Leica M6 Trial

[Big John]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I saw that Leica UK is offering an M6 'test drive' so took them up, along with a 28mm summicron.  Have only shot a couple of rolls of film in the past 20 years, when I switched to digital; my own film camera is a Nikon F5 that I have had since new.  Spent a day in London with the borrowed M6 and while I own an SL (with Zeiss ZM glass), I have never owned a rangefinder (although I have tested an M11P for couple of hours).  My aims were to see how the handling felt, how well I got on with RF focussing and what I made of the light meter.  I only shot one roll (36) of Kodak Gold 200, on a bight and sunny day.  

My experience: handling was nice, definitely enjoyed the small form factor (compared to my SL or my F5) and I found focussing easy and all 36 images came out acceptably sharp; exposure looks to me a little 'over' but in a pleasing way (and it might be either I have forgotten what colour film looks like or just how Kodak Gold looks).  A few pics attached - only as test shots.

So am considering whether to get an M6 - or whether to pick-up a film SLR (smaller and lighter than my F5, prob an FM3a).  Setting aside the RF experience (VF image, RF patch etc) and just considering IQ, how much would I notice a difference in film pics shot by an M6 vs eg. a Nikon FM3a?  If there is a difference, is it all about rendering of the lens?  Thanks.

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[TomB_tx]

For most pictures, with the same FL lens, I don't notice a difference between shots takes with an SLR or M. In my film camera collection I have many SLRs (Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc.) and one of my favorites is the Pentax MX as it feels smaller & lighter than an M6. I used both SLRs & Leica M cameras together since 1968 and have always preferred the M camera VF/RF when using 35 & 50 mm lenses due to the tactile handling and ability to quickly nail focus. I also used an M often with 90 mm, but 90 was equally easy with an SLR, while above 90 would (for me) always be an SLR. When I bought my first M4 I also got a 90 TE, and within a year also bought a Leicaflex SL along with 135. I've had my M6 since 1985, and it's been my favorite M camera.

I've been shooting a lot of film recently using both M models and R7 & R8. While I enjoy the R models again I'm more confident of working fast with the M6 - except I've been using the R8 in auto exposure mode and that's nice for fast shooting also. So I picked up an M7 and really enjoy its ease-of-use with DX ISO and auto shutter speed.

So consider the focal length lenses you prefer most. If in the 28-50 range I think you'd love the M6, unless yo do a LOT of very close & macro work where an SLR excels.

BTW, I've also been shooting more medium format (120) with Rollei & Hasselblad, but again miss the ease of focus of rangefinder. So I also got a Fuji GF670 which has a very "M-like" bright & clear VF-RF, and again much prefer the RF experience.

[Big John]

Thanks @TomB_tx  I shoot most at 35mm, some at 28/50 so understand how the M6 would work for me. I often read of RF owners saying they can focus RF faster than SLR, can you help me understand why?  Thanks. 

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Big John said:

 

So am considering whether to get an M6 - or whether to pick-up a film SLR (smaller and lighter than my F5, prob an FM3a).  Setting aside the RF experience (VF image, RF patch etc) and just considering IQ, how much would I notice a difference in film pics shot by an M6 vs eg. a Nikon FM3a?  If there is a difference, is it all about rendering of the lens?  Thanks.

You would notice very, very little difference, or no difference, in image quality, Nikon make very good lenses and just as with Leica lenses it's about the ones you choose. So the difference is really form factor and if an M6 can do what say an FM3a can do for you, or visa versa. Being fully manual even without batteries and metered or automatic with batteries the FM3a is hard to beat, and in function should have been what the M7 aspired to be. The M6 is a classic and again hard to beat as the pinnacle of Leica rangefinders. So there's nothing wrong with either.  

[Big John]

Thanks  @250swb    Appreciated. 

[Ko.Fe.]

I was shooting more on film than digital from 2010 to 2020 or so.

For images like you shown it is zero technical reason for rangefinder and Leica lenses. Yes, Leica glass has its own rendering on film. But is it really important...

Many photos by Fred Herzog (color flm) were taken on Nikon SLR.  And in one seminar with him he told about his bad experience with Leica. 

It is only about feeling.

Film M with not too fast ZM or more compact VM lens (it could be small and fast) will provide very pleasant results at bit too high price.

Nikon SLR with nothing special lens from Vivitar will be not far if not any different from Leica M. But SLR is just very different, no matter what size is.

