File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
sup /p/

Should I sell all my SLR gear and buy Leica M6?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOHCamera ModelCaplio GX8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height480
>> Anonymous
If you have an irrational fondness for Leicas or rangefinders in general, do it. Otherwise, what's the point? You can get a Bessa for one fourth the price if you just want a decent rangefinder.
>> Anonymous
>>205327
Well I do like the way you load film into leicas. Id also like to own camera that I can get fixed even 10 years from now.

Also film M leicas are awesome pieces of craftsmanship that seem to last for decades.
>> okto
>>205329
>I do like the way you load film into leicas

You're either a masochist or an idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>205329
>Also film M leicas are awesome pieces of craftsmanship that seem to last for decades.

5 used Bessas will last way longer than one M6 you can get for the same price, and they're only marginally inferior in build quality, lol.
>> Anonymous
Yeah, get a Bessa. Don't throw your gear to the trash. Or still sell it if you want and get a Noctilux.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>205329
I've never loaded an M, but a III is a lot less bad than I thought it would be.

There are tons of reasons to go rangefinder, and Leica is not actually an unjustifiable choice like some of /p/ would like you to think. But if all you can come up with is mechanical reliability and exquisite craftsmanship, go for a Nikon FM2 or F3 or some other classic SLR. All the tough naildriving fun with a viewing system you're more familiar with (and haven't said anything bad about)
>> okto
>>205421
"Less bad" and "good" are seldom equal values. :P
>> Anonymous
Do the Ms have the same loading system as II and III?

I loaded a Zorki, which has more or less the same film winding mechanism as III, and it was a disaster. I understand that the lack of the rear door makes the camera sturdier, but it's not 1930 anymore and we should have enough technology to make it more convenient.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>205439
M2 and 3 are pretty similar I think, and it was improved in the M4.
>> Anonymous
>>205421
Oh, those are far from the only reasons why I want a rangefinder. Size and no mirror sound is my main motivation to switch to rf.

Mechanical reliability and exquisite craftsmanship are only the reasons why im considering leica M over all cheap bessas and zeiss-ikons.
>> Anonymous
>>205458
Are you sure you want to trade all the features of a SLR for that?

Bear in mind that rangefinders aren't completey silent since the shutter still emits an audible click, and the M6 isn't much smaller than a compact film SLR unless you use a collapsible lens. Usually people want rangefinders because a) they're different and b) they want to use some particular lens(es) not available for SLRs.
>> Anonymous
>>205462
Yes, I am aware of the pros and cons.

So maybe I should go for bessa first? They all use the same lens mount, right?
>> Anonymous
>>205469
The only thing that troubles me is that R2* has only 35mm framelines, leica has 28mm. R4* in the other hand doesnt have 75mm.
>> Anonymous
>>205473
R2/R3 = for normal to tele lenses
R4 = for wide lenses

M6 = kinda versatile, but those 75/90mm lines frame a portion of the finder so small it's barely usable.
>> Anonymous
>>205464
Bessas are decent cameras, but they're not quite up to par with Leica nor are they as cheap as the people in this thread seem to think.

The oldest Bessa, the Bessa R, is around $150-200, but it's also all plastic and subject to a lot of reliability issues. The current Bessas, the R3/R4, are around $500-700 for the body and not appreciably cheaper used (if you can even find one). They have fewer frameline options than an M6, you have to manually select the framelines (done automatically on an M6), they have a significantly shorter RF baselength, and they use a metal focal plane shutter that is decent but doesn't match the track record of Leica's cloth shutters.

That said, the R3/R4 are good cameras. If you only have $500-700 to spend on an RF body, get one. Or if you want 21mm framelines and don't plan on using any tele lenses, get one. On the other hand, an M6 is a better camera. If you have $1000-1500 to spend on a body, get one. Don't buy a Bessa "first" with the plan to upgrade to a Leica later... you will automatically be unsatisfied with the first camera you buy and it will be a waste of money.

>>205462
It's the jack-of-all-trades argument. An SLR will do anything, but not necessarily well. A rangefinder has a limited area where it is useful, but in those cases it is the best tool available. If your shooting style fits into that area, it makes sense to use a rangefinder over an SLR. Aside from that, people should use a camera they like. If you like shooting with a rangefinder better than you like shooting with an SLR, it makes perfect sense to do it- regardless of how much more versatile an SLR may be.
>> Anonymous
>>205492
Thanks. Seems like Bessa R2A combined with 35/1.4 nokton would be the ideal choice for me in terms of price.
>> Anonymous
>>205495
That would be a good combination.
>> Anonymous
>>205495
I'd also suggest an R3A with 40/1.4 Nokton. The difference in FoV isn't big, and you get 1:1 finder and extra $200 to spare.
>> Anonymous
I really cant remember the exact details, but I remember the R3A having some advantages over the R2A, while at the same time lacking some things that the latter does have.
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
>>205492but it's also all plastic and subject to a lot of reliability issues.

To be clear, I've heard of no reliability issues with the R. Mine works great, and I see no complaints from the large amount of users at RFF.
>> Anonymous
Why get a Bessa when you can get an M3 or M2 for the same price?

(Yes, there are reasons, but for most people a used M is still the better option.)
>> Kavbar !bhcZKibP7.
>>205503
IIRC, the R3A has the 'life size' 1x finder, and the R2A has the 0.7x finder. The R3A would be easier to duplicate the old M3 trick of shooting with both eyes open.
The framelines are also different:
R3A: 40/90, 50, 70
R2A: 35/90, 50, 70
I guess it kind of depends if you have a boner for 40's or 35's. But you can use the edges of the R3A finder as an estimate for 35mm framelines. It's harder to use a R3A finder if you're wearing glasses, though (can't see the 40mm framelines).
Another alternative would be the R2/3M, since you won't need batteries to shoot (though you don't get aperture-weighted AE).
I agree with>>205502
Or if you really want to spend as much as the M6 body alone, you could always pick up a R3A and the Nokton 35mm/1.2. . .
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt3512.htm
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
>>205587
Because the Bessas are modern cameras, if you go for the M2 or M3 you're paying more for less.
>> Anonymous
>>205630
Why does age matter? The only things the Bessas have on an M3/2- unless you personally prefer their handling- is normal loading and a meter.
>> okto
Also, keep in mind that the Bessas are based on SLR bodies, so their shutters are a lot louder than any Leica. Not what you would call _loud_, but definitely not silent. Lock up the mirror on a manual SLR and then fire the shutter to get an idea.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>205633
Doesn't really give a good approximation, because you hear the mirror coming back down.

My RD-1 (based on the R2) has a pretty audible shutter, but it's a really cute uncameralike sound I can only describe as a "ding!". As for the Ms that I've tried, it's hard to tell that you've taken a picture with one on a crowded convention floor apart from the fact that you can feel movement within the camera.