I cancelled my M6 2022 order

[BradS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

36 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

How so? Unless we are talking about auto metering, a camera with a meter or a camera without a meter still requires the photographer to choose the shutter speed and f stop (however one chooses to decide that).

 

If no built-in meter, then the photographer has to carry and use a separate meter (adding complexity to both kit and process) or he has to guess the exposure.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[logan2z]

5 minutes ago, BradS said:

 

If no built-in meter, then the photographer has to carry and use a separate meter (adding complexity to both kit and process) or he has to guess the exposure.

I prefer to use incident metering so a separate meter is necessary.   

[BradS]

13 minutes ago, logan2z said:

I prefer to use incident metering so a separate meter is necessary.   

Makes sense and is, of course, perfectly valid.  I was just observing the interesting (well, to me anyway) paradox. Simpler in one sense but more complex in another.

[earleygallery]

1 hour ago, BradS said:

 

If no built-in meter, then the photographer has to carry and use a separate meter (adding complexity to both kit and process) or he has to guess the exposure.

 

Exactly! You still have to set exposure whether using a built in meter or not. A camera with no meter just means you use a separate meter (or guess), it doesn't add anything to the processs or make one a better photographer.

I always advocate having a handheld meter regardless of whether you have an in camera meter or not. Sometimes an incident reading will be better than reflected.

[LocalHero1953]

All you guys using an M (M=Messsucher, right?) have no idea about purity. Sure you can put tape over the second window and pretend the rangefinder doesn't exist. But pure photography needs (NEEDS) a camera without aids of any sort.

Get real!!!!

[mshchem]

I use an incident meter for almost everything.  

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

All you guys using an M (M=Messsucher, right?) have no idea about purity. Sure you can put tape over the second window and pretend the rangefinder doesn't exist. But pure photography needs (NEEDS) a camera without aids of any sort.

Get real!!!!

Don't worry, I am sure Leica will issue a re-release of the M1 next for the genuine purists out there!

[Stuart Richardson]

29 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

All you guys using an M (M=Messsucher, right?) have no idea about purity. Sure you can put tape over the second window and pretend the rangefinder doesn't exist. But pure photography needs (NEEDS) a camera without aids of any sort.

Get real!!!!

If it ain't wood, it ain't good. And I can criticize myself here for having a lens in there that has a shutter and iris...even that is an extravagance when you could just use a lens cap and pop it on and off...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Seriously though, I think the purity arguments are really just about mindset. That is not to diminish them...mindset is important. But the reality is that an M6 without a battery is an MA or M4P...functionally they are identical. If the idea that you could pop a battery in there changes things for you, that is something to discuss with your therapist, haha. (No harm meant!)

3 hours ago, logan2z said:

I hear this all the time when this discussion arises.  I have never looked through the viewfinder of an MP, but doesn't the area reserved for the LEDs have any impact on the experience of looking through the viewfinder?  Or is it (somehow) exactly the same as the M-A?  It would be cool to see a photo of the inside of the MP viewfinder to compare with that of the M-A.  I've never been able to locate an MP finder photo online.

No, you do not see anything at all when the meter is not activated. It is just clear finder. The M6 Classic, M6TTL, MP, and MA are all basically just variations on the M4-2 and M4-P. And, yes, they all come from the M2, and the M3, but in terms of the modern Ms and the internals, it is really the M4-P that is the closest ancestor. The M5 and M7 are different beasts. Otherwise they are all very similar just with a few different bits and bobs added or taken away. There is nothing wrong with this, but other than having a new camera, an MA is basically just a super expensive version of an M4P. The best reason to buy this new M6 is that it is new. A better finder and the center dot are also helpful additions. I think it is a good move for Leica, but it is not a game changer. My hope is that they will be able to use the new meter in it as a replacement for older M6 meters that fail. That would be good news...but who knows...

Personally, I think the M7 is the best film M to actually use, particularly if you are shooting E6. I have owned most of the M cameras over the years, and the M7 was the last that felt that it was more about making the best possible M than about catering to people who just want the same camera over and over with cosmetic changes. Don't get me wrong, the M6 is great...this new one would be my choice for second best M I think.

