RXM as 'practice' M6?

N

Nick

Established
Local time
9:04 PM
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
53
Warning (Long)

I previously owned an R2A several years ago for a while before the wind crank jammed up and I became sick of development + scanning costs (back in Sydney, Australia). So instead, for the last several years I've been shooting with a DSLR and GRDIII.

I've just moved to Hong Kong and have run smack-bang back into the film photography culture. Shop after shop filled with rows of gorgeous 2nd-hand rangefinders. M2, M3, M6 galore! Then my friend told me just how cheap it is to develop and scan. I've now caught the bug again and want to get a Leica.

The M7 is a little out of budget, and the only real reason I'd go there is the luxury of AE mode. Realistically, an M6 is probably more appropriate for my budget, but I've never shot much manual before. So what I thought was, why not dip my toes in the water with an R2M or R3M and familarise myself with manual shooting. If I get comfortable and stick with it, then I can upgrade to an M6 or similar down the track.

What do you all think?

TL;DR - Is an R2M/R3M a good practice body before upgrading to an M6 down the track?
 
I think it is a great body, I have been using an R2M almost exclusively for about 4 years and never feel any need to "upgrade".

Seriously, I don't know what is wrong with a Bessa. The only objective difference is that M6 has a quieter shutter. But not really that much quieter (M6 is louder than the Bessa III folder, so I have a comparison), and certainly either camera's shutter noise not comparable to an SLR. The viewfinder seems brighter in the R2M. If you don't wear glasses, the R3M offers an even better 1:1 finder. The rest is, I think, mostly psychological brand attachment and maybe aesthetics of the body itself (admittedly nicer).

With the Leica, you get the special feeling that you are holding a product of unique craftsmanship. But that has nothing to do with the pictures.

So far I have no complaints as to the quality, but even if we assume a Leica will outlast a Bessa, you can buy about 10 [new] Bessas for the price of a [new] M body. I doubt that the longevity ratio matches the price.
 
Nick said:
What do you all think?

TL;DR - Is an R2M/R3M a good practice body before upgrading to an M6 down the track?
Click to expand...

Sure, they are all great cameras. But if you can afford it, why not just get the camera you seem to really want? Might as well "practice" with the M6 right away. It will save you time and probably money. If you get one for a decent price, you can most likely sell it at no loss later on if you don't like it.

(Personally I'd have gone for the R3M/R3A instead of the M6, as I love (and miss) that glorious 1:1 finder for 50mm. But if it's a Leica you want, get a Leica. Unless of course you like the process of buying and fondling and selling cameras, which many of us do :))
 
andersju said:
Sure, they are all great cameras. But if you can afford it, why not just get the camera you seem to really want? Might as well "practice" with the M6 right away. It will save you time and probably money. If you get one for a decent price, you can most likely sell it at no loss later on if you don't like it.

(Personally I'd have gone for the R3M/R3A instead of the M6, as I love (and miss) that glorious 1:1 finder for 50mm. But if it's a Leica you want, get a Leica. Unless of course you like the process of buying and fondling and selling cameras, which many of us do :))
Click to expand...

That's my feeling too. Bessa-Rs are very good. I just like Leicas better, and so do most people. Otherwise they wouldn't sell for more, unless you believe those poor souls who think that the only reason to buy a Leica, ever, is snob appeal.

Cheers,

R.
 
I would suggest to get a M6.

I was using Nikon F2, F3.
Then I got a M6, it is much faster to operate than the F2
and I dont feel anyway slower than the F3, also I have more control on exposure than AE.
 
Thanks all for the great feedback!

For those suggesting go with Leica know - I guess if I had to say one reason for going with Bessa now and Leica later is try that wonderful 1:1 viewfinder and get something brand new mechanics and metering, rather than 10yr old M6. Also, with the pocket change I can get a decent lens to begin with. (The best I've seen so far for an M6 on the local market is around $1600 USD)

Your comments have made the decision harder, not easier! I guess i'm back out to the TST camera stores this weekend for more bargain hunting. ;)
 
Nick said:
Thanks all for the great feedback!

