Leica M5 v.s. M6 v.s. M10

[KenLW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Short version:

How should I spend the $4700 budget allocated for the M10

1. Get the M10 and a very cheap lens under $500

2. Get the M5 + one 35mm Summicron 2.0 (or one 35mm Summarit 2.4 and an additional 50mm lens)

3. Get the M6 + one 35mm Summarit 2.4

Longer version:

OK. I have been thinking about getting a M camera since 2017 and at the time I thought Leica Q was a good entry point into Lecia so I brought one and really enjoy its size, autofocus, picture quality, handling, and most importantly the 28mm/1.7 lens. 

It's now 2022 and I realized that I could get a M10 around $4700 and I have the budge for it. However, I don't want to pay $4700 for a camera without USB-C in this day and age. I would rather wait for the M11 to come down in prices and get that instead. However, this would lead to an endless cycle of waiting for the next best thing. So it got me thinking, why don't I get a film Leica camera. I have changed many digital cameras but kept my Minolta X700 film camera around, and I always enjoy the process of photography more when I am shooting film.

And of course, I only need to search for a few YouTube videos to discover the Leica film darling, the M6, and I think this would be my dream Leica film camera based on the look alone. And because a good M6 would cost $2700 (or $3000 after tax and shipping), this would leave me with around $1700 which will allow me to get a used 35mm Summarit 2.4 with good condition after tax. Therefore, that was my plan and I almost brought a Leica M6 today with good condition, but then I discovered the M5.

I know I could get a M3 or M4 variant for the same price as mint M5 but for my film camera, I require a build-in light meter. I don't want to take the extra step to adjust the external light meter to match my settings. And I know there is a chance for the M5/M6 light meter to break down without means for replacement but if I buy a working one, I will at least have a few good years (hopefully) with the meter.

Now back to M5, although I don't really like its looks, the M5 is the cheapest true M camera with light meter (I briefly considered Leica CL but figured I should just get a true M camera for better build quality). I don't think I would mind the slightly heavier and larger body coming from Minolta X700. Also, I don't think I should spend $3000 for a film camera because shooting film is already very expansive these days and who knows if we can afford film in the future. Most importantly, buying a M5 would allow me to one better lens (e.g. 35mm Summicron 2.0) or one 35mm Summarit 2.4 + one 50mm.

So my brain says get the M5 for option 2 but my heart says option 3 M6. Which option should I pick?

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by KenLW

[frame-it]

M2 or M4 + Voigtlander VC2 hotshoe meter

 

if you really really want the lightmeter built in then go for the M6.

 

 

[KenLW]

20 minutes ago, frame-it said:

M2 or M4 + Voigtlander VC2 hotshoe meter

 

if you really really want the lightmeter built in then go for the M6.

 

 

Thank you for the advice! Voigtlander VC2 hotshoe meter is my top choice for external light meter. I feel like the M4-2 has the right price and adding an internal lightmeter should not cost another $1k to get to M6. With that said, I tried to shoot with an external lightmeter and the experience was not good. The problem is that I always had to adjust the external meter to match the camera setting for the correct expose. Of course, I could always do something like a shutter priority or aperture priority strategy where I keep shutter or aperture unchanged for the light meter and only adjust the other setting (of course ISO is always unchanged for the current roll so no need to worry about that). However, I would consider the strategy somewhat limiting when you need to change both settings. Also, I am actually somewhat familiar with Sunny 16 but with film stocks getting expensive these days, I don't want to use the incorrect exposure to waste films.

Edited August 7, 2022 by KenLW

[kivis]

I never could could cozy up to the external light meter idea. Takes away from the beauty of the M body. If an internal light meter is important to you than I think the M6 is the way to go. I would consider the brilliant Voigtlander 35mm f/2 Ultron II or splash with the VOIGTLANDER M 35mm f/2 APO-LANTHAR.

That's a can't go wrong combo.

[KenLW]

20 minutes ago, kivis said:

I never could could cozy up to the external light meter idea. Takes away from the beauty of the M body. If an internal light meter is important to you than I think the M6 is the way to go. I would consider the brilliant Voigtlander 35mm f/2 Ultron II or splash with the VOIGTLANDER M 35mm f/2 APO-LANTHAR.

That's a can't go wrong combo.

Good idea! So M6 + 2 x Voigtlander will still kind of fit my budget. I heard many good things about the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 Ultron II and 50mm f/2 APO-LANTHAR which will make a good 35mm + 50mm combo. However, I might get the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 Ultron II and then save for a Leica 50mm summicron or summilux because I still want to own at least one Leica lens to experience the pure Leica M experience people were talking about regardless of whether or not it actually make sense. I did not know Voigtlander make 35mm APO-LANTHAR which also looks very promising. 35mm would be my main focal length for travel so the Ultron II is a good compact choice.

