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

Hi all,

I’m considering buying another Leica M (film) body — probably an M2, M4, or M6 — and I have a fairly straightforward question:

Assuming the same lens, film, and lab/scanning process are used, will these bodies produce identical optical results, or are there meaningful differences in the final images?

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.

In other words: is the choice between these bodies purely about ergonomics/features, or can it actually affect the look of the images?

Would love to hear from people who’ve shot multiple of these side by side.

Thanks in advance!

In the context of other cameras - I've only demonstrated and sold Leica rangefinders, never used them for my own photography - ergonomics and features interact with me as the operator, so yes those characteristics do affect the final images.
Much of that interaction is, of course, personal to the operator.

My question was specifically aimed at the bodies mentioned.

Understood - but 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.
For example: the different viewfinders may impact eyeglass wearers in different ways than they impact those who need no vision correction or wear contact lenses.

RezaLoghme said:

Hi all,

I’m considering buying another Leica M (film) body — probably an M2, M4, or M6 — and I have a fairly straightforward question:

Assuming the same lens, film, and lab/scanning process are used, will these bodies produce identical optical results, or are there meaningful differences in the final images?

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.

In other words: is the choice between these bodies purely about ergonomics/features, or can it actually affect the look of the images?

Would love to hear from people who’ve shot multiple of these side by side.

Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

All things being equal... that is working properly ...... no difference
but the subtle differences may matter to the user

Provided that they are functioning properly, I've never noticed the slightest difference in picture quality between any of my Leica film camera bodies.

Theoretically, if you put the same lens on any Leica M body the resulting image will be the same. However, there are other factors involved in perceived image quality. For example, if you like to use longer lenses (90 - 135mm), then the higher viewfinder magnification of the M3 or the 0.85 M6 will provide more precise focus accuracy. If you prefer wide angles, the 0.58 or standard 0.72 viewfinder may suit you better. As others have already mentioned, these "use factors" are something only you can answer for yourself.

People are struggling to define a difference but there isn’t any.

So there is ZERO difference in image quality?

Cameras are similar to automobiles and other mass produced items--they're subject to quality control processes, and there may be QC issues between different models and batches of the same model manufactured at different times. For instance, historically, Leica has dealt with pressure plate defects in certain batches of the M6 and MP, among others--these were widely publicized, you can Google it. I'm sure the pressure plate design has changed (albeit ever so slightly), too, from the 1960s to today. This is absolutely something that can affect the results from optics to film, as it impacts film flatness. Tolerances generally can also affect optical results. I'm sure the rangefinders today are constructed with much tighter tolerances owing to better machinery, meaning modern focusing mechanisms may be a little more precise. That said, I used to shoot with both an M4 and an MP and would swap lenses between them. I never noticed any meaningful differences between bodies when using the same lens and settings (at least, that was not something that occurred to me), which suggests they weren't all that significant.

The distance between rangefinder windows can affect the accuracy of focusing. I am unsure if that is identical between the models you cite.

It's actually the Effective Base Length one might consider between various Leica M models which is Base Length x Magnification.

For example, the M3 has a base length of 68.5mm with 0.91 magnification providing an EBL of 62.3mm vs, say, the M6 (0.72) with its base length of 69.3mm and magnification of 0.72 providing an EBL of 49.8mm, Therefore, one could make the argument that more accurate focus could be achieved with an M3 vs an M6.

Matt Osborne did a nice write-up here and provides a table of several rangefinder cameras for comparison:

RezaLoghme said:

So there is ZERO difference in image quality?

Click to expand...

Why is that so hard to believe?

Back in the days when Leica dealers used to host "clinics", they'd check shutter speeds. My friend's brand-new special-edition M6 body was +/- 1 stop accuracy at all speeds, about what you'd expect for a mechanical shutter. But my old M3 had been fine-tuned by the master (Focal Point, since retired) and it was almost perfect at every speed. This despite my M3 having less than 1/5th the market value. Some Leica enthusiasts spend thousands of dollars for variations, such as tiny engravings, or an uncommon finish, because they are rare, not because they take better photographs.

No difference between a Leica III and any other film Leica in terms of the photo you'll get. M Leicas can use M lenses - that's the only difference. No difference in image quality if all cameras are using the same lens. Competently, that is, and assuming all cameras are working properly.

RezaLoghme said:

Hi all,

I’m considering buying another Leica M (film) body — probably an M2, M4, or M6 — and I have a fairly straightforward question:

Assuming the same lens, film, and lab/scanning process are used, will these bodies produce identical optical results, or are there meaningful differences in the final images?

