I received a new chrome M6 TTL 0.72 with the 50/2 lens last week. This was a major decision for me and it took me about 2 years to finally pull the trigger.

As background I've been a Nikon SLR shooter for 20 years, mostly as a hobby but have done a few weddings, reunions, business brochure and most recently NFL game shooting. This is my first real experience with rangefinders.

After one week and ten rolls of film here are my impressions;

- Film loading: what's the big deal? Load it how the manual and diagram on the bottom show you. It took me about 40 seconds to load each roll (most of those seconds spent removing and replacing the bottom plate) and all ten worked fine. Many of the comments on the net had me concerned that only neuro surgeons had the dexterity to do this. Just like any manual camera; watch and feel the rewind spool for movement and tension. No worries. It's easy and just as importantly it's fun because you feel more involved with photography via the frequent handling of the camera and it's workings. I expect that with more experience I will be loading it in about 20 seconds without any problems.

- Rangefinder viewing; What a pleasure! The 50 framelines on the 0.72 are large enough but still allow you to view enough outside the framelines to see what's happening around your subject matter. I was taking pictures of the kids playing softball (Leica for action photography?) and would watch for the ball outside the framelines to time the shot to get the ball right where I wanted it on the picture. No blackout during the exposure was a real plus. I did not feel removed from the subjects as I often do with big SLR's. The viewfinder is significantly brighter and clearer that SLR viewing. My favorite viewfinder combo was an F5 with the 85 1.4 lens, but the Leica image is a significant improvement. Playing around with the brightline frame lever was also fun and useful. Much more enjoyable than swapping lenses to see the different angles of view.

- Rangefinder focusing; again, many netters would have you believe that this is a real weakness. I found it very similar and familiar to split image focusing with Nikon/Olympus. It will take practice to get as fast as autofocus but I think it's achievable. The split images in the focus patch 'snap' together at the point of focus, no need to rotate the lens back and forth to get the best focus. It felt very natural and quick. I did however, find it a lttle more difficult to follow-focus, i.e., maintaining focus on a subject that was walking at an angle to my position. With Nikon's split image I was good at keeping the subject focused via combination of the split circle and the focus on the screen. It was difficult with the Leica but I think I can overcome this with more practice and familiarity with the machine. The flaring of the focus patch with backlighting was also a challenge. But I found that by moving my physical position slightly or my eye-to-viewfinder position that I could overcome this. And by slight I mean just a little lean to the right or left or a little tilt of the camera up or down. Then focus and reframe. Not a big deal but a minor challenge nonetheless.

- Inconspicuous: well, I don't know about this Leica myth, I think that most people are aware of a camera in their midst no matter what camera it is. But I can say that nobody has been intimidated by the Lecia like they can get with my Nikons. Even my kids who groan whenever a camera comes out simply said, "Cute camera", the first time the Leica pointed their way. In a nutshell my experience has been this; people notice the camera and then quickly forget it's there. They aren't reminded of the camera's presense because it is quiet, very quiet. So I ended up taking more pictures and subsequently getting more keepers because the subjects where at ease and most importantly, I was at ease (having never liked to make people uncomfortable with my cameras). I got a silver chrome body and a chrome lens. Do people see this setup and think that it's old or a toy and therefore nothing to worry about? Do they notice it more because it's bright silver? Would black be more discreet because it's not as flashy or more noticeable because it looks professional? I don't know. But I sure did toss and turn the night before I ordered this setup trying to decide black or silver.

- Image quality; I note a subtle but pleasant improvement. The Leica images are smoother, richer. Sharpness and contrast between the Leica and the Nikon 85 1.4AF lens are about the same (I consider the Nikon 85 the finest 35mm optic I have ever used), but where the Nikon is harsh the Leica is gentle. Where the Nikon falls to black or jumps to white the Leica gently fades. This is difficult for me to articulate but there is a difference. Will you think that this difference is 'better'? I can't answer that for you. I find the Leica images (the few goods ones that I made) pleasant to view not just because of sharpness and contrast but also because of the smooth tonality and gentle out-of-focus areas. I'm not looking at images through a magnifier, I'm just holding up a few 5x7's and viewing the entire image as a whole.

