This is a
small review on the Leica M6 TTL after 9 months of use, a general impression of
a SLR user using a rangefinder intensively for the first time. Used as a
personal camera, the overall impression is very positive and mechanical
limitations disappear after several rolls (a ‘professional’ use hasn’t been
made until now).
For non-intensive readers, the following lines resumes the whole post.
Dislikes
- Patch flaring! Sometimes I’m seriously considering the viewfinder upgrade
- The meter works only when the shutter is cocked (but then it’s a cocking indicator)
- The sync speed intermediate step is annoying when turning the speed dial as it’s an intermediate step and “brakes the movement” (note: corrected on the M7)
- Fragile rangefinder mechanism compared to SLR’s? (only time will tell)
Likes
- Very small lenses (easily pocketable)
- Precise focusing mechanism (low rate of OOF pictures)
- Compact body
- Quiet, unobtrusive
- New friends (see further)
Framing and focusing
Being a “native”, long term SLR user as opposed to people using RF’s since their beginnings, the late transition to a rangefinder system is somewhat disturbing as it has several radically different characteristics:
a. With a rangefinder, you look always
through the same finder, disregarding the used focal length as they are
materialized only with the framelines. With a SLR, what you see is what you
get. So when your mind is used to frame accordingly to what you see in the
viewfinder, you’ll be destabilized with your first rolls with your RF in
“action situations”: On my M6 I’ve a fixed field of view of a 28 mm focal
length even if I’m using a 50 mm. However, I was entirely accustomed to the
framelines after several months.
b. Focusing is only possible (and visible)
within the patch area, the rest of what you see doesn’t reflect the actual
focusing situation compared with a SLR where you see directly the FOV effect
(when used wide open) and the focusing accuracy.
c. Depending on the used lens, the
focusing physical “interface” changes: some have a focusing tab moved with only
one finger which has to be correctly placed in it to easily rotate the focusing
ring whereas other lenses have a traditional “circular” focusing ring like any
other SLR lens. Making small corrections with the first mechanism at certain
positions (e.g. at infinity with the Voigtlander 35 mm f/1.4) is sometimes
difficult as your finger gets in an uncomfortable position.
d. From what I’ve seen on my first
rolls, my overall focus accuracy was either spot on or really out of focus.
Shooting at very large apertures with wide angles is much (much) easier than
with a manual SLR as well as in low light situations. This is one major benefit
of using a rangefinder, and especially a Leica where the base length is longer than a Voigtländer R for instance.
3 Action
Unless by working with hyperfocal settings (thus in bright situations) or in predictable situations where prefocusing is possible, action photography is quite hard with a fully manual rangefinder camera (also with manual SLR’s).Due to the limited film/money resources, you can’t “spray and pray” to get something well exposed and/or sufficiently well focused.4 Speed
When I’m shooting, I’ve three steps: (1) guessing the exposure and setting the speed/aperture combination, (2) correcting it if needed with the light meter, (3) focusing (and of course framing’n shootin’).The presence of a light meter is a plus when you’re not confident enough to (correctly) guess the appropriate exposure but with time and practice, the light meter becomes unnecessary except for certain situations. After a half dozen of rolls, I was able to guess the exposure in any situation with approximately half a stop difference with the meter reading. Note that it’s a spot metering so it can be fooled depending on where you aim.5 Fragility
Compared to a SLR, the rangefinder mechanism seems prone to misalignment and is sensible to shocks and general abuse. I often tend to “live” with the camera and my SLR’s were used to getting banged on everything when kept on my shoulder or in my bag, as I’ve purchased quite recently (several months), I’m not mentally prepared to take it in places where I would only take a worn out 5D with countless actuations. My M6 came with a vertical alignment shift though it was impossible to tell whether it was due to the transporter or already present before purchase (note: buying a camera like this in a physical store, even second hand, has its advantages).6 Compared to a manual SLR, Nikkormat FT2
The Nikkormat has a more solid,
confident feeling, more than a Leica in my opinion (but you feel that the inner
mechanics are much better on Leica’s). It weighs more than the M6 and feels immune
to shocks. It shows the selected speed and the light meter is represented by a
needle oscillating between two points, active when the rewind lever is off its
neutral position. This meter representation is more intuitive as you can
somewhat evaluate directly if you’re strongly under/overexposed or quite near
of the ideal value, compared to the Leica’s LEDs. I wouldn’t hesitate to let it
take a few shocks in my bag. I’ve used paired with a 50mm f/1.4 and it’s very
comfortable to use for a fully manual SLR. And speed values are shown in the
viewfinder.
