction on the M8 viewfinder. My glasses do correct for astigmatism and I do not believe my eyes, with glasses, are a source of compromise when it comes to using the M8 viewfinder. I just have difficulty judging that exact moment when image in rangefinder aligns properly.  To my judgement, there are a few degrees of focus ring rotation where the match in the rangefinder patch seems to be perfect. I guess that is where my soft focus problem is coming from. When I can stop down there is no problem; but I like to shoot available light and often shoot wide open.

 

 

This is precisely why I bought a "Walter" Eye Piece for my M6. I was astounded how much more accurate I was shooting with my astigmatism corrected glasses than without and with them, I couldn't see frame lines...so I had to bite the bullet and go for it.

 

I did the same thing as you..there is this astigmatism produced "grey area" where things "might" be in focus or might not...it's very hard to tell.

 

Here is a link to a video showing what it is:

 

http://walterleica.com/eyepiece.html

Edited August 21, 2015 by rpavich

[Jeff S]

Often one needs to decide on the best compromise...for them.  I wouldn't want to use a Walter diopter since I would have to take my glasses off to see the VF, then put them on again to see distant subjects and to protect sensitive eyes from sunlight.  I also cannot wear contacts.  So my sunglasses, corrected for distance and astigmatism, solve all at once.  

 

But  I'm fortunate that my distance correction also allows for clearly seeing the focus patch (at a 2m virtual distance); otherwise, some other compromise would be needed.  Age and other factors can continually affect vision, so adaptation is key, and unfortunately for some, that means moving away from RF photography.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[normclarke]

I alway's have found the M4P onward finder to be less accurate with regard to the framing area. Where the M4 and ealier framed the view at 1mtr the later model's framed at 0.7mtr which I found to be problematic. I'm sure many folk's don't find this a problem but coming from a Nikon F it could be.

 

Best,

 

normclarke.