Ergonomics; I love it. But I enjoy fiddling with precision instruments. I like turning dials, focusing manually and rewinding film. The camera and lens are solid and in no way seem breakable with normal or even harsh use. The heft, size and texture are all first rate. It's neither small nor light unless compared to it's bigger SLR brothers (it is similar in size and weight to a Nikon FM2n), but it is very portable in a unique way. There is a connection with you, the camera and photography.

Overall: Good purchase for me. It will enhance my photography because I enjoy using it and will carry it along much more frequently than I did the Nikon. I was afraid that I would buy one and then be afraid to use it for fear of scratching or damaging it. Not to worry, the build quality instills confidence. I still need the Nikon with long glass for sporting events that I enjoy shooting, but for just about everything else it will be the Leica. Now where's that checkbook....

-- Tim Kamke (tjkamke@excelimaging.com), June 15, 2001

Answers

Tim

Glad you like it. The acid test will be to come back to this site in a years time and then hear your thoughts. You are in the honeymoon period!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), June 15, 2001.

Thanks for your insight, Tim. Sounds like your new Leica is a keeper.

Makes me want to squeeze off a few before breakfast!

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), June 15, 2001.

Finally, an unbiased, direct and objective assessment. I share your opinions as a relatively new Leica user(7 months-M6 TTL and III F). As you intimated, the proof is in the shooting experience and the pictures, never mind all that technical lens MTF gobbledygook and the endless and pointless comparisons. Obviously you are a user. Enjoy it to its fullest. Thanks for the review, it was candid, honest and refreshing.

-- Jean-David Borges (jdborges@home.com), June 15, 2001.

Reading your comments reminded me when I first got my "new" M3 4 years ago. I also had shot with Nikon SLR's for over 20 years, and my photography hobby had slowed down considerably around that time--I just wasn't really taking that many pictures anymore except snapshots with a P&S. When I started using the M3, I found that a roll of film just flew through the camera, and I was enjoying taking low light flash free images of family and friends that were very life like in their reproduction. I got excited about photography again. I had most of the same exoperiences you spoke of, and really enjoyed the "low impact" response of people to the flashless, whisper quiet Leica as opposed to some big wedding shooter looking rig blasting in their face. We are not making this up here--these are probably the two most significant advantages to using a Leica: Most people are more comfortable having their picture taken with one,(so the images turn out better) and low light, hand held photgraphy is easy to do and produces some of the most interesting and natural looking images.

Sure, there is a honeymoon, and I got caught up in it and bought more stuff than I needed. After I got a good deal on a Minolta CLE, the M3 isn't used as much as it was before, but I still enjoy putting a roll through it fairly often, and especially like shooting portraits with the M3 and 90MM. Congratualations on your new purchase.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 15, 2001.

>Sure, there is a honeymoon, and I got caught up in it and bought more stuff than I needed.<

Ditto!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 15, 2001.

Clarification: by honeymoon period all I mean is that when we first buy most things we try our absolute best to like them, particularly things that cost us a lot of money - only after a good period of time do you really work our your feelings about it after the pain of purchase has gone. I think this applies to the M6 as well as everything else. My honeymoon period is over with my Hasselblad and I am more sanguine about it than I was. A topical case of this (as reflected by many postings on Photonet) is concerned with scanning and digital printing.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), June 15, 2001.

"honeymoon period"

Hmm. Whenever I buy something expensive, I go through a short period of "Oh what have I done now, this isn't any better than the one I could have bought for half the price." Buyer's Remorse I guess... ;)

Using it, I see why I spent the money ... or not. If not, I try to sell it off ASAP to someone who will value it more.

I've never had to sell off any Leica gear on that basis.

