Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Godfrey, Every M-body has something more or less unique, that speaks for it. Apart form mechanical smoothness, I think the M3 is the best body for 50 mm and fast 90 mm lenses. And the other bodies are better for 35 (or 28) mm lenses. And for the Summilux 75, why not get a M6 0.85... But, it is good to have (at least) one of each! About the meter, yes the M6 meter is nice, but my Seconic is easy to use as well. And I don't have to meter for every shot, as light seldom changes that much within a shooting session. And in tricky situations, nothing will beat the Seconic set on incoming light, not even the M6 meter, unless you really know what to point the meter at. Honestly, I can live without the meter now, as well as I did for 20 years between 1974-84. But I understand those who values the M6 meter, of course it makes life easier for a lot of people, including me, to a certain extent. The MR-4 meter is not that bad either, it is perfectly fine for B/W and color, but not for slides when we like to adjust for half F-stops. I will not argue about the film loading system, I will just say that somehow you get used to the old ways too, and I have never mis-loaded any single M2-M3 roll for more than 25 years. That is some statistics! Hans > Hmm. All these accolades for the M3. I had one 12 years ago and was > less impressed than this. I found the viewfinder's frames awkward ... > I really wanted a 35mm frame with some room around it ... and don't > really notice so much different in the viewfinder. The M6's meter is > worth more to me than the M3's additional mechanical smoothness, I > guess, plus the M4-M6 film loading system is a lot easier to work > with. > > Godfrey >