Leica M2 vs M4 vs M6 Any Real Difference in Optical Results?

[Steve York]

M2/M4 frame lines will be different compared to the M6 and the same frame lines. When the 28mm frames were introduced, they shrunk the others to make them fit. Particularly noticeable with 35mm and 50mm lines. The M6 frames are smaller. They justified it in two ways -- first, when using slide film, you lose a bit of edge to the holder anyway. Second, earlier frames based on infinity distance and later ones based on minimum focusing distance. Most shots taken in the murky middle of the two. Anyway, something to consider.

 

[snusmumriken]

M2/M4 frame lines will be different compared to the M6 and the same frame lines. When the 28mm frames were introduced, they shrunk the others to make them fit. Particularly noticeable with 35mm and 50mm lines. The M6 frames are smaller. They justified it in two ways -- first, when using slide film, you lose a bit of edge to the holder anyway. Second, earlier frames based on infinity distance and later ones based on minimum focusing distance. Most shots taken in the murky middle of the two. Anyway, something to consider.

Also, you usually have more time to think about framing with subjects at infinity. Closer subjects are less likely to stay still.

 

[cliveh]

Cameras, lenses and process don't take pictures. People do that.

 

[bjorke]

Cameras, lenses and process don't take pictures. People do that.

...which is why politics and photography are inevitably linked, even for, say, Ansel Adams, or the photographer so well known to have admired the excellent quote in your signature, copied and pinned it up at her darkroom. Every picture reveals. But alas, the thread title announces the topic as "optical" which I guess means it entertains the myth of abstract values separate from the picture? Whatever entertains, I suppose.

(process: M5, outdated but refrigerated Neopan 1600, Rodinal, scanned from the neg with my phone. The gate looks to have been pretty flat)

 

[Don_ih]

This thread needed more that one response (i.e., "No.")?

 

[brbo]

But then we wouldn't know that cameras don't take pictures!

 

[koraks]

...which is why politics and photography are inevitably linked

Plenty of photography is not directly politically motivated. Also, a discussion on the technical differences between camera models is not a political debate. Kindly refrain from trying to shoe-horn politics into this. There's no benefit to it, I assure you.

 

[bjorke]

Plenty of photography is not directly politically motivated. Also, a discussion on the technical differences between camera models is not a political debate. Kindly refrain from trying to shoe-horn politics into this. There's no benefit to it, I assure you.

There have thus far been eight pages of responses to a very simple question that could be answered in two characters ("no"). Everything after that is people expressing and comparing their values about what that means and why.

That includes "you may have difficulty separating the role played by the camera bodies and the role played by the needs and desires of the photographers using them" back on page one.

Given the M bodies mentioned, it's not hard to think of photographers like, oh, Gene Smith, Salgado, HCB, Meyerowitz, Robert Frank, Winogrand, Matt Black, Bruce Gilden, as being the archetypal users of the devices in question. In fact I scrounged their names from a thread right here on Photrio of most-admired photographers. In that context and company, it's worthwhile to consider the original poster's specific question, right there in bold font: "are there meaningful differences in the final images?"

If so, why? If not, why?

 

[koraks]

You're absolutely right that the meaningful differences are plentiful - and so are the causes and reasons for those differences. This includes, but is by far not limited to, political considerations.

Personally, I do agree with your assessment that the original question was...:

a very simple question that could be answered in two characters ("no")

The fact that we're now on page 8 of the discussion of...(void)...is for me from my role as a moderator not much of an issue; people can do "like, whatever". Just let's remain within the rules of the forum, which exist for perfectly good (IMO) reasons.

 

[MattKing]

Here on Photrio, digressions into the metaphysical are common when people opine about cameras, lenses and other photographic equipment.
For some, it is hard to understand why.
For others, it isn't surprising at all.
In my mind, the answer to the original question isn't "No". It is instead something more like "It depends on you/the photographer, and what matters to you/the photographer".

 

[Don_ih]

In my mind, the answer to the original question isn't "No". It is instead something more like "It depends on you/the photographer, and what matters to you/the photographer".