Edited August 7, 2022 by KenLW

[egrossman]

10 minutes ago, KenLW said:

Good idea! So M6 + 2 x Voigtlander will still kind of fit my budget. I heard many good things about the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 Ultron II and 50mm f/2 APO-LANTHAR which will make a good 35mm + 50mm combo. However, I might get the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 Ultron II and then save for a Leica 50mm summicron or summilux because I still want to own at least one Leica lens to experience the pure Leica M experience people were talking about regardless of whether or not it actually make sense. I did not know Voigtlander make 35mm APO-LANTHAR which also looks very promising. 35mm would be my main focal length for travel so the Ultron II is a good compact choice.

Consider the 1960s Leica 50mm Summicron Rigid as an option at around $1200. a truly fantastic lens. Your budget will go further with some older Leica glass.

Erik

 

[KenLW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, egrossman said:

Consider the 1960s Leica 50mm Summicron Rigid as an option at around $1200. a truly fantastic lens. Your budget will go further with some older Leica glass.

Erik

 

That is a good point! I will keep it in mind when researching for a 50mm lens. I do want to get a M digital camera at some point and I believe most old lens are compatible with the latest M digital cameras. 

 

[Capuccino-Muffin]

M5, a true masterpiece.

M6, the only Leica I will never consider.

Simply put, any other Leica is a better option than the downgraded M6. The meter isn’t really needed, nor in the M5, which by the way is always very smooth.

The brass top M4-P is a mean, steel geared camera with the best framelimes, a great Leica made to be used.

[Topsy]

28 minutes ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

M5, a true masterpiece.

M6, the only Leica I will never consider.

Simply put, any other Leica is a better option than the downgraded M6. The meter isn’t really needed, nor in the M5, which by the way is always very smooth.

The brass top M4-P is a mean, steel geared camera with the best framelimes, a great Leica made to be used.

I have a brass top M4-P it isn't as smooth as either my MP or M2.

[colint544]

For what it's worth, I had an M6 for many years, and now I have an M5 (and have had that for many years also). They're both great cameras, but I prefer the M5, for these reasons:

1) Fits my hand better

2) Great design of the shutter speed dial - it overhangs the front, and is a breeze to operate

3) Great design of the film rewind. It's big, fast, and has a clutch, so if your fingers slip off, you don't have to wind tension back into it

4) Non-flaring viefinder patch

5) Real and grippy vulcanite

6) Self timer

7) Rangefinder windows slightly recessed, and don't collect collect finger prints the way flush fitted ones do

8) Shutter speeds visible in the viewfinder

9) Match-needle meter. I find this more intuitive to use than the bright red LED arrows of the M6

It feels like a lot of thought went into designing the M5. It's a proper picture-making machine. It was the last of the Wetzlar M cameras to be hand-built, and these days it's about one-third of the price of an M6. That's incredible. I also think the M5 is very handsome in an industrial sort of way. Good luck, whatever choice you make

Edited August 7, 2022 by colint544

[Matlock]

23 minutes ago, colint544 said:

For what it's worth, I had an M6 for many years, and now I have an M5 (and have had that for many years also). They're both great cameras, but I prefer the M5, for these reasons:

1) Fits my hand better

2) Great design of the shutter speed dial - it overhangs the front, and is a breeze to operate

3) Great design of the film rewind. It's big, fast, and has a clutch, so if your fingers slip off, you don't have to wind tension back into it

4) Non-flaring viefinder patch

5) Real and grippy vulcanite

6) Self timer

7) Rangefinder windows slightly recessed, and don't collect collect finger prints the way flush fitted ones do

8) Shutter speeds visible in the viewfinder

9) Match-needle meter. I find this more intuitive to use than the bright red LED arrows of the M6

It feels like a lot of thought went into designing the M5. It's a proper picture-making machine. It was the last of the Wetzlar M cameras to be hand-built, and these days it's about one-third of the price of an M6. That's incredible. I also think the M5 is very handsome in an industrial sort of way. Good luck, whatever choice you make

I have to agree with just about everything you say. I have owned my M5 for a number of years and it is a pleasure to use. It only has one problem and that is the frame counter only returns to about 6 or 7 but I can live with that. Having said all that my M6 and M7 are my go to Ms, there is nothing to touch them in metered Ms.

 

[a.noctilux]

Hello everybody,

Ken, so many valuable opinions and good advices.

You will have as many as users who answer.

