Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] re: m3 vs m6
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@markrabiner.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:59:50 -0800
References: <001301c18a94$252bb9a0$6b38fea9@thunderbelly>

kyle cassidy wrote:
> 
> >You know, you guys have just about convinced me not to trade my M3 and M4
> >for an M6...
> 
> i'd like to take advantage of the fact that many of you seem to be smoking
> crack. i'll happily swap my m3 to anybody with an m6 they can't stand.
> cosmetics not important.
> 
> kc
> 

I agree with Kyle and who ever else whoever said it.
An M6 is a working camera you can use NOW and get the shot.
A meter in a camera is nothing to sneeze at.
Later on down the line check out older classic bodies and see how much
fun esoteric or otherwise serviceable they are.
But before they get too expensive! 

Did the meter in the M6 take into consideration effectively the bellows
factor on the bug shots Kyle?
I would think that might be very nice.
I'll be posting my M6 macro's soon taken with my Viso and bellows and my
new 75mm apo Rodagon D which is optimised for between 0.4X to 2.5X.

But i cant find no bugs! We don't have any bugs in the NW U.S.A.!



Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.markrabiner.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from "Eric" <ericm@pobox.com> ([Leica] Re: m3 vs m6)
In reply to: Message from "kyle cassidy" <kcassidy@asc.upenn.edu> ([Leica] re: m3 vs m6)