Asking users of both, Leica M5 and M6, for input

[Hassasin]

My sole Leica M is M5, great and love it. But, I've acquired few Voigtlander lenses, Nokton 35/50/75 and APO Skopar 90. I'm more than impressed with built and image quality. Precise mechanics make them all butter smooth. While I'll use them on Fuji H2 as well, where they have permanent spot now too, I am considering M6 for film work as well.

Up until now my only other M I was gunning for was M4. However, with 75 in in the line up (and likely one of the 28 from Voigtlander as well at some point) it would not hurt to have frames align. I can do decent guess with 75 (which triggers 50 frames) by flipping to 90 frames and eye balling the coverage, and use full finder for the 28.

If I'm not mistaken M6 does all of them though (28/35/50/75/90/135, I know double sets), which is leading me to think of M6 instead of M4.

Main questions I have:

• the finders of M5 and M6: how do they compare in user experience ? I'm beyond pleased with M5 finder, but assume M6 does differ to whatever degree, based on framed 28 coverage
• Is rangefinder patch in M6 better (if it can be) from M5 ?
• Is meter on M6 of same overall design as on M5 ? I think M5 has it just right for overall accuracy and convenience. I have seen M6 metering shown by diodes, so that is different and I prefer analog needle style of M5. If I buy M6, I get stuck with its meter anyways, just curious how that works out by comparison to M5.
• Are all black M6 painted or were there any done in gun metal like the M5 ?

 

[GregY]

My sole Leica M is M5, great and love it. But, I've acquired few Voigtlander lenses, Nokton 35/50/75 and APO Skopar 90. I'm more than impressed with built and image quality. Precise mechanics make them all butter smooth. While I'll use them too on Fuji H2, where they have permanent spot now too, I am considering M6 for film work as well.

Up until now my only other M I was gunning for was M4. However, with 75 in in the line up (and likely one of the 28 from Voigtlander as well at some point) it would not hurt to have frames align. I can do decent guess with 75 (which triggers 50 frames) by flipping to 90 frames and eye balling the coverage, and use full finder for the 28.

If I'm not mistaken M6 does all of them though (28/35/50/75/90/135, I know double sets), which is leading me to think of M6 instead of M4.

Main questions I have:

• the finders of M5 and M6: how do they compare in user experience ? I'm beyond pleased with M5 finder, but assume M6 does differ to whatever degree, based on framed 28 coverage
• Is rangefinder patch in M6 better (if it can be) from M5 ?
• Is meter on M6 of same overall design as on M5 ? I think M5 has it just right for overall accuracy and convenience. I have seen M6 metering shown by diodes, so that is different and I prefer analog needle style of M5. If I buy M6, I get stuck with its meter anyways, just curious how that works out by comparison to M5.
• Are all black M6 painted or were there any done in gun metal like the M5 ?

With very few exceptions black M6 are black chrome. Small special editions like the Millenium were black paint.
The M4 was the last camera generally produced in black paint / or silver chrome (1967-71 ?)
The later runs of M4.....including the 50th anniversary were black chrome. The M4-2 and M4-P which followed were black chrome.
The meter on the M6 is different than the M5....it's not a cell on an arm. It reads off a white spot on the shutter curtain....so the shutter needs to be wound ( film advanced) for the meter to read.
As for the rangefinder....(I never cared for the size/shape of the M5 so only had one for a while)....but IMO the rangefinder patch (which had a condenser) on the M5 was better than the M6 which is flare prone.

 

[Hassasin]

With very few exceptions black M6 are black chrome. Small special editions like the Millenium were black paint.
The M4 was the last camera generally produced in black paint / or silver chrome (1967-71 ?)
The later runs of M4.....including the 50th anniversary were black chrome. The M4-2 and M4-P which followed were black chrome.
The meter on the M6 is different than the M5....it's not a cell on an arm. It reads off a white spot on the shutter curtain....so the shutter needs to be wound ( film advanced) for the meter to read.
As for the rangefinder....(I never cared for the size/shape of the M5 so only had one for a while)....but IMO the rangefinder patch (which had a condenser) on the M5 was better than the M6 which is flare prone.