Thanks for the cool and objective review. It's hard for me to have the 'first time user' perspective sometimes as I've been using both Nikon and Leica gear for 30+ years.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), June 15, 2001.

Good point, Godfrey. I've never had buyer's remorse with Leica.

I've only had seller's remorse. I wish I had back the few pieces I've sold. A IIIf. A model D. A 35mm Summaron. 50mm Summarit.

Best Wishes,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), June 15, 2001.

You might want to check out this paen to the Leica M6's durability: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/index. htm

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), June 16, 2001.

In reply to the interesting washington post article:

I dunno. I think it's all in how the camera lands when you drop it. I've dropped my cheap consumer all plastic Olympus Stylus Epic point and shoot multiple times onto concrete and it still works.

I dropped my wife's all metal classic era all manual Olympus OM-1 onto the sidewalk once, and it was done for. It landed badly, and the mirror assembly just sort of shattered.

I've never dropped a Leica. But I can imagine that if you are unlucky, one drop the wrong way would make the camera unusable. Worse, you might knock something out of whack and not know about it until later (e.g. rangefinder alignment).

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), June 16, 2001.

After more than 15 years my honeymoon with M leicas has gone, instead my relationship with it now has the taste of a good wine, until now it keeps improving, the capabilities of this instrument into my photography got far back to a limit, but it has allowed me to grow. And I use it more and more every day.

what shall I spect?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), June 16, 2001.

Pete...you've dropped your Stylus 'multiple; times on concrete with no ill effect...you must be awfully lucky!:) I too read the Post article and agree with it. I've only dropped a Leica (M4) hard once, off of a stepladder (about a 5 foot drop) onto concrete and it cost just over $100.00 to have the rangefinder recalibrated. Another time (the only two times I've dropped cameras), a nearly new N90s with Nikkor 35mm PC lens from about 5 feet as well. The body was unrepairable economically and the lens cost over $300.00 to repair but is now very tight when using the shift. You can draw your own conclusions. But any repairperson will tell you (and I deal with them on a day to day basis), that often what in an 'older' style mechanical camera gets you a sometimes hefty repair bill, often with the newer plastic cameras no repair is possible.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), June 17, 2001.

On image quality: This is the one outstanding feature I've noticed common to all Leica lenses - that l-o-o-ong tonal scale in the highlights. I still can't figure out how lenses reknowned for their 'contrast' can have such smooth tones - a joy for shooting slow, high- contrast slide films. Zeiss, Nikon and Canon lenses all have contrast of some kind or other, but none of them have that tonal control. I think this is also a big contibuting factor to Leica's reputation for 'bokeh'. The out-of-focus areas are smoothed and enrichened by this tonal quality as well as other, more obvious optical factors.

It is also the the one quality of Leica lenses I've never seen publicized - sharpness, contrast, micro-contrast, MTF, sure; but never a word about long tonal range.

On inconspicuousness - mostly it ain't the size or noise; it's the fact that an SLR with your mitts on it hides your entire face while the Leica (for right-eyed users) hides only about a 1/4 of the face (try it in front of a mirror!), and most importantly, reveals one eye and the mouth and other features that convey expression. As any psychologist can tell you, people trust you (or not) based on a lot of non-verbal cues, and being able to read your expression and watch your lips move when you talk makes you a lot easier to trust instinctively than a 'cyberphotographer' with an F5 for a head.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), June 18, 2001.

Andy,

You make a very good point with: As any psychologist can tell you, people trust you (or not) based on a lot of non-verbal cues, and being able to read your expression and watch your lips move when you talk makes you a lot easier to trust instinctively than a 'cyberphotographer' with an F5 for a head.

I do a lot of street photography. Very often when I shoot people with my M and they see me, I just smile. Most of the time they relax, and quite often smile back...

-- Xavier Colmant (xcolmant@powerir.com), June 19, 2001.