For those suggesting go with Leica know - I guess if I had to say one reason for going with Bessa now and Leica later is try that wonderful 1:1 viewfinder and get something brand new mechanics and metering, rather than 10yr old M6. Also, with the pocket change I can get a decent lens to begin with. (The best I've seen so far for an M6 on the local market is around $1600 USD)

Your comments have made the decision harder, not easier! I guess i'm back out to the TST camera stores this weekend for more bargain hunting. ;)
Click to expand...

If you are not wearing glasses and are not a very wide angle shooter, by all means get the R3M. That viewfinder beats any other differences in design IMO.

Is there a store where you can go and handle both cameras and look into the VF and try to focus? I think that would be the best way to decide; we are spoiled here in New York, where you can go and compare these cameras and more at B&H or Adorama or Photovillage...

And perhaps the Zeiss Ikon is also a choice not to be sneezed at. If you are at a big store, then I suggest you look at that too. Then forget all advice and choose for yourself. These are all great cameras, it won't be a wrong coice.
 
Last edited:
Not a popular thing to say around her but I would keep investing in your Bessa. You could get a modern Summicron or Zeiss lens for what you want to spend on an M6. I would say that there isn't much owning a Leica will give you other than pride of ownership, which can be fleeting.

I am like a Bessa fan boy though. Love the stuff, it's made for the mere mortals, unlike Leica, which I consider a luxury brand riding an idea.
 
If you are going to shoot film might as well shoot manual. Nothing to it. Most current films have a 2 stop latitude...so not to worry. If you can afford an M6 go for it as someone else remarked they can always be sold. They hold their value.
 
I would try Leica and see if you like it before you spend the money. Sure - Leica is a better value. It also does have a longer RF base and quieter shutter. But based on personal experience, after having tried M3, M6 and M5 - I only kept M5 and my other bodies are Hexar RF and 2 Bessas. IMO you dont have to have Leica to take good pictures. I'd invest in better glass, which, btw Voigtlander has plenty to offer.
Leica is not for everyone - bottom loading, cloth shutter seems to need more service and can be burnt through the lens. Most M6's have VF flare issues- something I couldnt stand and it cost me a lot to fix/upgrade. I think Bessas have at least as good or better VF, and no flare problems. Easy to load swing backs. More comfortable to hold. Can be had new far cheaper than a used Leica which will most likely need a CLA - so more $$ to blow. So, if you just always whanted a Leica - get one, but from photo-taking point of view - Bessa is a much better option IMO.
 
Handling the cameras first is certainly an excellent idea, and as others have pointed out, you can take excellent pictures with Bessas. Do not however be swayed by arguments that Leicas are unreliable, need CLAs all the time, etc. I've been using Ms since the mid-70s, and started with screw-mount in 1969. Never burned a shutter, never needed a CLA. One jammed shutter (40-year-old M2 in the 1990s) in all that time. And they're not babied: the vast majority of the pics on my site and in most of my books and magazine articles were taken with Leicas.

I think I've had 2x M3 and I know I've had 2x M2 (still have one, but sold the other when I got the MP), and one each of M4-P, MP, M8, M8.2, M9, all of which I still have except the M8.2. I've also used/had for review M1 and M6ttl. The reason for 2x M3 was (1) my first M, sold because I got an M2 for the 35mm finder and (2) a black pàint M3, bought silly-cheap at a dealer in Bristol and swapped for a new M4-P. There may have been another M3 in there, again, bought cheap and sold on, but it's so long ago I've forgotten: I've not owned an M3 in 20 years or more.

Nowadays, I could live perfectly happily with the M9 and MP, with the M2 for film backup (as well as for sentimental reasons and because it has a RapidWind on it), but the M4-P looks so disgusting I'd have difficulty selling it (manky black chrome) and the M8 is a handy digi backup, though if I could afford it, I'd swap it for a second M9 in the blink of an eye.