Very helpful, thanks.

 

[GregY]

Very helpful, thanks.

You're welcome H. Leica are incredibly engineered machines. The M2,M3,M4,M5 were bench assembled then came production assembly mode...so if the later cameras are down a notch...they are still solid. With the M4-2 brass gears were changed to steel. You may or may not feel the difference....but the early ones are definitely from the bespoke era.

 

[Pieter12]

The M5 displays the shutter speed in the viewfinder, very handy. The M5 shutter speed dial is easier to adjust because it sticks out beyond the front of the camera. The M6 meter reads by lighting both red arrows in the viewfinder, maybe a bit less intuitive than the M5 needle. The M6 is more compact and has a classic look compared to the more hard-edge M5. I have, like and use both cameras.

 

[Hassasin]

Thanks guys again. I actually misspoke a bit about M5 being the only M in my possession. I have the MD-2 which I use with Heliar 15. So I do have the size/shape and mechanics of the classic M, with shooting experience totally different (and perhaps "liberating").

 

[250swb]

It depends on how much you want to spend, things have moved on since the turn of the century and most of the comments above refer to early M6 bodies.

You have the M6 TTL which is good if you use flash, or the M7 which is battery dependent but offers aperture priority Auto Exposure. Both of these are now discontinued.

Brand new you have the choice of the Leica MP (with meter) or M-A without meter. The MP was introduced in 2003 with the flare free viewfinder which can be retrofitted to earlier M6's. The MP was the first standard Leica since the M4 to offer black paint, but black chrome was introduced later, and silver versions of the MP and M-A are available. The rewind knob is the same type as on your MD but film loading is the same as the M6. And then recently the M6 was re-introduced with all the subtle upgrades but remains in function the same as the original M6.

 

[Hassasin]

It depends on how much you want to spend, things have moved on since the turn of the century and most of the comments above refer to early M6 bodies.

You have the M6 TTL which is good if you use flash, or the M7 which is battery dependent but offers aperture priority Auto Exposure. Both of these are now discontinued.

Brand new you have the choice of the Leica MP (with meter) or M-A without meter. The MP was introduced in 2003 with the flare free viewfinder which can be retrofitted to earlier M6's. The MP was the first standard Leica since the M4 to offer black paint, but black chrome was introduced later, and silver versions of the MP and M-A are available. The rewind knob is the same type as on your MD but film loading is the same as the M6. And then recently the M6 was re-introduced with all the subtle upgrades but remains in function the same as the original M6.

Isn't film loading on M6 same as on M4/M5 ?? MD-2 is M4 in that sense.

 

[GregY]

Yes film loading is the same

 

[radialMelt]

I have owned the M5 as well as an MP, and now currently shoot with an M7. While I can't speak directly to the M6, I would be confident in saying the M6 is more similar to the MP/M7 than it is the M5.

Firstly, are you looking at an original M6, an M6 TTL, or a modern M6?

I'm not sure about the old M6s (the original and the TTL) but the modern M6 will most certainly have the latest viewfinder glass/coatings, often referred to as the "MP viewfinder." The viewfinder was one of the main reasons I switched from the M5 to the MP; the MPs is much more bright and clear. I would never want to go back to the M5 for this reason alone. Of course that is very much personal preference.

The visual displays in the viewfinders are completely different. I won't describe the M5 since you have one and are familiar with it. The M6 uses LEDs with arrows displaying over or underexposure. Unlike the M5 it doesn't give any indication of how much over or underexposed you are though. The M6 (and other M's) LED display is cleaner in the viewfinder (in my opinion) but less informative/useful.