So only you can decide which "solution" for now, as usual you can change your choice later 😉.

As old user of the three (plus others ...), I just add my opinions on each choice then the lenses choice is not to be neglicted:

• M5 is to be hold and use to appreciate this "big M" (some would see it as ugly, not me ) can be used with "large" lenses Noctilux 1.0/ Summilux 1.4/75 for me (with experiences lack of 75 frame lines is not a problem)
• M6 can be seen as "pretty" work horse, I understand that it can be so hyped now, VF a bit "crowded"
• M10 can do many things the other two can not, depending on the end output you are searching (prints, files,or whatelse)
• if it was me, I'd take one Leitz/Leica lens as first lens, the others can be added later on (infinite choices)

Arnaud

[Capuccino-Muffin]

1 hour ago, Topsy said:

I have a brass top M4-P it isn't as smooth as either my MP or M2.

No, and it might never be.

The M4-P is a Beast with its steal gears. Made for Pro shooters.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Capuccino-Muffin
Typo

[Anbaric]

7 hours ago, KenLW said:

Now back to M5, although I don't really like its looks, the M5 is the cheapest true M camera with light meter (I briefly considered Leica CL but figured I should just get a true M camera for better build quality). I don't think I would mind the slightly heavier and larger body coming from Minolta X700. Also, I don't think I should spend $3000 for a film camera because shooting film is already very expansive these days and who knows if we can afford film in the future. Most importantly, buying a M5 would allow me to one better lens (e.g. 35mm Summicron 2.0) or one 35mm Summarit 2.4 + one 50mm.

So my brain says get the M5 for option 2 but my heart says option 3 M6. Which option should I pick?

It sounds like you don't really like the M5 but would consider one mainly on price, which might be a false economy if it leaves you unsatisfied with your purchase. In the long term you might be happier with the M6 and a basic lens, adding to this down the road as your budget permits. But do you really want to buy a film Leica at this point? Having an M10 on your list suggests you are undecided about this (I don't think the type of USB connection is a big deal - you just need a different cable or adapter). Film isn't just expensive right now but also, if you're shooting colour, in extremely short supply. The only mainstream 35mm colour films B&H have in stock at the moment are Kodak ColorPlus 200 negative and Fuji Provia 100F slide. Buying and processing 100 rolls of either may well cost more than the M6. If you do feel like shooting film, you already have an excellent SLR, and for not much money you can acquire some great Minolta lenses (several of which were even rebranded as 'Leica' when the two companies were collaborating) as well as older classic bodies on which Leica based their R bodies of the time.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Anbaric

[TomB_tx]

As an M4 user I passed over the M5 when it was introduced, due to the talk about how large it was (no Leica dealer nearby at the time). I did add an M6 when it first came out, and it has been my most used M. However, after I retired I found a nice M5 and bought it, having enjoyed a CL as my travel camera for decades. After DAG gave the M5 a complete service it has been a great camera. I love the spot meter of the M5, but the VF readout of the meter takes more time for me compared to the excellent 2-LED arrows of the M6.

One other significant difference: The M5 has a true spot meter with very little effect of areas outside the small spot. This is great for picking an area of the scene to meter accurately. The M6 (through M10) behave more like a center-weighted meter. Both types are fine once you work with them enough to understand how they measure. However, the M6 meter is better for a casual user who just makes a quick general reading. I like the spot meter for careful composition and exposure metering, but for general shooting prefer the M6 for fast, easy shots.

In your case I'd strongly consider getting an M10 with a nice Voigtlander 35 (or 50 if you prefer) - and don't worry about a high speed lens as the M10 does fine at high ISO settings. For over 40 years I used only Leica lenses on my M cameras, but now I find the VC lenses equal for my use. I wouldn't spend the money for a new Leica lens anymore.

[Kwesi]

11 hours ago, KenLW said:

It's now 2022 and I realized that I could get a M10 around $4700 and I have the budge for it. However, I don't want to pay $4700 for a camera without USB-C in this day and age. I would rather wait for the M11 to come down in prices and get that instead. However, this would lead to an endless cycle of waiting for the next best thing. So it got me thinking, why don't I get a film Leica camera. I have changed many digital cameras but kept my Minolta X700 film camera around, and I always enjoy the process of photography more when I am shooting film.

 

11 hours ago, KenLW said:

Now back to M5, although I don't really like its looks, the M5 is the cheapest true M camera with light meter (I briefly considered Leica CL but figured I should just get a true M camera for better build quality). I don't think I would mind the slightly heavier and larger body coming from Minolta X700. Also, I don't think I should spend $3000 for a film camera because shooting film is already very expansive these days and who knows if we can afford film in the future. Most importantly, buying a M5 would allow me to one better lens (e.g. 35mm Summicron 2.0) or one 35mm Summarit 2.4 + one 50mm.

