[Leica] That faulty M6

["Doug Richardson" <doug@meditor.demon.co.uk>]

To all those who reminded me that an M6 with a faulty meter is
basically an M2 - thanks guys, there are times when one loses sight of
the "big picture". I guess the "hacker" in me just wants the M6 to do
all the things an M6 should do, and to do it reliably.

I shoot slides, and many of my subjects are indoors, where guessing
the light level won't get the job done, so I'd have to make sure I
always pack a small meter in my briefcase. The logic behind my comment
that the M6 was in danger of becoming a paperweight is that if I'm
going to pack a meter, then I'm likely to take an M2, a camera I enjoy
using more than the newer model. (I've had an M2 for almost 30 years,
and we've both bumbled into middle age together. However it was the
prospect of being able to leave the exposure meter at home that first
tempted me to the M6.)

A thought which struck me after I'd sent my posting was that given its
relative simplicity, once back from CLA my IIIb might be potentially
my most reliable camera!  Now if I could just find a Cook & Perkins
adaptor, I could replace its f2 Summar with the f2 Sonnar from my
Contax and shoot my next assignment with true late-1930s style.

The "Russian clunker" remark I mentioned was a comment from a manager
(nothing to do with my current clients) who knew little about
photography but who presumably thought I was letting the company down
by using a 'cheap-looking' camera. I can recall how a friend who
became a professional photographer in the early 1960s had to swap his
Fed system for Pentax, not because of any shortcomings in the images
he was producing, but because clients were commenting adversely on the
apparent crudity of his equipment.

However the "Russian clunker" story is eclipsed by an occasion in
Edinburgh last fall when an elderly gentleman admired my M2, saying
how nice it was to see such old equipment being used - "I haven't seen
a Contax like that in years."

Regards,

Doug Richardson