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[BradS]

43 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

Exactly! You still have to set exposure whether using a built in meter or not. A camera with no meter just means you use a separate meter (or guess), it doesn't add anything to the process or make one a better photographer.

I always advocate having a handheld meter regardless of whether you have an in camera meter or not. Sometimes an incident reading will be better than reflected.

ah...but with a built-in meter one sets the camera controls to achieve correct exposure without removing the camera from the eye.

This seems much simpler to me than futzing around with a separate meter !

[derleicaman]

On 11/12/2022 at 11:23 AM, Huss said:

Yes but you do know the new M6 is the old M6 in name only, right?  It’s like saying why buy a new MP when you can buy a 40 year old M6 instead?

And ultimately it comes down to one’s budget.  Given the choice of a new M6, or a 40 year old one with now ancient electronics, a less effective meter read out, an rf patch that flares and zinc construction, wear and tear, who would choose the 40 year old camera if buying the new one was a viable option?  And saying the 40 year old one is cheaper means it is not a viable option as you have decided that you have budgetary constraints.  If you didn’t, cost would not be a factor.

 

You are 100% correct about the “old” M6, but I will never, ever sell mine. I have one of the original 1984 Photokina cameras. Stefan Daniel confirmed that for me. It was there for the birth of my kids and many travels over the years. Eventually I used my TTL Black Paint and Hammertone more, but that old M6 means a lot to me. The ultimate keeper!

[105012]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

All you guys using an M (M=Messsucher, right?) have no idea about purity. Sure you can put tape over the second window and pretend the rangefinder doesn't exist. But pure photography needs (NEEDS) a camera without aids of any sort.

Get real!!!!

😀 Funny you mention this, because one of the things I really love about the M3 is the raised frames around each of the windows. Whilst they stop the fingerprint smears so prevalent on (lesser 😀 ) M's, the one around the 'second window' is so useful to place a finger over, without touching glass, taking away the focus patch and letting me concentrate on the picture. I use it all the time! 

All non-M3-user's are now leaping to the defence of their M's in 3, 2, 1... 😀

[lmans]

1 hour ago, earleygallery said:

Exactly! You still have to set exposure whether using a built in meter or not. A camera with no meter just means you use a separate meter (or guess), it doesn't add anything to the processs or make one a better photographer.

I always advocate having a handheld meter regardless of whether you have an in camera meter or not. Sometimes an incident reading will be better than reflected.

I own both the M6 and the MA and know that the MA takes more thought to produce results. When the photographer can rely upon the light meter in the M6/MP camera and essentially just turn dials, I really doubt if they are learning about light as much as someone who has no light meter (and doesn't use a separate light meter) and has to gauge settings based upon their judgement. 

I shoot both the M6 and MA...I know for a fact that the MA demands a more thoughtful process. 

As I stated earlier...... for those shooting with a light meter, take the battery out and leave it home. Trust yourself with a roll of film and go out shooting for 3-4 hours. You will feel a difference. 

Bottom line is; the MA, M6 and MP, and M7 all shoot film, which is so much better than digital. 

[kivis]

16 hours ago, Al Brown said:

I see no difference in experience if I put the battery out of M6/MP.

Well that's a duh, but that was not what is was saying.

[cj3209]

Not having an in-camera meter doesn't really make you 'guess.'  While I'm relatively new to this, using the Sunny-16 rule and adjusting based on conditions give you pretty good results and it helps that film, in general, has a lot of exposure latitude; I tend to slightly overexpose rather than underexpose.  This 'forces' me to really think about my shots but the caveat is that it does slow me down a bit.  But the enjoyment of shooting film is just that:  slowing down and thinking about the shot instead of 'machine-gunning.'  I'm using an M-A right now.

I am really enjoying my film cameras; much more so than my digital bodies.

Just my two cents.

