Jump to content

M6 or M7


ecosse

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do have an M9 with three lenses but would be interested in perhaps an M6 for some black and white work. Is it possible with 35mm to get high quality 12x10 prints? some say no difference up to the size with 35mm or 6x6 but guess 6x6 would win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I make 12x18-inch prints (viewed at 1 meter) with pretty stellar results.

 

But I don't see how that's an M6 or M7 decision? :p But with regards to that, if you usually shoot aperture priority on your M9 then the M7 is probably your best bet if you're looking for a seamless transition from the digital to film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I make 12x18-inch prints (viewed at 1 meter) with pretty stellar results.

 

But I don't see how that's an M6 or M7 decision? :p But with regards to that, if you usually shoot aperture priority on your M9 then the M7 is probably your best bet if you're looking for a seamless transition from the digital to film.

Well actually it is a decision...a decision to purchase a M6 or not. My simple question was...will a leica M6 produce 12x10 quality prints.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well actually it is a decision...a decision to purchase a M6 or not. My simple question was...will a leica M6 produce 12x10 quality prints.

 

Well this seems to be more of a question regarding the resolution of 35mm film rather than the differences between the Leica M6 or M7 (which is what I think your thread heading implies).

 

Either way, I think the 35mm will satisfy what you're looking for. And in any case, I would personally pick an M7 or the M6.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well actually it is a decision...a decision to purchase a M6 or not. My simple question was...will a leica M6 produce 12x10 quality prints.

 

No, impossible.

 

An M6 is just a film holder really, you need a pinhole at the very least to produce any sort of image.

 

Whether or not it then produces a 'quality image' is down to the talent of the photographer and processor/printer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the M6 and M7 will expose your film perfectly if set correctly. Mounted with a sweet hunk of glass, both cameras will give you film from which you can get fantastic prints enlarged -- it comes down to your preferences!

 

My suggestion is to ask yourself whether you need aperture priority or not. If you wish to shoot primarily BW or colour negative film, then the M6 is your best bet -- the electronics on the M7 are not necessary or especially useful for you in this case. If you wish to shoot slide film, then the M7 might be your best bet -- though I have shot slide film on my M2 without much fuss, just checking the light with a sekonic l308s occasionally. Bear in mind that, while both are well made Ms, there is just less to go wrong on a M6 if reliability during travel is an issue. As another has suggested, if you are most comfortable having the camera's meter adjust your exposures, then get the M7.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, impossible.

 

An M6 is just a film holder really, you need a pinhole at the very least to produce any sort of image.

 

 

Exactly... and the best example of this is the Hasselblad. Pull off the lens and the back and you have a metal box in your hand. M6, M7... It is more about the aesthetics of the camera than function. In my case, having an M9 and wanting a film camera, I have just purchased an M6 Millenium for double the price of a regular M6. Why ? Admittedly I like the idea of brass top and bottom, but essentially the choice was about what I found aesthetically pleasing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My simple question was...will a leica M6 produce 12x10 quality prints.
Yes - and with any ISO film. You are using Leica M lenses, aren't you?

 

I get outstanding 11x14 prints from my M4-P with Kodak Tri-X. Some say exhibition quality prints at 16x20 from ISO 400 B&W film is not hard to achieve, although I haven't printed that large so far.

 

In my experience, proper technique with the camera and in the darkroom when printing - along with a high quality enlarging lens - are the determining factors in terms of print quality at 12x10 or 11x14 than is negative size.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, this is a turning point in the history of photography.

 

Only a few years ago, people were wondering if anything useful can ever come out of a digital camera. Some were fantasising that you'd need at least 150 megapixels or thereabouts to match the quality of 35-mm film. Some even say using a digital camera is no photography at all.

 

Today is the first time I see a digital photographer asking if anything useful can come out of 35-mm film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Today is the first time I see a digital photographer asking if anything useful can come out of 35-mm film.

 

Well you clearly haven't been paying attention! There are plenty of threads here where some of the digital converts will wade in whenever someone mentions film, to tell us all how useless it is, defunct, dead, and how they have managed to imitate grain in photoshop!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you clearly haven't been paying attention! There are plenty of threads here where some of the digital converts will wade in whenever someone mentions film, to tell us all how useless it is, defunct, dead, and how they have managed to imitate grain in photoshop!
Or they could save themselves alot of trouble and just use a film camera to begin with... :D
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest sterlinstarlin
Exactly... and the best example of this is the Hasselblad. Pull off the lens and the back and you have a metal box in your hand. M6, M7... It is more about the aesthetics of the camera than function. In my case, having an M9 and wanting a film camera, I have just purchased an M6 Millenium for double the price of a regular M6. Why ? Admittedly I like the idea of brass top and bottom, but essentially the choice was about what I found aesthetically pleasing.

 

I think the differences between the M7 and every other film M goes far beyond aesthetics. .72 M7s are pretty reasonable these days. Buy one. You'll love it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

my point was that a film camera is a film camera and there is not really a great difference between them. Essentially, a film body, or digital is merely a box which accommodates a lens. So regardless of what model you choose, at the end of the day you are still making images using silver halide processes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having owned M6, M6TTL and M7 bodies, I have to say I much prefer the M7 (I have a 0.58x finder one). My first M6 had an unreliable 1/1000 shutter speed (which gave uneven exposure to negatives) and this had to be fixed more than once. The M7 has a more precisely controlled electromagnetic shutter. The larger and better placed shutter speed dial of the M6TTL and M7 is more ergonomic in use than older M6 (and M2, M3 or M4) bodies, and The M6TTL or M7 is thus going to be more similar to the M9 in the shutter control. M6TTL, M7 and MP cameras are newer and will probably be found in better condition on the used market.

 

If you ever want to do high speed sync flash, an M7 + Metz 54MZ flash + SC 3502 adapter is the only M body that will do this (even the M9 can’t do HSS flash, though oddly the 54MZ3 + SC 3502 I have won’t even fire on my M9, so I use an SF24D with it). However, HSS flash on the M7 is essentially a manual flash operation with reduced flash power because the flash exposure is made up of several partial power bursts from the MZ54 and the TTL flash sensor won’t work with it. HSS flash is of limited utility, but it might be useful for some sorts of photos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...