The metering is totally different between the M5 and all M6 variants. The M5 is a spot meter, with a photosensitive cell on an armature that swings out in front of the shutter curtain (you probably know this). The M6 (and all other post-M5 analog M bodies) are center weighted averaging meters that read off a patch of middle grey paint on the shutter curtain. I miss the meter of the M5 as I much prefer a spot meter.

Other notable differences:
- shutter speed dial is a different design and differs in use (direction you turn it, access when camera is up to your eye)
- film rewind is clutched in the M5 and not clutched in the later M's (I really miss this!)
- shutter release is different feeling. Since the shutter release on the M5 also moves the meter armature, the throw is much longer than other Ms. I find I can be faster with later Ms.
- vulcanite vs leatherette covering. Feels very different in the hand, in my opinion.

That's all that comes to mind at the moment. I liked my M5 and it was my intro into the M world, but despite the few advantages I mentioned above, I still wouldn't leave my M7 for it!

 

[GregY]

I have owned the M5 as well as an MP, and now currently shoot with an M7. While I can't speak directly to the M6, I would be confident in saying the M6 is more similar to the MP/M7 than it is the M5.

Firstly, are you looking at an original M6, an M6 TTL, or a modern M6?

I'm not sure about the old M6s (the original and the TTL) but the modern M6 will most certainly have the latest viewfinder glass/coatings, often referred to as the "MP viewfinder." The viewfinder was one of the main reasons I switched from the M5 to the MP; the MPs is much more bright and clear. I would never want to go back to the M5 for this reason alone. Of course that is very much personal preference.

The visual displays in the viewfinders are completely different. I won't describe the M5 since you have one and are familiar with it. The M6 uses LEDs with arrows displaying over or underexposure. Unlike the M5 it doesn't give any indication of how much over or underexposed you are though. The M6 (and other M's) LED display is cleaner in the viewfinder (in my opinion) but less informative/useful.

The metering is totally different between the M5 and all M6 variants. The M5 is a spot meter, with a photosensitive cell on an armature that swings out in front of the shutter curtain (you probably know this). The M6 (and all other post-M5 analog M bodies) are center weighted averaging meters that read off a patch of middle grey paint on the shutter curtain. I miss the meter of the M5 as I much prefer a spot meter.

Other notable differences:
- shutter speed dial is a different design and differs in use (direction you turn it, access when camera is up to your eye)
- film rewind is clutched in the M5 and not clutched in the later M's (I really miss this!)
- shutter release is different feeling. Since the shutter release on the M5 also moves the meter armature, the throw is much longer than other Ms. I find I can be faster with later Ms.
- vulcanite vs leatherette covering. Feels very different in the hand, in my opinion.

That's all that comes to mind at the moment. I liked my M5 and it was my intro into the M world, but despite the few advantages I mentioned above, I still wouldn't leave my M7 for it!

Radial, while the "new" M6 may be more like the MP, i'd suggest the 'classic' M6 is much more like the M4-2/M4-P....both in the internals (with the exception of the meter) and the zinc top plate. Considering the M6 came out in 1984 there are thousands more around than the new one.... Along with the M4-2/M4-P, there are lots with the viewfinder that is susceptible to flare.

 

[Hassasin]

- shutter release is different feeling. Since the shutter release on the M5 also moves the meter armature, the throw is much longer than other Ms. I find I can be faster with later Ms.

Shutter release on M5 feels close to Leica R's (wouldn't know about R8/9)) that is in spite of M5 having the cell arm to move along unlike the Rs) and I see the difference from MD-2 in that sense, since MD-2 is mechanical like any M outside of M5. Having said that, maybe because of R usage, I'm fine with it.

With all the info on all of these, I have much better idea of the nuances, and I think I'll spend some more time shooting the M5 and think it through more. Just received Voigtlander's APO Skopar 90/2.8 and these lenses need to get some use on film and digital first .

