Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Phil, I have an M6, M6HM and M3. While I admit that the M3 has a great viewfinder, the M6 is still a better tool because (1) it has the built-in meter; (2) it has framelines for more lenses--not only the wide angles, but also the 75mm, and (3) it is much easier to load--I have both the original M3 spool and the "quick-loading" spool, but with both I still have to put the camera on a surface and use both hands, whereas the M6 can be loaded on the fly. The battery dependence of the M6 does not matter, as it only affects the meter, so dead batteries are no disaster. Having said that, I must admit that there is something intrinsically satisfying about using a 40-year old camera which works just as well as the day it was built and which accepts all the modern lenses. This is for me one of the attractions of Leica. In a recent issue of Amateur Photographer, someone wrote in complaining about being told that his 11-year Ricoh SLR could no longer be repaired. The magazine's answer: ten years is a reasonable life span for an electronic gadget (their words). Nathan Philip Kokoczka wrote: > Many posters to the LUG, when comparing early models of the M series > cameras such as the M3 and M2 to late models M4-P or M6, seem to make > statements such as "not as convenient as the M6" or "upgraded features > of the M6". Come on folks, the only feature you can really call an > upgrade is the built in meter. Am I missing something here? What are all > of the other features that make the M6 better than the M3. - -- Nathan Wajsman Overijse, Belgium Photography page: http://members.tripod.com/~belgiangator/index.html Motorcycle page: http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/downs/1704/index.html