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.

In other words: is the choice between these bodies purely about ergonomics/features, or can it actually affect the look of the images?

Would love to hear from people who’ve shot multiple of these side by side.

Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

I shoot with a IIIf, M2, M4, and M5 (not an M6, sorry). They are all properly maintained/CLAed. I see absolutely no difference in optical outcomes from any of those bodies. The optical performance is determined by the ... uhm ... lenses. They bodies themselves are all just different in use.

The IIIf is the purest legacy Leica experience and I love it for its very small size by comparison. I've never found the shorter base length to be an issue, but I've not shot with anything longer than a 50mm on that camera..

The M2 is - to me - the quintessential M. Mine shoots flawlessly with 21mm (with an aux finder), 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm lenses. The transport is silky smooth, focusing is effortless, and it is built like a tank. The only negative is that it is possible to accidentally move the external frame counter and lose count of actual frames shot. Do that a couple times and you learn to handle the camera accordingly. Mine went to Greece with me this year for several weeks and was with me every single day without missing a single shot.

The M4 is probably the peak of Leica old school Ms with lots of little improvements. It takes the best of the M2/M3 bodies (moving the counter inside the body), adds a rapid film loading spool, and provides an arguably "better" film rewind mechanism. It also adds framelines so everything from 35mm though 135mm is covered. It's a superb machine. My quarrels with it are small (which is why I prefer the M2).

I find the rewind on the M4 annoying and much prefer the knurled knob of the M2/M3. I also may be the only person on the planet that doesn't care much for the M4 rapid load arrangement and much prefer the removable spool in the M2/M3 cameras. Many people have commented on the two part film advance lever on the M4, and have replaced it with an M2 style lever. I don't hate the M4's but I understand why. The M2 lever is - to my touch - a more affirmative film advance. I've not changed mine only because my M4 is just about perfect, was fully serviced by Sherry Krauter last year and I don't want to fiddle with anything other than original intent. But really, these are tiny concerns. The M4 is a simply superb machine.

The M5 is much maligned in my experience mostly by people who've only looked at it or held it, but never shot it seriously. It is NOT a legacy M, it is its own thing. Nothing before- or after was on the same planet. The metering is spot on, the overhanging shutter speed control should be required by law, and the M5's quick load is much simpler to reliably engage (at least for me) than the M4's. Although this camera is slightly larger than a legacy M, those of us with larger hands appreciate it because it fits so nicely in our paws. Note that having a needle matching meter on board with shutter speed displayed does make the viewfinder a bit busier than an M2/3/4 but not obnoxiously so. Anyone considering an M5 should just make sure it isn't one of the serial numbers that had roller transport isues early on. I am told replacement parts for this problem are thin on the ground. I solved this by buying a late model 3-lug 50 Jahre "Jubilee" edition which has been pitch perfect after I had DAG overhaul it.

With cameras after the M5, starting with the M4-2 onward, Leica began using more mass production methods, less brass, more aluminum, and plastic. This is not to say that these cameras are no good. They are Leicas, they are just fine. But in direct comparison, my older Ms feel smoother than, say, the M4-P. This may be because the older cameras had a lot of brass in them that lapped together very nicely over time, I don't know.

If you are looking at M6s note that there are a variety of models that were made over time. The very earliest ones have meters for which parts/repairs for the meter may not be easily available or at all. For this reason, I'd prefer later model M6s if I were in that mode.

ANY of these are great choices. They are Leicas. Which you select has a lot to do with how you shoot.

For ultimate portability, the Barnack bodies cannot be beat. But you're going to be at the mercy of auxiliary finders for everything other than 50mm lenses. If you use a 35mm lens a lot, the M2 is the best deal going. If you prefer the 50mm, the M3 is likely a better choice as it has a legendary finder for that focal length. If you want in-camera framing for 28mm, the M6 is the goto among the cameras you mentioned.

But talk is cheap. Here are a few examples.

Here a shot with the M2 and a 35mm f/2 ASPH Summicron - scan of silver print:




Here's one from the IIIf with a 21mm f/4 Color-Skopar - scan of silver print:



Cannot recall if this was the M4 or the M5, but this was with a 50mm f/2 Summicron - scan of silver print:

The only difference between all Leicas is going to be the age, upkeep over the years, and "legends" written by ... collectors. Other than that, Barnacks will give you a cramped/tiny "peephole" viewfinder by comparison to most any M (MD having none at all).

M5 is a significant departure from all other Ms, but I'm beginning to use it more. Close to dumping the idea of buying an M4, which was to complement M5.