Edited November 14, 2022 by cj3209

[Huss]

As for simplicity today I took my MdA out when I climbed Mt Baldy in the Angeles National Forest.  The conditions were very harsh and so I wanted my simplest/most rugged M.  Will develop the film tomorrow. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Huss

[williamj]

If we're going to talk about purity, I would have to say, of the modern cameras, the MA is more pure, because the front is smooth and does not have a battery opening. I find this aesthetically more pleasing. I know that given the space constraints of the M body, if the battery went anywhere else we would have the M5 again.

Is the experience more pure? If we use the modern usage, such as in golf, where shots are considered more pure based on equipment and what the shot accomplished, then anything where you have to do more work controlling the action is considered pure or purer. Leica M photography in general qualifies as pure or purer due to the lack of automation. But you can get this from a Nikon FM2 or a vintage Nikon F or any of those sort of cameras.

It always surprises me when people say that the absence of a meter makes them shoot slower. I have 1 camera with a meter and 3 without, and for sure I shoot faster when I don't have to consult a meter. And now, back under my rock.

[pedaes]

17 minutes ago, williamj said:

vintage Nikon F

As cameras got more automated in the 60/70's it was embraced by all photographers, and there was no talk of it not being 'pure' (whatever that means) photography. I thought the Canon A1 was fantastic (still have two of them)  and so did many others. Had no desire to take my parents folding Agfa with me because it was 'pure'. "This was taken on a 'pure' camera" will be meaningless in judging the image.

[williamj]

42 minutes ago, pedaes said:

As cameras got more automated in the 60/70's it was embraced by all photographers, and there was no talk of it not being 'pure' (whatever that means) photography. I thought the Canon A1 was fantastic (still have two of them)  and so did many others. Had no desire to take my parents folding Agfa with me because it was 'pure'. "This was taken on a 'pure' camera" will be meaningless in judging the image.

I completely agree. When I'm off to shoot wildlife I'm taking a digital camera capable of 5 frames per second with autofocus and matrix metering and no one, in seeing the pictures, says 'William, did you manually focus that lens?' they're only interested in what it looks like and whether the photograph opens their eyes

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lmans]

4 hours ago, williamj said:

I completely agree. When I'm off to shoot wildlife I'm taking a digital camera capable of 5 frames per second with autofocus and matrix metering and no one, in seeing the pictures, says 'William, did you manually focus that lens?' they're only interested in what it looks like and whether the photograph opens their eyes

True.... but it is 'our eyes' that count in my book. How do I feel about the images, how do I feel about how I took them... etc... Emphasis on "I"...  But sure with other people, you can take an image from a Cracker Jack camera and they wouldn't care. Most people have no idea what good photography is; rather, what looks good to their eyes 

Does a pure camera with no meter slow one down? yes....  unless you are 'range shooting'... (people call it Zone shooting but it is really range shooting). But if you are walking around 'in and out of shadows' etc.... it is more time-consuming to set up exposure correctly with no light meter. 

[williamj]

1 hour ago, lmans said:

True.... but it is 'our eyes' that count in my book. How do I feel about the images, how do I feel about how I took them... etc... Emphasis on "I"...  But sure with other people, you can take an image from a Cracker Jack camera and they wouldn't care. Most people have no idea what good photography is; rather, what looks good to their eyes 

Does a pure camera with no meter slow one down? yes....  unless you are 'range shooting'... (people call it Zone shooting but it is really range shooting). But if you are walking around 'in and out of shadows' etc.... it is more time-consuming to set up exposure correctly with no light meter. 

I have no argument with what you say, photography is a broad discipline and it is hard to generalise. Everyone works differently. As you say, whether it is called zone or range or focus by feel at f8 it can be pretty quick and reflexive. I have my tricks for going in and out of shadows (plus or minus 3 stops of light where I live) which is why using a meter is always more considered for me on a fully manual camera. Making sure shadows are zone 3 is always going to take more time. 

Most of all I agree that satisfaction with one’s photography is not only about the photograph produced but is materially affected by how the photograph was obtained and whether it was challenging  or not.