I'd also second imush on the ZI. The British Journal of Photography summed it up beautifully a few years ago: if the Bessa, ZI and Leica were all built by the same manufacturer, the price points would still be similar and would still reflect the differences in build quality and utility.

Cheers,

R.
 
If you want a Leica, then at some point you'll end up with a Leica. Personally, the only Leica which appeals to me is the MP, but I would not want to do without AE, so basically, they don't make a product suitable for me. However, if the red dot has no special appeal, then get a Bessa or a Zeiss Ikon. I would personally rather have two Bessa bodies than one M6, the M6 is a nice camera, but I would find it's meter lacking, it's lack of AE a pain, and film loading archaic. On the other hand two Bessas gives you a backup body, and a choice of framelines, plus modern amenities like AE.

Some will say the M6 is more reliable (they're probably right), but it does not matter how reliable it is if you drop over the side of a boat, and don't have a backup.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Handling the cameras first is certainly an excellent idea, and as others have pointed out, you can take excellent pictures with Bessas. Do not however be swayed by arguments that Leicas are unreliable, need CLAs all the time, etc. I've been using Ms since the mid-70s, and started with screw-mount in 1969. Never burned a shutter, never needed a CLA. One jammed shutter (40-year-old M2 in the 1990s) in all that time. And they're not babied: the vast majority of the pics on my site and in most of my books and magazine articles were taken with Leicas.

I think I've had 2x M3 and I know I've had 2x M2 (still have one, but sold the other when I got the MP), and one each of M4-P, MP, M8, M8.2, M9, all of which I still have except the M8.2. I've also used/had for review M1 and M6ttl. The reason for 2x M3 was (1) my first M, sold because I got an M2 for the 35mm finder and (2) a black pàint M3, bought silly-cheap at a dealer in Bristol and swapped for a new M4-P. There may have been another M3 in there, again, bought cheap and sold on, but it's so long ago I've forgotten: I've not owned an M3 in 20 years or more.

Nowadays, I could live perfectly happily with the M9 and MP, with the M2 for film backup (as well as for sentimental reasons and because it has a RapidWind on it), but the M4-P looks so disgusting I'd have difficulty selling it (manky black chrome) and the M8 is a handy digi backup, though if I could afford it, I'd swap it for a second M9 in the blink of an eye.

I'd also second imush on the ZI. The British Journal of Photography summed it up beautifully a few years ago: if the Bessa, ZI and Leica were all built by the same manufacturer, the price points would still be similar and would still reflect the differences in build quality and utility.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Roger I agree with everything you have said but have you forgotten your review of the Bessa R3M in Shutterbug a few years back. What a fine camera. Or as we often preach it's not the camera but the lenses that really count.

BTW a great reveiw:
http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/35mm_cameras/0407voight/
 
andersju said:
If you get one for a decent price, you can most likely sell it at no loss later on if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

Second this. Not sure what HK is like, but Leicas generally hold their value very well, meaning that if you buy well, you can frequently sell on, for the same price you paid for it. Of course, that's if you can bring yourself to sell your Leica :)

This is the main argument for me, in recommending a Leica over a Voigtlander, as aside from resale value, are equally fine cameras, although perhaps not the objects of fetish that beautifully crafted mechanical cameras like Leicas often are.

If you can handle life without a built in meter, I would jump straight into a meterless M. For me though, an M6 was the perfect bridge from the auto-everything dslr world I shot in, to that of fully manual, meterless film cameras.

Whetever you decide, I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun. Nothing comes close to the zenlike experience of shooting with an M rangefinder, for me.
 
kshapero said:
Or as we often preach it's not the camera but the lenses that really count.
Click to expand...

A popular sentiment, but not one I entirely agree with. A camera you are most comfortable with ensures you will often get the shot, over a camera that you are not equally comfortable with.

Once you have the shot, then the quality of the lens will determine the ultimate image quality of that shot.

You have to get the shot first, though ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top