[twitch]

Hi, I'm wondering whether anyone has experience using an M6 (or one of the M series Leica film cameras) vs. a Pentax MX or similair. Lately I've been wanting a film camera, and as ~35mm equiv is my favourite focal length I've been weighing up between these options:
1) Pentax MX or LX + FA31
2) Leica M6 + 35mm summicron f2.0

I think the bodies are almost the same size but the FA31 is quite a bit bigger than the summicron? Is the handling of the Leica "better" than the MX, or just different?

Anyone have any idea of how the FA31 IQ compares on film to the Leica 35mm summicron f2.0?

thanks

[Zav]

I actually think that a M6 might be bigger than a MX! That's the feeling I had when I tried the M6. I can be fooled, it was some time ago.

[TomB_tx]

I have all three of these cameras. The MX body is indeed smaller (and lighter) than the M6 (more like the size of the 1930s Leicas). I have a 1969 Summicron 35 and it is about as small as a lens can get and still be easy to use. The current 35 Summi is larger. Voigtlander has a nice new 35 1.4 "classic" lens for the Leica that is almost as small as the old Leica lenses. I've had great results from mine, but it does shift focus as it is stopped down. (I use it for low light wide open.) The Summi is more consistent in bright light.
The older Pentax M series of manual focus lenses are small and are a better match for the MX and LX. I get very nice results from my 35 f2.0 Pentax-M (and also my 28 f2.0 Pentax). The MX and LX won't let you use an "auto" setting on aperture anyway - you have to manually set the lens. The MX is manual exposure, but a nice, simple meter readout in the finder - as is the M6. The LX will do manual or auto, where it picks a shutter speed to match the lens setting you use. The Leica M7 works the same way.
The Leica feels much more precise, but in some ways I prefer using the MX. It just feels right in the hands, and is very fast to use. It really comes down to whether you prefer an SLR or rangefinder.

[nickthetasmaniac]

Voigtlander has a nice new 35 1.4 "classic" lens for the Leica that is almost as small as the old Leica lenses. I've had great results from mine, but it does shift focus as it is stopped down. (I use it for low light wide open.)

There's an article on Luminous Landscape mentioning that the Aspherical Voigtlanders (including the 35/f1.4 I think) don't have focus-shift like the old ones.

**edit** I take that back, they were talking about the 35mm Nokton f1.2...

[pinholecam]

I only have a Fed2 for a RF camera but its supposed to be pretty small compared to later RF, and 2 ME Super and a LX.
The ME is as small a camera as the FED2, but SLR lenses are bigger, but with some of the M series lenses, I don't find its a big deal.

No wrong in any choice.
I find the only major difference is the way they handle, esp wrt focusing.
I find myself more used to the SLR way of viewing and focusing.

[TomB_tx]

There's an article on Luminous Landscape mentioning that the Aspherical Voigtlanders (including the 35/f1.4 I think) don't have focus-shift like the old ones.

**edit** I take that back, they were talking about the 35mm Nokton f1.2...

Right - focus shift is no problem with the 35 f1.2 version II - but it is a large lens. The "classic" 1.4 is a near copy of the late 60s Summilux 1.4. Many of Voigtlanders M-mount lenses are "classic" that have characteristics of Leica lenses of 40-50 years ago; are nearly as nicely made, but sell for well less than the used Leica lenses. I like the size of the 1.4, and you can get great results if you know about the focus shift and compensate.
Most of their asphericals are very good. I have the 50 1.5 Asph that I think is better than the old Leica Summilux (not the newer Asph lux) - but they discontinued it.

[TomB_tx]

Just to show some size comparisons, here are some quick snapshots of these different cameras. First is the Leica M6 compared to the Pentax MX, both with 35mm f2.0 lenses of the time the cameras were made:

Notice the MX looks smaller from the front, and it feels smaller in your hands. However, the Leica with 35mm is a much thinner camera, as the lens doesn't need to be a retrofocus design to clear the mirror box:

Also for comparison, here is the Pentax LX and MX side-by side:

The LX grew a bit compared to the MX, but is still a great size to handle.
Pentax even started out as a small camera. Here's the Asahiflex compared to the MX:

The Asahiflex was a much earlier camera, of the same vintage as the Leica IIIc-IIIf series:

The Leica was then a faster handing camera than the Asahiflex, due to the waist-level finder on the Asahi. That advantage disappeared quickly, and the MX is a very fast-handling camera.

[twitch]

Thanks Tom, that's a really helpful set of pictures. The difference in lens size is remarkable, although the MX really looks very small.

[stevebrot]

Thanks Tom, that's a really helpful set of pictures. The difference in lens size is remarkable, although the MX really looks very small.

The matter of size for slr vs. rangefinder always makes for an interesting discussion. There was a thread a couple of month back where I posted several size comparison photos. My personal conclusion is that there is a lot of variation in size, weight, and balance between the two camera types. About the only generalization I can make is that interchangeable rangefinder lenses tend to be tiny when compared to slr lenses of the same focal length and maximum aperture.

Here are my smallest:



And from the side:




Really makes one appreciate the tiny size of the XA, eh?


Steve