Regarding comment on M5 needle driven meter in finder, early on I kept forgetting where it was and needed to "look" for it. Finder is big, brilliant, frames are impossible to miss, and agree with that stick-out shutter speed dial augmenting the spot meter use beautifully. M5 prices are catching up to the rest now. It was not long ago when it was good 15-20% below "normal" Ms in market value (by normal I mean M2/3/4) as it is different to the point of collectors trying to kill its well earned legacy as not-true Leica M. If you handle M5 vs. any other M you will feel the difference. But does one need bigger hands to get comfy with it? Mine aren't owned by a lumberjack and are happy with it. It is heavier enough to try it though, just in case.

For direct answer to your question, results are going to be same with same lens, provided body itself is working correctly, including rangefinder.

Or have a ball with much cheaper Leica M, get an MD2 and a super wide lens like Voigtlander Heliar 15 with matching viewfinder. It will give you "normal" M body, same mechanics, except no finder at all. That kind of lens with near "infinite" DOF is just great to use auto-gun style. MD/MD2 does feel same in the hands as those other Ms everyone talks about.

No difference if in proper working order. The current M6 has the brightest viewfinder. M4 made in Germany is simply beautiful has everything you need.

If the body has an optical influence on your pictures it's because an M2 encourages you to own three lenses, the M4 says you can buy four lenses, and the M6 suggests six lenses is okay. This is not written in stone, accessory viewfinders being one exception to the rule, but even being able to preview what another focal length will give you may encourage you to use it, or run out and buy one. So the viewfinders compositional tool can influence the user on the optical front unless their imagination is already doing that job anyway.

250swb said:

If the body has an optical influence on your pictures it's because an M2 encourages you to own three lenses, the M4 says you can buy four lenses, and the M6 suggests six lenses is okay. This is not written in stone, accessory viewfinders being one exception to the rule, but even being able to preview what another focal length will give you may encourage you to use it, or run out and buy one. So the viewfinders compositional tool can influence the user on the optical front unless their imagination is already doing that job anyway.

Click to expand...

It's worth noting that the later cameras with additional framelines can be tough to focus with the 135mm lens because the frame is so small. If this were one of my regularly used focal lengths, I'd likely get an M3 and use it for 50/90/135mm lenses with that gorgeous finder. I got an M2 instead because I shoot 2-3 times as much with a 35mm lens as I do any other focal length.

In truth, beyond 90mm, I think an SLR is called for if you want precise framing. Again, I rarely shoot long with these cameras so it may just be that I am not used to it. I am sort of tempted to get an old LTM 135mm (because they are cheap) and plug it into my M4 to see how it works.

In the days when film was king, I think it was commonly accepted belief that camera bodies were mostly distinguished by the features they offered, and not by image quality, save for very rare exceptions, such as certain Kyocera / Contax cameras which claimed to keep the film flatter.

CR, I've never really cared for the 135mm focal length. I've had a few, including the Elmarit 135 2.8 w goggles.
I agree with you on the miniscule size framelines.... but I always preferred to have almost 2x..... so the 180 (both Nikon & Leica)....and the advent of the 80-200 2.8 Nikkor zoom was a favourite. In the days when i tried to use only Leica.... I preferred the Telyt with the 200.

GregY said:

CR, I've never really cared for the 135mm focal length. I've had a few, including the Elmarit 135 2.8 w goggles.
I agree with you on the miniscule size.... but I always preferred to have almost 2x..... so the 180 (both Nikon & Leica)....and the advent of the 80-200 2.8 Nikkor zoom was a favourite. In the days when i tried to use only Leica.... I preferred the Telyt with the 200.

Click to expand...

I think of rangefinders as up-close-and-in-the-moment tools where longer lenses have very little role to play (noting that this is my style, not a rule of nature). That said, I did bid on a 135mm Seronar LTM today in very nice condition that comes with a finder and/or can be used with an adapter ring on my Ms. I want to see how that 135mm framelines on the M4 and M5 stack up.

135mm M lenses seem to be quite cheap, maybe for a reason?

135 on Leica M is an odd combination.

RezaLoghme said:

135mm M lenses seem to be quite cheap, maybe for a reason?

Click to expand...

There aren't enough influencers making any hype around them. Seriously, as much as I like the sharpness and rendering of my Tele-Elmar do I think a SLR is a more useful platform for such a longer lens. The frame in the finder is rather small even with my M3. I enjoy the 3,5/135 Ai Nikkor on my F3 a lot more.