While I was really into street photogaphy (several rolls per day, week) I prefered meterless film M to anything, film or digital. It was most precise, yet elegant and pleasing tool. Just like fixie for messengers instead of ebikes. 

After I stopped dying hard on streets and switched to casual street photogaphy, before I quit from film, I was getting inexplore at Flickr with Nikon EM and low cost Vivitar lenses. 

The final choice is yours and it is variable. Film look is the same with Leica or Nikkor glass. The subject you are trying to catch, might be better done with SLR. 

Only very few by now do really understand how to use Leica M and M lenses these days to its full potential. Not because people became lame, but because another tools are available. 

Take metering for example. M6 metering is way too slow for the street if dealing with blinkers. Use S16 and soon you'll realize it is just as good as long as you are good with S16 (which isn't really big deal to master) and it is more faster than via blinkers. But if you need it fast without mastering, yet, accurate you better get M7 or any SLR with automatic metering which will do just as good, for less. 

 

[Anbaric]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Big John said:

So am considering whether to get an M6 - or whether to pick-up a film SLR (smaller and lighter than my F5, prob an FM3a).  Setting aside the RF experience (VF image, RF patch etc) and just considering IQ, how much would I notice a difference in film pics shot by an M6 vs eg. a Nikon FM3a?  If there is a difference, is it all about rendering of the lens?  Thanks.

I really doubt you'd notice a difference. I have Nikons and an M6 and choose one or the other depending on the sort of camera I want to shoot rather than some magical property of the lens. There are plenty of superb Nikon lenses, and you probably own some of them already. Most of the classic prime focal lengths are excellent, and some of them are stellar, like the 105 DC (or any Nikon 105 - the 105/2.5 was apparently what Steve McCurry used for this photograph). There are some great zooms, too, an option you don't have with the Leica unless we count the Tri-Elmar. Perhaps I wouldn't bother with primes on the AF SLRs at all if the 24-70 AF-G weren't quite so large and heavy - it's that sharp.

Pretty much any camera is smaller and lighter than the F5! I can understand the attraction of the FM3a, though the FM/FE/FM2/FE2 are similar cameras at substantially lower prices, especially the older models. The humble FM has essentially the same features as the M6 (manual exposure, shutter speeds to 1/1000, simple LED metering) in an SLR body. You might also look at smaller AF models. The F100 has most of the features of the F5 that really matter today, especially now that nobody wants to burn 36 shots in under 5 seconds, and there are some things I prefer, like the red focus points and the slightly more responsive focus selector, and it does away with those unnecessary safety locks. But above all, it's a lot more compact and substantially less heavy, especially when you factor in the smaller number of batteries. Or you can go further down the range to the F80, smaller and lighter again (it weighs less than an M6), and quieter than the pro AF Nikons. If you buy either of these models, make sure the back or grips haven't gone sticky, and that the back door catches have no damage.

Edited June 27, 2024 by Anbaric

[Big John]

Thanks @Ko.Fe. and @Anbaric, both very helpful.  
As I suspect I just need to decide on M6 experience/handling/cost vs SLR experience/handling/cost!  Funny being back to film where IQ ceases to be a real differentiator.  

[hansvons]

@Big John, your images are typical for rangefinder photography. Nice scans, BTW.

Lots of thoughtful comments above representing my own experience. Leica M cameras don’t bring better pictures to the table but a different handling and experience that can influence one’s photography sustainably through motivation. Why’s that?

For 35mm and downwards, I find the range finder mechanism better to nail focus than the best SLRs, including Nikon which is the indisputable leader in that area. Plus, the fact that you see the image not through the lens and without blurred backgrounds makes you more aware of the surrounding action and the motif‘s inner dependencies. The darkish, tunnel-like viewing experience with the shallow depth of field in SLRs has it‘s own unique qualities, being much closer to WYSIWYG and requiring less visualization.

To summarize, I find SLRs better for portraiture, especially when using longer lenses. But the range finder shines at action-driven subjects when you immerse yourself into the scenery by shooting 35mm and below. 

Lastly, M cameras have a quieter shutter without that mirror. Your photography is less intrusive and you can use longer shutter speeds handheld because there‘s no mirror slap.

I own both systems but prefer the rangefinder for most of my work as 35mm is my primary focal length.