 

[chuckroast]

Shutter release on M5 feels close to Leica R's (wouldn't know about R8/9)) that is in spite of M5 having the cell arm to move along unlike the Rs) and I see the difference from MD-2 in that sense, since MD-2 is mechanical like any M outside of M5. Having said that, maybe because of R usage, I'm fine with it.

With all the info on all of these, I have much better idea of the nuances, and I think I'll spend some more time shooting the M5 and think it through more. Just received Voigtlander's APO Skopar 90/2.8 and these lenses need to get some use on film and digital first .

I shoot with an M2, M4, and M5. There is not a huge difference in use other than the size of the M5 and the extra metering info in the finder.

An rangefinder's frame lines are approximate so for anything no in the builtin set, I can just eyeball intermediate sizes or use an aux finder. Personally - and I realize everyone is different - I don't think I'd buy an M6 for the extra framelines. I'd put the money into good aux finders and more lenses. But that's just me.

In truth, the only way I would buy any M made after the M5 is if I got such a good deal on it, I could buy it, get it CLAed, and still come in well below market asking price ... which is unlikely. But, again, that's just me.

 

[Hassasin]

I shoot with an M2, M4, and M5. There is not a huge difference in use other than the size of the M5 and the extra metering info in the finder.

An rangefinder's frame lines are approximate so for anything no in the builtin set, I can just eyeball intermediate sizes or use an aux finder. Personally - and I realize everyone is different - I don't think I'd buy an M6 for the extra framelines. I'd put the money into good aux finders and more lenses. But that's just me.

In truth, the only way I would buy any M made after the M5 is if I got such a good deal on it, I could buy it, get it CLAed, and still come in well below market asking price ... which is unlikely. But, again, that's just me.

I agree with you. On lenses I'm good for a while, very happy with the 4 Voigtlanders (I'm probably going to add Ultron 28 at some point and see no need to hunt down Leica lenses at all) and playing with the Heliar 15 on the MD-2 is just plain unpredictable enough joy. The M6 idea was not only for extra frame lines, but it did play part in considering M6 vs. M4 or M2/3 for that matter.

After reading all input here though I think I'm in good place to enjoy what I have for what mine are meant to do. And I still have 3 Barnacks in the mix. Not expecting a good deal on a Leica anymore, have been watching the market for 3 years and IMO, only a collapse of "influencer" field might change that.

 

[Pieter12]

Since you already have an M5 you know not all lenses will fit because of the metering arm. No such issues with an M6.

 

[GregY]

I agree with you. On lenses I'm good for a while, very happy with the 4 Voigtlanders (I'm probably going to add Ultron 28 at some point and see no need to hunt down Leica lenses at all) and playing with the Heliar 15 on the MD-2 is just plain unpredictable enough joy. The M6 idea was not only for extra frame lines, but it did play part in considering M6 vs. M4 or M2/3 for that matter.

After reading all input here though I think I'm in good place to enjoy what I have for what mine are meant to do. And I still have 3 Barnacks in the mix. Not expecting a good deal on a Leica anymore, have been watching the market for 3 years and IMO, only a collapse of "influencer" field might change that.

It will likely take more than the influencer collapse to change the Leica market. When M6 were $1k all day long, they were a good gamble. But now at $2-3k+ for the older ones...not so much with the spectre of an irreparable meter. The last viewfinder-crammed camera i owned was an MP that except for that was a fine chunk of brass. But i sold it and bought an M4.
I have a handful of aux finders & I prefer them especially the 28mm to scanning the viewfinder window. The venerable M6 is now 41 years old.....a shock to think about it. That was quite the run. But i prefer to gamble on the M2-M5 cameras....with their je ne sais quoi.

 

[Hassasin]

Since you already have an M5 you know not all lenses will fit because of the metering arm. No such issues with an M6.

I have one collapsable 50 for the Barnack and have no intention to invest in any other, not for the M. The Voitlanders give me what I need, they wonderfully match precision feel of the Leicas, and I place them high in what they produce.