Now, Matt, that makes no sense. Those cameras are all lens holders and, assuming they are all operating properly, the optical results will be identical. The lenses are responsible for those results and you can use any lens on one that fits another.

The question wasn't "Are there a functional differences which make one of these cameras better to use than others?" - that would be asking an opinion. "Optical results" is asking if those cameras all work properly.

 

[MattKing]

All cameras require an operator, and the optical results can vary with the operator.
If the question had been something about performance in an optical lab, the photographer wouldn't matter.
The original question included: "I’m not talking about metering convenience or handling (I’m aware the M6 has a built-in meter, etc.), but rather whether factors like viewfinder magnification, rangefinder base length, or mechanical differences can actually lead to variations in sharpness, focus accuracy, or image rendering."
"factors like viewfinder magnification, rangefinder base length, or mechanical differences" are factors where the photographer and his/her interaction with the camera matter.

 

[Don_ih]

Give someone competent any of those cameras, using the same lens, they'd get the same photo out of all of them.

I have like 50 Leicas lurking around here (an exaggeration) - they're all the same. I can stick my oldest Elmar on my oldest Leica III (used to be a I) or on the M4-2 which is hiding somewhere and they will take exactly the same photo. Some may consider it easier to use one than another - that's not an optical question.

 

[MattKing]

But Don - that is you!
And probably most importantly, given the issue raised in the thread, your ability to use the focus assist systems in the various slightly different rangefinder mechanisms.
All of which affects how well your photographs are focused.
Other ergonomic differences will affect how well different photographers hold the camera still during use. That is a factor that is particularly relevant to people like me who have unusual requirements.

 

[Valmidira]

Back to the original question. There can indeed be differences in image quality between different camera models even between the ones perfectly adjusted.
This may be due to differences in internal configuration and the quality of the black finish, which affects internal light reflections.

Internals of all my cameras are painted with Musou black

 

[Pieter12]

Back to the original question. There can indeed be differences in image quality between different camera models even between the ones perfectly adjusted.
This may be due to differences in internal configuration and the quality of the black finish, which affects internal light reflections.

Internals of all my cameras are painted with Musou black

As there can be differences in cameras of the same model. Depends on condition, service (or lack of, or competence of the technician). And so it goes.

 

[250swb]

There have thus far been eight pages of responses to a very simple question that could be answered in two characters ("no"). Everything after that is people expressing and comparing their values about what that means and why.

I think the discussion broadened after it was clear it wasn't a simple optical question.

There is an explanation of why the answer is not a simple 'no'. Why do some people buy black cameras and some buy silver? The answer is because they make different types of photographs. We all know the reasons people buy a Leica rangefinder camera, quietness, discreetness, smallness, assured quality of the components, etc. But one person will 'need' a black camera with the red dot covered for their candid street photography, and another will brazen it out and go head on with a silver camera. Two cameras and two types of photographer making two different types of street photograph. Then consider lenses, is the photographer bold and puts a 28mm lens in somebody's face (Gilden) or is the photographer discreet and stands back with a 50mm (Bresson). So like the camera body the lens also affects the end photograph according to the photographers style of work and their character.

So the characteristics of the camera and lens do affect the photograph, why else decide to use a Leica M and not a Hasselblad? If the camera is an extension of the photographer how it looks and feel will affect the photograph, or knowing there are six framelines in a camera may encourage somebody to alter their style and buy a new lens, and for some with nostalgia for an age they never knew a Barnack Leica is all they need for their own type of photography. You cannot answer the 'optical' question without putting the photographer first, and then whatever comes afterwards is a camera that fits their personality. It's what people discover when they find they've bought the wrong camera and it's not helping them create the photograph they have in their minds eye.

 

[LtDave]

ive seen this kind of question or a similar-esque comment made many times.

"i just got camera U and if its reputation is intact IT will take great pictures."

as long as the camera (which is just a box to hold the film) holds the film in light-tightness, and allows the lens to function properly, then its not the camera doing anything, but the lens.

of course and the photographer's eye.