Based on the above, I would say consider an M240.  Apart from size and one stop more high iso, there's very little difference in IQ btwn the 2 cameras.

The M240 is significantly cheaper than the M10. With the way prices are going, I doubt you will see a $4700 M11 for quite a while.

I own the M11 and have owned the M240 and M10 and would feel comfortable recommending any of them

[KenLW]

6 hours ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

M5, a true masterpiece.

M6, the only Leica I will never consider.

Simply put, any other Leica is a better option than the downgraded M6. The meter isn’t really needed, nor in the M5, which by the way is always very smooth.

The brass top M4-P is a mean, steel geared camera with the best framelimes, a great Leica made to be used.

I do like the brass top!

[KenLW]

5 hours ago, Topsy said:

I have a brass top M4-P it isn't as smooth as either my MP or M2.

Any brass top sounds good to me!

[KenLW]

4 hours ago, Anbaric said:

It sounds like you don't really like the M5 but would consider one mainly on price, which might be a false economy if it leaves you unsatisfied with your purchase. In the long term you might be happier with the M6 and a basic lens, adding to this down the road as your budget permits. But do you really want to buy a film Leica at this point? Having an M10 on your list suggests you are undecided about this (I don't think the type of USB connection is a big deal - you just need a different cable or adapter). Film isn't just expensive right now but also, if you're shooting colour, in extremely short supply. The only mainstream 35mm colour films B&H have in stock at the moment are Kodak ColorPlus 200 negative and Fuji Provia 100F slide. Buying and processing 100 rolls of either may well cost more than the M6. If you do feel like shooting film, you already have an excellent SLR, and for not much money you can acquire some great Minolta lenses (several of which were even rebranded as 'Leica' when the two companies were collaborating) as well as older classic bodies on which Leica based their R bodies of the time.

Yes, color film is very expensive at this point. To convince myself I could still shoot film, I recently gone through at least 10 rolls and it pretty much costed me $1 per shot for film stock + development + scan. I started with looking for a digital M like the M10 because I pretty much shoot digital at this point but I always like film better if not for the cost. And yes, the USB port on the M10 is not a deal breaker.

Yes, I discovered the M5 due to its low price. However, I feel like the M5 is more of an acquired taste for me. It is more like coffee instead of honey. So I know I would be able to appreciate it if I get one. Now I think about it, I would actually prefer to get the M5 if I already have any Leica that looks like M6 so this could be the M4 or even digital M240 or M10.

Thank you for the recommendations on the lens! I actually have 3 very good Minolta lens (28mm/2.8, 50mm/1.7 and 135mm/2.0). Adding Leica lens to my collection for Minolta is an excellent idea.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[KenLW]

1 hour ago, TomB_tx said:

As an M4 user I passed over the M5 when it was introduced, due to the talk about how large it was (no Leica dealer nearby at the time). I did add an M6 when it first came out, and it has been my most used M. However, after I retired I found a nice M5 and bought it, having enjoyed a CL as my travel camera for decades. After DAG gave the M5 a complete service it has been a great camera. I love the spot meter of the M5, but the VF readout of the meter takes more time for me compared to the excellent 2-LED arrows of the M6.

One other significant difference: The M5 has a true spot meter with very little effect of areas outside the small spot. This is great for picking an area of the scene to meter accurately. The M6 (through M10) behave more like a center-weighted meter. Both types are fine once you work with them enough to understand how they measure. However, the M6 meter is better for a casual user who just makes a quick general reading. I like the spot meter for careful composition and exposure metering, but for general shooting prefer the M6 for fast, easy shots.

In your case I'd strongly consider getting an M10 with a nice Voigtlander 35 (or 50 if you prefer) - and don't worry about a high speed lens as the M10 does fine at high ISO settings. For over 40 years I used only Leica lenses on my M cameras, but now I find the VC lenses equal for my use. I wouldn't spend the money for a new Leica lens anymore.

Thank you for sharing your personal experience. I like I would definitely appreciate M5 more once I spend time playing with it. Or maybe CL is the way to go because I primarily use my camera for travel. 

Yes, I have read about the M5 meter v.s. M6 meter. I know some people like the M5 spot meter better. I like to use spot meter and compensate the settings in my head based on the surrounding environment. I found that to be the best shooting experience.

I am more leaning towards Voigtlander 35 at this point as my first M lens. I can always acquire more used Leica lens later. Maybe a 50mm summicron rigid would be nice!