Edited June 28, 2024 by hansvons

[Big John]

Thanks @hansvons  I should have mentioned the quieter M6 shutter (although it took me a few shots to get used to the amount that the shutter release needed to be depressed - suspect I have got used to less travel and lighter touch of the F5 shutter release); I did like the little ‘shnick’ of the M6 shutter vs the ‘ker clunk’ of my SLR. 
 

Re speed of focus, are you referring to zone focussing? Thanks. 

[hansvons]

12 minutes ago, Big John said:

Re speed of focus, are you referring to zone focussing?

No. I avoid zone focusing because I find proper focus critical to my work. 

The wider a lens gets, the harder it is to focus it critically using a focusing screen or ground glass. That's why focus pullers use tapelines in cinematography to focus an object accurately - if the object focus is critical to the outcome, e.g. pack shots in a commercial. But for that, you need correctly collimated lenses, which even the most expensive Leica lenses are not.

Like a tapeline, the rangefinder mechanism is agnostic to focal lengths. However, its precision is limited. Longer focal lengths amplify that, and the SLR method becomes more precise. For me, 50mm is a draw, 75mm/80mm is already SLR territory, 

[hansvons]

30 minutes ago, Big John said:

although it took me a few shots to get used to the amount that the shutter release needed to be depressed

I solved that with these little push pins that you can screw into the release button. 

Edited June 28, 2024 by hansvons

[Ko.Fe.]

Zone focusing is fast and very simple with practice.

Zone 1 is close, zone 2 is middle, zone 3 is far. Manual SLR lenses have same DOF scales as M lenses. No difference. 

The only reason M wins for fast zone focusing is (if photog is right eye dominated) is in camera ergonomics and Leica made lenses with smooth focus and well made focus tab. ZM/VM not as good for it, not sure about MiC.

Start with smaller apertures and work towards wide open. First learn correlation between DOF scale, aperture scale and focus tab position. Far and close are obviously easier. The middle zone takes time. But wider lens is, less difficult it is to master.

As for accuracy on large apertures. It is dual sword. I never get used to quick manual focusing with mechanical SLRs. Focusing screens are just bad for it.

M's rangefinder patch is superior for slow and accurate focusing, but parallax is not solvable for objects orientations in 3D. Rangefinder is bad for it. 

This is why if focusing is critical, I would prefer AF SLR. Canon EOS is perfect for it. Their modern AF lenses works on old light film EOS cameras. 

But focusing... if here is something to tell, all (more less) should be in focus, if you have nothing to say, large aperture is the aid for emptiness.   

 

 

[250swb]

51 minutes ago, Big John said:

Thanks @hansvons  I should have mentioned the quieter M6 shutter (although it took me a few shots to get used to the amount that the shutter release needed to be depressed - suspect I have got used to less travel and lighter touch of the F5 shutter release); I did like the little ‘shnick’ of the M6 shutter vs the ‘ker clunk’ of my SLR. 
 

Re speed of focus, are you referring to zone focussing? Thanks. 

But don't be fooled by thinking nobody will notice you if they can't hear the shutter, we are nearly two hundred years into an era where people became accustomed to the sound of a camera shutter and have grown to ignore it. I used to be a theatre photographer and in a dress rehearsal the actors wouldn't consciously hear my Nikon F2 even in the silence of a closed theatre.

As for fast focusing if you can't use the split image easily with a wide lens on an SLR you can use the fresnel area of the screen and later SLR's (like the FM3a) with brighter screens to see the image pop into focus are an advantage. 

I wouldn't have four Leica M's if I didn't like them, and it can be the very best camera for the job. But if you do get an M6 or test it again just relax with it, there is a learning curve for most people where you'll get the focusing wrong, turning the focus ring in the opposite direction may catch you out, etc. But it will all come to you and before long you'll instinctively adjust to both camera systems as soon as you pick one or the other up. 

[dpitt]

13 hours ago, Big John said:

Thanks @TomB_tx  I shoot most at 35mm, some at 28/50 so understand how the M6 would work for me. I often read of RF owners saying they can focus RF faster than SLR, can you help me understand why?  Thanks. 

Faster focus mostly has to do with muscle memory and focus tabs. When you use a lens with tab like a 28mm or 35mm long enough you can even focus approximately before you take the camera up to your eye. Then it is very fast to adjust a bit, frame and click...

2 hours ago, hansvons said:

@Big John, your images are typical for rangefinder photography. Nice scans, BTW.