It is true that M's are no longer the smallest, nor lightest camera going. So I don't think the dimunitive size is what makes them non-obtrusive. I'm interested in the right-eye vs. left-eye reasoning, and the fact that more of the shooters face is exposed (pun intended). Ther personal connection is more radily mmade, for sure.

Someone here state the difference like this: "it is not that people are not aware that you are taking pictures with a Leica, it is just that they are not constantly reminded of it" (more or less a quote). Which makes a lot of sense.

I think another part of it is that Leica users are passionate about photography and therefore they are thoroughly familiar with their cameras, they shoot often, and they photograph with a degree of confidence that most shooters do not have. What this means is that the action of taken the exposure is quick, decisive and therefore less intrusive on the subject. Do you remember standing, posing, waiting form someone to take your photo while they fumble with their point and shoot? Or the pro-shooter with his eye glued to the finder wirring and shooting continuously? The Leica shooter raises the M, shoots and lowers the M, all in a moment's time.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), June 19, 2001.

When I wroked in a Photographic store we often saw that "oh my god what have I purchased" sydrome. We called it the "Post Purchase Blues". I have aslo seen it with first home and new car buyers! Its why I research research research, and never buy on impulse.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), July 15, 2001.

I also recently bought an M6 ttl. I had to fiddle with the film loading and then re-read the instructions (finally got it) but overall I really love the camera. It fits a niche that I needed filled. I have gone to all german glass between the Leica and a new Rollei 6008i. My wife even coments on how 3D both cameras are compared to my old Nikon F4/F5 system. There is a place for the 35mm SLR's that can't possibly be filled by these 2 systems. Bambi photography comes to mind. They will however cover everything that I want to do. Neither is cheap. But if you make money with the cameras, I can think of few businesses that have as low a start up cost as photography (now I'll get 50 responses with exceptions to my last statement). I have no regrets and I'm shooting a lot more now. It kind of puts the fun back into it for me. I had a friend that sold Snap On Tools. He would sit around and play with a wrench for hours just to enjoy the feel of it in his hands. I never understood that until now.

-- Mike Bryan (mbryan@crcwnet.com), September 29, 2001.

Hey Tim!

As a member of the family here I'm about six months old and already found out I love everything about the M6 TTL that you have written. To get back to your very first impression noted up there at the top: "- Film loading: what's the big deal?", may I refer you to one of the greatest threads of all time here: "M6 "Quick" Loading Contest. How Fast are You?"
(http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005O fh)

Nice to hear from you. Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), September 29, 2001.

A while back a friend and I were sitting in a cafe. She had her Nikon F4 on the table, I my M3. A guy walked by and said, "Cool Nikon you got there!" He didn't comment on my M.

Of course, maybe he just thought she was cool.

Peter Hughes Photography

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), September 29, 2001.

I, too, am relatively new to the M6 experience and although I've been traveling with my Titanium M6 lately, I'm slow to pull it out on trips. I know that in part this is due to my knowledge of the cost of the investment and the fear that wearing the camera will be kind of like walking around with a big sign saying, "Rolex on Board, please rob me."

The last trip I was on, however, allayed this fear a little. As I was shooting, I ran into a colleague who'd I'd photographed at a business meeting with an Olympus Stylus. Upon seeing me, my friend remarked, "Hey, you brought your camera. I remember you're taking a picture of me with it at our last meeting."

So much for any concerns one may have had about concealing the "red dot." For me, this reinforces the notion that not only is the Leica rather inconspicuous, but the average individual who is not a photophile can hardly tell the difference between it and a point and shoot! Enjoy your new camera. May it please you like no other.

-- Peter B. Goldstein (peter.goldstein@us.cgeyc.com), September 29, 2001.

I purchased an M6 TTL four months ago, primarily to shoot B&W's at weddings, been using Nikons for over 20 years. I was worried about the loading and would it slow me down during weddings and how would the focusing be in very low light. Oh my goodness, I can load it as fast as a Nikon and focus with so much more accuracy in low light. I wish I'd added it to my armamentariun years ago. Finally shot some colors with it last week and my kids and wife all declared "Why aren't you using the Leica for your color formals?" It is an unbelievable tool, I love it and on Saturday shot about 80% of my wedding with it, SLR's are now definately relegated to the spare bag! some samples http://www.georgeweir.com/pages/Photographers-NY.html

-- George Weir (george@georgeweir.com), October 09, 2001.

