The Leica M6 Versus Every SLR! Why The M6 is BETTER Than SLRS for MOST Types of Photography.

[@vers1fier]

10:43 Exactly, excellent point. Level and range are the most important aspects when composing a shot. I've always felt zooms (and SLRs in general to a certain extent) blinded you from being able to get a better understanding of space, scale, and scope.

[@MARKLINMAN1]

Man i just bought an M6 CLASSIC in MINT UNUSED condition from 1985, This video was KEY to my decision.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Good to hear. I hope you enjoy it as much as I’ve enjoyed mine over the years.

[@ZachBie]

I always appreciate your videos. I did a two-week trip earlier this year to Taiwan with my M6 and 28-50-90 lens kit, and now I am in Vietnam with my Nikon FM3a and a 28-58-100 kit. It’s been interesting for me to compare the experiences shooting landscapes, street, and portraits. I am very heavily invested into both systems and enjoy using them both. Personally I struggle to shoot anything longer than a 50 on my rangefinders. I hope to get a M3 sometime in the near future and maybe that will help. In addition to longer lenses, I think an SLR can be easier for beginners to shoot 24mm and wider. The wide angle rangefinder lenses are much better but I find it can be a bit changing to anticipate distortion on the edges and when you tilt your lens up/down from the horizon. That said I remember when I first compared my Voigtlander 21mm f/4 to my Nikkor 20mm f/3.5. The former kicked the Nikkors butt! There have been some moments shooting in dim light on the streets of Hanoi where I’ve missed the ease of focusing with the Leica. When I first got into photography I was in the trap of wanting to shoot everything wide open to show that blurred background - I was duped into thinking that was the default for “good” photography. However, since I’ve progressed, I find myself often shooting at f/5.6-8 to try to get more in focus and work to better relate the elements in the scene to tell the story. And for that work, when I know I am shooting with a wider depth of field, the rangefinder is preferred to the mostly blurred image in a SLR. Oh, but for portraits and a 100-180mm lens SLR: 10/10.

[@ZachBie]

Also, I am glad that you made the added down here in the comment section about SLR viewfinder coverage. People complain when their rangefinder’s show more than what’s in the framelines (especially when used at longer distances), but so does the 92% coverage on most SLRs. Great video! Keep them coming when you’re able!

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Wow, it sounds like a great adventure that you're on! I would love to make that trip one day. I also have the CV 21mm f4 Color-Skopar and it's one of my all time favorite lenses by far-tiny and really sharp. I'm surprised that something as wide as a 21mm can still give good bokeh! Today I went to a festival at a decidedly less exotic location than you mentioned with my Leica M3, a 15mm f4.5 Voigtlander and loaded with a roll of Rollei RPX 100. I used zone focusing at f16 (Sunny 16) so from 2 meters to infinity all was in focus. I am going through the scans as I write this. I processed the roll with HC-110(50:1), stand-developed for one hour with a single agitation at the 30 min mark. The results were gorgeous. The Nikon FM3a is a legendary camera that is on my bucket list. I love my Nikon F3 so much that it's easy to forget about adding another Nikon body but I will get an FM3a sooner or later. I have the 28mm f2.8 AI-S (legendary lens) but didn't know that Nikon made a 100mm. Thanks for your comments. I enjoyed reading them very much.

[@ZachBie]

Film Photography Channel the 100mm f/2.8 is actually a four-element Series E lens, vs the five-element 105mm Nikkor. I have a few of the 105mm’s but was wanting to keep the weight down where I could. I just got the lens recently, and am hoping that by f/5.6-8 the results will be acceptable compared to a 105mm.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

@@ZachBie Ok, Series-E lenses are actually pretty good! I would try the 100mm for a while before selling or replacing it. I'ver read that from f4-16 it is excellent and an optically superb lens but doesn't have the legendary build quality of the 105mm f2.5. I don't know if you will see any appreciable difference between the two. I understand that it is more prone to flare than the 105mm also but I haven't tried either lens. I've had a 50mm f1.8 Series-E for about 5 years that I'm very happy with.

