Leica M6 Trial

[Big John]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

50 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

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).

That’s another helpful perspective: not about the RF handling or how it feels but about how the RF experience makes you address the shot differently. Great point. 

5 hours ago, Viewfinder_vandals said:

Are These scanns from a Lab? Look very Good 

Thanks, yes, U.K. lab, first time I have used them: https://analoguewonderland.co.uk

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

3 hours ago, otto.f said:

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.

You don't need the newer Nikon lenses, the old ones are as sharp as an equivalent Leica focal length. All you get is a pixel peeping level of scrutiny over which is 'best' that's lost on film anyway. It's why photo editors in the day didn't reject Nikon photos, or Olympus, or Canon and insist on Leica photos. It's a Leica myth created by Leica, just as Hasselblad worked up the two registration notches on the side of the film as a bogus myth about quality to prove that it must be a Hasselblad that took it. As for the 'smaller' argument, how many viewfinder windows does an M6 have that can match an SLR, and how fat does an M6 get if you start adding lenses outside of it's inbuilt capability? How does the M6 work with Auto Exposure in your experience? What is the M6's top shutter speed, is it 1,000th or 4,000th, and which one is better to deal with fast lenses that Leica crow about so much? And all a 'problem' because an FM3a is s few millimetres bigger than a Leica M6. 

[johnwolf]

I shoot an M2 but recently put a couple rolls with an inherited Nikkormat. I really enjoyed it and actually feel I could get along without an M just fine.

If I was in the market and didn’t have an M, I think I’d get an SLR - maybe an FE or FE2 - and use the savings for film.

Edited June 28, 2024 by johnwolf

[ktmrider2]

I used Nikon F's when I was a professional newspaper photographer and yearned for a Leica.  However, the F's were so much more versatile and Nikon had some legendary lenses like the 24f2.8, 55f3.5 Micro Nikkor or 105f2.5.  I would argue Nikon had some lenses at least as good as Leica and some were better.  Remember, DDD had Nikkor lenses put on his Leica for his Korean War coverage.  Historically, Leitz was not known for cutting edge lenses.

Now I have been using Leica's since 1975 and even owned a couple digital bodies.  I purchased a new MP in February in Hong Kong and it is gorgeous.  The primary reason I like Leicas is the viewfinder.  However, I find the current price of Leica lenses to be utterly ridiculous and you will not convince me they are much better than Voightlander or Zeiss unless you are looking for expensive jewelry.  The Voightlander 50f2 APO is about $1000 while Leica's is over $10000.  I call BS!

I would stay with Nikon.  I had F, F2 and F3.  Never really got into the smaller bodies like FM or FE.  I have a particular fondness for the original F although I grant the F2 is a better design.  I don't think you would be able to tell the difference between a M or Nikon body.  The famous photographers of the LIFE era did not worry about which camera they used (all had their favorites including Rollies and Blads), or bokeh.  Composition was everything and I think it should still be.

I picked up a new Nikon Zf today for $2000 and it will be my round the world camera for a trip this fall.  In many ways, it is nice not to have to worry about a $8000 camera body.  Am determined to travel for six to eight months with carry on only so have a 24-120f4S from Nikon as my only lens.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2024 by ktmrider2

[Ko.Fe.]

13 hours ago, otto.f said:

And an M6 is still smaller than the Nikon FM3a.

 M6 is bit more heavier.  Size difference mostly comes via lenses. But pancakes makes it insignificant. 

One of the best 50 mm lenses on film I had  was FSU made  f mount lens. Got it as gift mounted on Kiev-19m. Lens was just as good as bunch of M Crons I had got rid of all of them.

[Ko.Fe.]

8 hours ago, johnwolf said:

I shoot an M2 but recently put a couple rolls with an inherited Nikkormat. I really enjoyed it and actually feel I could get along without an M just fine.

If I was in the market and didn’t have an M, I think I’d get an SLR - maybe an FE or FE2 - and use the savings for film.

I got Nikkormat at second hand store, It was charming camera on its own and it was fully functional. Not a discrete nonsens ,  but regularly noticeable with good words about it. Build was ensuing it won't let me down.

This year I went to Amsterdam nautical  museum. They have first ever solo sailling  exposition. The only still camera on board was Nikkormat.  

[Mikep996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own a Nikon FM2.  The reality "size" compared to my M6 is determined by the lens.  The body of the FM2 is not as tall as the M6 though a bit "fatter." My favorite film camera size-wise back in the day was a Pentax MX - I traded my Canon F1/Motor drive/servo finder to a camera shop for a new MX.  Great camera that I sold when I bought my Leica M6 a long time ago....

Frankly I would recommend either the FM2 or the MX over a Leica M6 to someone who wanted to get into film.

OTOH, if you want a film camera to discourage a mugger I recommend the Canon F1.  It is literally a brick that can take pictures and there is one mugger (in Hawaii) who can verify its effectiveness in anti-personell use!    

[TomB_tx]

3 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

, if you want a film camera to discourage a mugger I recommend the Canon F1.

I have a couple F1, but don't use for that purpose. I think my Leicaflex SL would have more impact.

[johnwolf]

Probably another big factor in this decision is shutter sound. SLR mirror slaps vary a lot, but they are all way louder than an M6. My Nikkormat sounds like a car door slamming.

Edited June 29, 2024 by johnwolf

[Fotoklaus]

Am 29.6.2024 um 20:27 schrieb TomB_tx:

I have a couple F1, but don't use for that purpose. I think my Leicaflex SL would have more impact.

Robot Royal. Just Brass and Steel. 

Weighs 990g with a Sonnar 2/50. My M3 with a Summicron 50 weighs about 830g  at almost the same size .

And you can choose rapid fire if necessary 

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!

Edited July 2, 2024 by Fotoklaus

[davidmknoble]

I think two things are different from SLR’s to rangefinders that make a difference in shooting film.  I use a few R8/R9 bodies along with M3, M4P, and MP’s

First, focusing the rangefinder is easier to be spot on than many SLR focusing screens.  Some are split images, but if they are micro prism only, it can be tough to nail it compared to overlapping two images from a rangefinder.

A bigger difference is in the slow shutter speeds.  I can easily hand hold an M at 1/15 second with a 35mm or 50mm lens (not longer).  But the R, even with its dampened shutter, causes enough knock to blur the image (for me).

So, while I think the resulting photos are essentialy the same with good lenses, the rangefinder I think can apply to a wider range of situations where it would make a difference.

Just my thought.