Lots of thoughtful comments above representing my own experience. Leica M cameras don’t bring better pictures to the table but a different handling and experience that can influence one’s photography sustainably through motivation. Why’s that?

For 35mm and downwards, I find the range finder mechanism better to nail focus than the best SLRs, including Nikon which is the indisputable leader in that area. Plus, the fact that you see the image not through the lens and without blurred backgrounds makes you more aware of the surrounding action and the motif‘s inner dependencies. The darkish, tunnel-like viewing experience with the shallow depth of field in SLRs has it‘s own unique qualities, being much closer to WYSIWYG and requiring less visualization.

To summarize, I find SLRs better for portraiture, especially when using longer lenses. But the range finder shines at action-driven subjects when you immerse yourself into the scenery by shooting 35mm and below. 

Lastly, M cameras have a quieter shutter without that mirror. Your photography is less intrusive and you can use longer shutter speeds handheld because there‘s no mirror slap.

I own both systems but prefer the rangefinder for most of my work as 35mm is my primary focal length.

+1 with most of what Hans says.
Maybe you will not see much difference between pictures shot with the best Nikon (or others) lenses and good Leica lenses, but there is definitely a difference in 3D pop and rendering to my eyes. Only the best lenses do that and most Leica lenses, even the old ones have that 'something' in abundance. It is more rare in other brands. 

An other thing that strikes me when using other brands vintage lenses, is how much they need to be stopped down to get optimum sharpness and contrast. If you like shooting sharp pictures at fast apertures, Leica is among the best.

Hans mentioned the immersion in the scene. It is hard to describe and it took me a while to see and understand, but my pictures taken with a rangefinder come out different. The fact that I am using a camera that does not see through the lens seems to trigger a different part of my brain. At least, I notice that I am thinking more about the shot before I take the camera to my eye and that I discover more framing opportunities when I can see outside the frame. The feeling of satisfaction when it all comes together as you envisioned it is different too, compared to a shot that you have already seen in the SLR or DSLR view finder.

Having said that, most of this experience is exactly the same when using any Leica M released from the M3 in 1953 till now. As long as it has had a good CLA and works properly, it can bring this experience at a much lower cost than a brand new M6.
So if you are in doubt, buy a cheap user M2 or M3 and use it for 6 months. A few days is not long enough to appreciate the full experience of a rangefinder. You will not lose much money if you decide to sell it, and you can always buy the M6 as a second body later. The only thing that beats using a Leica M, is using two Leica Ms 🙂 

Just my 2 cents... 
 

[Big John]

Such a great forum - what helpful responses, thank you everyone. 

[spydrxx]

Having used and owned most SLRs produced over the last 60 years as well as several Leicas, I'd tend to agree with previous posters. Although I sold my F5, I did keep my F4, EM, and a digital 300...IMHO all good cameras using my favorite Nikon lenses. Do I see a difference in IQ between Leica film bodies and SLR film bodies in terms of IQ...honestly, no. My Zeiss lenses on my Contax and Yashika SLR bodies, IMHO certainly seem to deliver IQ similar to Leica lenses when matched apertures. My experience simply is SLR/DSLRs shine with medium and longer focal length lenses, and Leicas shine with shorter focal length lenses, and overall weight. These days, though, I don't often use film anymore, but rather use lenses of all my cameras adapted to a Sony mirrorless body. I do every so often dry fire my film bodies to keep them in working shape, and really need to use up the films in the freezer, but for me film and its bodies definitely have taken a back seat...digital just is that good, inexpensive, and results are as good as if not better than film. YMMV.

[Viewfinder_vandals]

Are These scanns from a Lab? Look very Good 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[earleygallery]

Whilst there will be minimal difference between the M6 and a Nikon SLR in image quality (all things being equal) the M6 will lead to a different style/look of the resulting photos, IMHO.

The rangefinder camera makes me shoot differently to when I'm using an SLR, obviously you aren't looking through the lens and the viewfinder will never be as accurate so one shoots a bit 'looser' (or at least I do). I tend to be more precise with an SLR.

In lower light using the rangefinder is easier (as it's brighter).

[otto.f]

22 hours ago, Big John said:

how much would I notice a difference in film pics shot by an M6 vs eg. a Nikon FM3a

I don’t know about the latest Nikon lenses and how they have  evolved, but in the M6 era the choice of a Leica lens would certainly result in better contrast and sharpness. And an M6 is still smaller than the Nikon FM3a.