[@grumpywiseguy5992]

Thank you for stating the essence of this camera in plain English. So many of the Pros that still use Leica get wrapped up around the "Leica Experience", that they never really explain what is going on with the differences between the two styles of cameras. The essence is who is control of the photographic process, the photographer or the camera.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

That's exactly my point. I see three distinct advantages to the Leica camera: First, the rangefinder form-factor (vs SLR) in general is very liberating in that the viewfinder is "always on", i.e., it's very bright and always in focus (although rangefinder cameras aren't all born equally). Second, the Leica build quality, ergonomics, light weight, perfect size and again, large & bright viewfinder make it the perfect expression of the rangefinder form-factor. Third, like you mentioned, the photographer is in charge! This is my favorite part of using a Leica. The photographic process happens very quickly and efficiently. I NEVER look at the camera itself. I'm always focused on the subject because the Leica moves out of my way. While some folks romanticize these cameras because of their beauty and history etc, these three points are what make the Leica (M6) so appealing to me as a photographic tool. Thanks for sharing!

[@jasono9358]

there are plenty of fantastic quality slrs and rangefinders out there, you don't need to drop thousands on a leica, get an slr and a rangefinder and enjoy the strengths of each ! you don't have to choose one over the other.

[@fiuttello]

I sometimes use Fujica G690 aka Texan Leica for portraits. It's not easy but quality is awesome. It cost me around 250 quid.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

You’ll be happy to know that your camera is worth close to three times what you paid for it. Like most popular film cameras they’ve gone way up in price. I agree about the picture quality. It’s amazing.

[@fiuttello]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel If you're talking about GW 690 Pro III then yeah but mine's G690 from 1968 and it's not that expensive :) I chose that one because of interchangeable 100mm lens instead of stuck on 90mm.

[@sounak_mitra1403]

How are you able to use the viewfinder (especially the wider angle frame lines) with those glasses of yours? My glasses are similar in size as yours and the first time I used a Leica, I was very disappointed because I wasn't able to to see the wider frame lines due to the distance caused by my glasses - in effect, my eyes are farther away from the viewfinder. It doesn't allow for accurate composition

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

I’m just peeping through the viewfinder in the video as I’m talking but I never wear glasses when I use my Leica. I can see enough of the viewfinder while wearing my glasses but it’s not practical as a practice. You may know that Leica makes screw in diopter lenses for the M-Kamera that will help with this issue but are a little pricey (no surprise).

[@jt4369]

Here’s me opinion, if I may. I’ve shot through Leica, albeit Barnack bodies. I’ve shot through a Pentax Spotmatic, through a Rollei 35 and an Olympus OM-1. Of those, I honestly have to say that the Rollei 35 and the OM-1 are my favorite rangefinder and SLR cameras respectively. I wanted to love the Leica, but the hype fell short of the “experience.” In my Rollei 35, I knew how to hyperfocal distance and zone focus so all of my pictures were razor sharp. The Tessar is as good as any glass on Leica at a similar focal length I dare say. The Leitz Elmer 3,5cm is nice, but the lens alone is now $500?? What? And then there’s the OM-1. My god what a gem of an SLR. It’s robust, yet almost…dainty. It’s focusing prism is a JOY to work with. I literally enjoy looking through the viewfinder on the OM. I’ve also shot on a Hasselblad 500 and a Rolleiflex 2.8f. I can assure those who have Rollei and Hasselblad envy that the hype is real: a Mamiya gives a picture of equal quality; or a Pentax 67. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that Hasselblad and Rolleiflex are the undisputed kings of medium format. They’re just the most hyped. You what i shoot on most when I’m on the street? My dad’s Rollei 35. F8 and zone focus. Boom. I’ve grown past bokeh now. I practically don’t even look through the finder: I just generally aim and shoot.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

I posted a video on the Rollei 35S a few months ago. I really love that camera. So much so that I spent $$ to get the shutter fixed because I plan to keep it forever. It quickly became my favorite camera this past summer. I usually carried a handheld rangefinder for accurate close focusing because the Sonnar lens has perfect bokeh. There are quite a few fixed lens cameras with optics on par with Leica optics. The obvious difference is that you can’t interchange the lens. My Leica M6 (I also have an M3 and IIIf) is an absolutely wonderful camera. It has a huge and stunningly clear optical viewfinder stunning optics and gets completely out of the way which sparks my creativity. My lens collection consists of CV 15 & 21mm, 50mm Summicron DR and Type IV, Zeiss 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon and a 90mm Tele-Elmarit skinny. I use them all and have to force myself to leave some of them home when I go out just to keep things simple. They all are magnificent lenses. Anyway thanks for sharing your thoughts. You obviously are very experienced in film Photography.