Hi George,

I've been a heavy amateur for about 6 years, Canons mostly. I got into Leica last April.

This may be radical, but the Leicas are great, and the Canons are still great. A recent evening at the Iriquois in Zurich with the Leica 75/1.4 and Canon 85/1.2 both get really nice pictures and are alot of fun to use. The other two photogs bitched a bit about the 85/1.2 (its over a kilo), but it also gets more extreme boke (blur).

A very specific point: my Canon 1N has a split-circle focusing screen, and I find I can focus MUCH more easily and accurately than with the Leicas in tough conditions. It is easier for me to align two seperate single images than a superimposed double image. I am convinced that anyone who says that Leicas are easier than SLRs to focus, are refering to normal focus screens. I am WILDLY curious to hear if anyone really honestly can say a Leica is easier than an SLR with split circle to focus.

(A couple caveats: Leica photographers often think their cameras focuse faster than SLRs because Leica photographers have some good skills that many SLR users lack; it is actually no special Leica advantage. Skill #1: pre-set. Conditions call for 1/125, f/8, and you set the focus to cover 2 meters to infinity. Now you can shoot faster than any AF. Skill #2: pre-focus. In low light you might be 1/15 f/1.4. When you see a target at about 3 meters, focus to 3 meters first then bring the camera to your face and just touch up. However both skills can be used with any other cameras...)

Frank

-- Frank Sheeran (fs@bsag.ch), October 16, 2001.

in my experience, leica style focussing is a mixed bag.

on the one hand, in a dark room it is very easy to focus on small details like people's faces because the bright viewfinder patch helps you a lot. i think this is a real advantage over and SLR.

on the other hand, focussing on patterns or surfaces without clear details is nearly impossible. SLRs are clearly better here.

it's also a bit easier in the SLR to get a sense for how close you are to good focus by glancing at the viewfinder, since the SLR shows you the actual depth of field.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), October 16, 2001.

Hi you all 'Leica' folks. Nice reading all the stuff about experiences with Leica cameras. Here are mine. My dad gave me his M2 as a present, which I did not really want. He used many cameras as an amateur photographer and I loved spending hours with him in the darkroom watching out the B&W prints coming out like 'magic' in the develpoing tray. I took some shots with the M2 but wasn't impressed at all. Did not see anything special about it. He also had a Minolta SRT 303 (or was it 101? Can't remember it was years ago). I found the Minolta took great pictures. My first camera was a Chinon Pocket Zoom which I loved because the pictures were ALWAYS well exposed and sharp. I always argued with my dad about the value of the Leica, but he always jokingly laughed about it saying I did not know about Leica quality. He was however in agreement with me about the quality of results I achieved with my little Chinon which I carried with me everywhere. Unfortunately one of my friends took a liking to it therefore I had to 'give' it away. Instead I 'upgraded' to a Leica!!! It was a Leica Mini Zoom pocket camera and I loved. So did my dad. He was really pleased with my purchase because I had started to understand quality in photography. The results with this camera are fantastic and the exposures are really spot on. Some of the results I have achieved with this camera are as good, even better sometimes, as an SLR. Reason for going the Leica way? My B&W wedding pictures! Taken by my dad with his old M2 and 50mm Summicron. I was shocked at the sharpness and quality of the photos. NEVER seen anything like this before. I started to BELIEVE in the Leica myth (shall I say REALITY now?)

You perhaps can now imagine that I had already caught the 'bug'. I was now an 'Amateur Photographer' and read (still do) all about photography, browse through magazines and magazines many of which I buy. Bought lots of books as well.