7 Compared to a digital SLR, Canon 5D mark II
For me, shooting film is 50% for the grainy look and colors, and 50% for
the pre-scan excitation. Each film that I processed is like a
Christmas/birthday present when it comes to discover the results!
My Leica is for fun, my Canon for the rest. I am a fervent zoom
supporter for professional assignments (reportages, action) but for personal I
work, I can’t lug a 5DII and a zoom around my neck all day. Since I have the
M6, I’m used to compactness and lightweight bodies, even a 5D with a 35 mm f/2
is nearly too heavy (but very polyvalent and compact compared to other SLR combinations).
After fighting with manual film
cameras, going back to a camera like the 5D that doesn’t empty your wallet each
time you press the shutter release is always nice! If I’ve bought a Leica
several months ago, it’s mainly because I’ve extensively used my 5D’s before
and because I’ve haven’t as much professional assignments as before. I carry my
M6 quite often at parties, dinners and events as it’s discrete (both in size
and operation) and analog (anyone can’t see the pictures before the film hasn’t
been processed). With a 5D, it’s not the same: it’s big, loud and intimidating!
Film and digital are for me complementary: if I’m going on holiday with
my Leica, I’ve always my compact Canon S110 with me for snapshots.
The 5D is another world compared to
a rangefinder camera; it’s big, robust and polyvalent. Shooting with a
rangefinder involves some limitations but I don’t think I would take my 5D and
my Leica togesther at the same time. It allows me to think and shoot only in a film
rangefinder perspective and moreover, what I can do with my Leica I could do
exactly the same with my 5D. So to avoid any (hefty) redundancy, as the 5D mark
II is definitely heavier and especially bulkier, I take either one or the other
with me when I’m travelling light. But weight is definitely noticed when I’ve a
zoom attached, like the EF 16-35 L, so I quite always opt for the 35 mm f/2.
8 Costs
As for today, a HP4 Ilford B&W
36 frames film costs 6 euros. Film processing and scan costs 14 €. So 20 € for 36 frames equals to 0,55 € per
shot.
Shooting film today is more an aesthetical choice rather than a purely functional decision. Shooting a Leica, with or without Leica lenses is another one. There have been many discussions regarding costs when it comes to compare the whole (same format) system of film versus digital where it was assumed that film cameras were cheaper than their digital counterpart:
Shooting film today is more an aesthetical choice rather than a purely functional decision. Shooting a Leica, with or without Leica lenses is another one. There have been many discussions regarding costs when it comes to compare the whole (same format) system of film versus digital where it was assumed that film cameras were cheaper than their digital counterpart:
Conclusion
The Leica M6 TTL has many advantages compared to a film SLR: there are many fast lenses which are very small, the shutter mechanism is quiet and focussing at very large apertures is much easier since the Leica has a long rangefinder base length. It's very well built, but just as my Nikkormat FT2.
The body is quite expensive, as are Leica lenses... what you can get for a 5D mark II and several L lenses is somewhat the same as a Leica M-whathever with several Leica lenses (assuming you buy them second hand). Or you can sell one of your kidneys, it's up to you, at the end you must be able te determine whether you really need Leica quality or if you can survive with third party lenses like Voigtländer or Zeiss, but that's a subject for another post I guess.
Bottom line, if you need a small camera, with small lenses, if you like shooting wide open, if you can justify the costs of a Leica by getting pictures you like and sharing them with your friends (assuming they like them also), and taking in account all the likes/dislikes I mentionned above, then you can be ready to try the Leica experience.
Don't be a pussy, ditch your Mamiya/Contax 645 with that ridiculous AF system and get a gentlemen's camera (and keep that Pentax 67).
To be followed by: Camera Porn, Voigtländer lens reviews (35mm f/1.4 and 21mm f/4) and the truth about Kennedy's death (what the government doesn't want you to know).
 |
| London, March 2014 - Ukrainian protesters |
 |
| Belgium, May 2014 - Contax stealthiness |
 |
| Brussels, May 2014 - random Contax users |
 |
| Leica M6 TTL + Voigtländer 35mm f/1.4 + Ilford FP4 |
 |
| Random Pentax 67 user, "just keep it" #randomthought |