 

[Hassasin]

It will likely take more than the influencer collapse to change the Leica market. When M6 were $1k all day long, they were a good gamble. But now at $2-3k+ for the older ones...not so much with the spectre of an irreparable meter. The last viewfinder-crammed camera i owned was an MP that except for that was a fine chunk of brass. But i sold it and bought an M4.
I have a handful of aux finders & I prefer them especially the 28mm to scanning the viewfinder window. The venerable M6 is now 41 years old.....a shock to think about it. That was quite the run. But i prefer to gamble on the M2-M5 cameras....with their je ne sais quoi.

Probably right, $1K Leica Ms are likely gone.

 

[GregY]

Probably right, $1K Leica Ms are likely gone.

In this century the cheapest one i bought during the big digital upswing was a an M4-P for $400 cad .....

 

[chuckroast]

Since you already have an M5 you know not all lenses will fit because of the metering arm. No such issues with an M6.

The only lenses for which this is true are the older non-modified wide angles like the Super Angulon. There are many good and reasonably priced alternatives like the 21mm f/4 LTM Color-Skopar that works just fine with M5 with an adapter ring.

The only other issue is that you cannot collapse the collapsible lenses on an M5. Again, not an issue because, given the age of these lenses, it's best not to collapse them at all as the tines in the back can break from constant use over the years.

 

[chuckroast]

Yes film loading is the same

Weeeeeellll, maybe. I find the M4 maddening to load and the M5 a pleasure. The M4 rapid load systems continues to be a pain in my backside while the M5 works reliably for me. This is probably a "me" problem but the two cameras do have a somewhat different loading ethos.

The best of the bunch I have found is the M2 (or a IIIf with the upgraded M2 style spool). I always know the film is transporting properly with those cameras.

 

[chuckroast]

It will likely take more than the influencer collapse to change the Leica market. When M6 were $1k all day long, they were a good gamble. But now at $2-3k+ for the older ones...not so much with the spectre of an irreparable meter. The last viewfinder-crammed camera i owned was an MP that except for that was a fine chunk of brass. But i sold it and bought an M4.
I have a handful of aux finders & I prefer them especially the 28mm to scanning the viewfinder window. The venerable M6 is now 41 years old.....a shock to think about it. That was quite the run. But i prefer to gamble on the M2-M5 cameras....with their je ne sais quoi.

The combination of inflation, the ridiculous cost of new Leica film bodies, and hipsterism have served to make older bodies more- and more expensive. Just within the last couple of years we've seen prices rocket. I bought an just CLAed M2 for $1200 a couple years ago and cameras at this pricepoint and condition are thin on the ground.

I guess it's true - never sell a Leica

 

[chuckroast]

The meter on the M6 is different than the M5....it's not a cell on an arm. It reads off a white spot on the shutter curtain....so the shutter needs to be wound ( film advanced) for the meter to read.

I'll have to check, but I am reasonably sure that an M5 has to be cocked to meter, as well. It is only when cocked that the arm swings into position.

 

[chuckroast]

The metering is totally different between the M5 and all M6 variants. The M5 is a spot meter, with a photosensitive cell on an armature that swings out in front of the shutter curtain (you probably know this). The M6 (and all other post-M5 analog M bodies) are center weighted averaging meters that read off a patch of middle grey paint on the shutter curtain. I miss the meter of the M5 as I much prefer a spot meter.

That alone is a reason to own an M5. I have shot many variants of SLRs and rangefinders with meters, and absolutely nothing touches the M5 spot metering for every day use. I've not used an M6, but compared to a center-weighted Nikon, the M5 meter is far more likely to help me nail the exposure. This may be, in part, because I have a lot of spot meter time behind me from shooting larger formats.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

It is this point about the M5 meter, I think it was really designed to be a slide film shooter. I recall moving from an OM-3/4 to a Nikon F3 and I sure missed the in-camera spot meter for slides. If I was to only or mostly shoot slides on M these days I would consider an M5