Now what about this 'old' Leica which my dad still wants to give me? He says I can sell it or part exchange it if I want. Ok I say. I preferred an SLR to the rangefinder therefore I sold it to a friend which I 'converted' to photography and straight to Leica. He never had a camera before, this guy and here he goes off with a Leica!!

I bought a mint R7 with a new 28-70mm zoom. The results were amazing. It was a revelation! With time I've added a 50mm Summicron and a 24mm Elmarit. Whatever people have written about the zoom I find the quality and sharpness on a par with other Leica lenses. The only problem with the zoom is the amount of distortion and its higher weight. The best of these lenses, to my opinion, is the 24mm. I do lots of landscapes; the colour rendition and contrast is brilliant with this lens. I have also acquired the old version of the Elmarit 28mm but the quality does not match the 24mm. I'm thinking of getting the new version of the 28mm (i.e.55mm filter size). Most of my pictures are taken with the 28mm end of the zoom, hence my inclination towards a prime 28mm.

I travel a fair amount but find the SLR a little on the heavy side. I bought the Ricoh GR1s for that reason. The results are excellent. But quality wise will never match Leica. For print film the GR1s is however excellent!

My next move. Keep all my current gear. Love the R7 and the GR1s. Thinking of a pocket Contax T3.Also thnking of the Leica M6 (probably 0.58, maybe 0.72 - will 0.58 be ok for 35mm Summicron and 50mm as well?). Will let you know of the outcome. Happy reading.

-- Moonawar Auleear (Mauleear@aol.co.uk), November 26, 2001.

As a fellow new user of the M6 TTL, I'd like to comment on your impressions.

"- Film loading: what's the big deal? Load it how the manual and diagram on the bottom show you." I fully agree and I think it's time this silly myth was knocked on the head! As you say, if you follow instructions it's very straightforward. Easier and quicker than loading an R7, for instance but, of course, not as easy as an R8.

"- Rangefinder viewing; What a pleasure!" Isn't it just! The framelines help me a lot with composition. The only thing lacking is being able to see depth of field. However, I didn't use this feature much on SLRs because often the image on the viewing screen became too dim.

"- Rangefinder focusing; again, many netters would have you believe that this is a real weakness." It's different from an SLR, that's for sure, and it can take some getting used to. To me it was not such a strange experience because my first serious camera, about 30 odd years ago, was a Yashica Minister D that had a similar parallax- corrected rangefinder.

"- Inconspicuous: well, I don't know about this Leica myth, I think that most people are aware of a camera in their midst no matter what camera it is." I agree, the days when Leicas were far less conspicuous than other cameras are long gone. P&S cameras are everywhere and they're smaller and less conspicuous, IMHO.

"- Image quality; I note a subtle but pleasant improvement." So do I and so does my wife! She says the pictures look "cleaner" than she's seen with other 35mm cameras.

"Ergonomics; I love it. But I enjoy fiddling with precision instruments." I do, too. I find it boring and frustrasting if the camera makes most of the decisions. I had a Leica Mini Zoom P&S and changed it for a Minox 35GT just so I could at least control the aperture and focus. The Leica M6 gives excellent control to the user and it's logically laid out. (I still haven't found the mirror lock- up though ).

One thing you didn't mention is the "spot" meter and viewfinder information. What do you think of it? I found it easy enough to use once I got used to it and it seems accurate enough if I use it properly. Some who are used to modern SLRs don't like the absence of aperture and shutter speed info in the viewfinder of the M6. I made a few mistakes at first because of this, such as reducing the shutter speed too low when I should have been opening up the lens.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), November 29, 2001.

Re Ray's comments on the M6 viewfinder: I come from the world of Nikons, with viewfinders that tell you everything you could possibly want to know and then some. And I like the M6 finder. Set the exposure once, then ignore just two little red diodes (I guess it's three diodes on the TTL models), instead of trying to ignore the light show that goes on in the finders of newer SLRs. And the M6 meter is great: my negs have never looked more consistent.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), November 29, 2001.