Re: [Leica] Is M6 really any better than M3?

[pchefurka@plaintree.com]

> So, other than the M6 meter and the different frame lines in the
> viewfinder, what real advantages do users find in the M6 or M6HM
> compared to an M3?  For example, is the rangefinder any easier to focus?
> Another way of asking this is, What can you tell me that would convince
> me that I need to save up for twice as long?    I'd love to try them both 
> out, but I don't have the opportunity.    Mark Walberg

There are some bits for the M3 that are getting scarce, such as rangefinder 
prisms.  This limits their ultimate useful life.

The M3 isn't easy to use with the newer (non-RF) 35mm Summicrons.  You have 
to be prepared to guesstimate the edges of the frame.

In terms of ease of focus, the M3 wins hands down.

I have an M3 and an M4, which has the same VF magnification as the M6.  I 
bought the M3 first, thinking I would be happy with just a 50 and a 90.  I 
was - for about 3 months.  Now I use the M3 with the 50 and 90, but if I 
think I'll want the 35 or I want to carry all three lenses, I just take the 
M4.

If you will use a 90 a lot, the M3 is a tremendous camera.  If you're more 
of a 35 person, the M6 (or an M2 or M4) would be a better bet.

Paul