[@jt4369]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel Fantastic reply, thank you. I’ve been fortunate in my camera gear and have been under appreciative. The Rollei 35, Spotmatic and the Rolleiflex 2.8f were my father’s. As I started to get more into film (as a way to remember him), I ignorantly dismissed the Rollei 35 as being primitive. Only with time do I realize what a little wonder it is. And it’s limitations have actually made the whole street photography process simpler and frankly more enjoyable. Where once I used to be concerned about sharpness, I’m now more concerned about “the moment.” If the light dims, I welcome the opportunity to lower my shutter speed and introduce some movement into the shot-no problem. In fact, now I embrace it. I hardly ever do that with a digital camera. My little Rollei was used to take pictures of me when I was just a toddler. It has battle scars. I recall one incident when the family was on a trip to Tahoe and the camera slipped from my father’s hands an onto a hard granite surface. It slip for several feet and I could hear my dad’s soul twisting. Fortunately, it dented the top plate but the camera still shot on. It’s also lost a few screws here and there, but I’ve used electrical tape to keep everything light tight. Eventually, I’ll send it in for spa treatment and retire the old girl to the shelf. She’s served her country, so to speak. Despite the fine machines my father had, he always lusted for a Hasselblad. I was recently give. A Hasselblad 500 series (yes, you read that right) with several lenses. It’s a beautiful machine and frankly, the shutter almost sounds ghostly. But in actuality, I think the hype has surpassed the reputation. I bought an old Mamiya from a thrift store that I found in some dusty old corner of a California highway. I took it home, cleaned it, cleaned away the dust from the back element and shot some film. You know what? Beautiful pictures. I’ve been the victim of the whole gear acquisition syndrome thing. And the only way to get over it is to go through it: you have to get them to realize you don’t need them. I wish my father were still around. We didn’t get along so well when I was a kid but that was because I was morose and into girls. But if he were alive today, I think he and I would talk for days on end about photography and the places we’d shoot.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

What a beautiful sentiment. I think in a way you’re sharing something with your father right now with your film cameras even though he’s gone. I’ve never had a Hasselblad but I admit it’s on my bucket list. I have the Mamiya 1000s (made a really long video about it) and I agree the photos are amazing. I’ve had several Zeiss lenses over the years (for 35mm) and I imagine that on larger format films they would be breathtaking. The awesome thing about film cameras is that you can buy them, use them for a while and then sell them with losing too much or sometimes actually making a few pennies. It’s really a fun hobby.

[@jt4369]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel I recently acquired a Bronica S2A with several lenses that someone was about to rid himself of. It was *his* father's and the latter had picked up the camera sometime after his service in Vietnam. Apparently, he'd shot it pretty regularly. That model was apparently a direct response by Japan to the Hasselblad 500 series. And from what I can see online, the title is not undeserving. If my Hasselblad were purchased, I'd probably eventually sell it. But seeing as it was a gift from a friend, it will never find it's way on the "flip" list. All of my father's cameras and those connected to friends are almost like companions. It's the principle of the thing. That said, I'm not particularly inclined to rid myself of the Mamiya because it represents a story in my mind. I have two digital cameras left but I'm not that attached to them. Honestly, I can freely say that the Leica IIIf body I acquired primarily so that I could use an old Elmar 35mm I found at a pawn shop may be on "the list." I think I scratched my rangefinder itch with the Olympus RC35, though it did feel a little "cheap": Can't say I was loving that plastic focusing ring. But I do love that 40-45mm focal length. And that's a weird one too. Besides the Olympus Trip, RC, etc. models and the Rollei 35 and related models, I can't think of too many 40mm full frame street photography appropriate cameras out there. Who knows. Maybe I'll eventually go hardcore and shoot using a pinhole camera. Go really commando.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

I definitely am attached to some of my cameras. The Nikon F3, Leica M6 and Minolta Himatic 7SII more than any of the others. Partially because I know them so well that I can envision the results without any doubt. I don’t think I could ever be attached in that way to a digital camera.

[@anta40]

Rangefinder cameras are usually suited for shorter primes (anything shorter than 85/90mm), typically done from a certain distance. If you want to stand really close, or need a zoom or long lens, those are rangefinders' Achiless heels. SLRs don't have such issues. If you look at Vietnam war photos, it was a pretty common setup to shoot with Leica Ms on 50mm or shorter, and Nikon Fs for anything longer.

[@HerfingPug]

Marvellous vid. Thanks Mate, much appreciated.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Thanks for watching.

[@brentbrown51]

I would like to own a rangefinder. Can't afford a Leica. Any recommendations for a more budget-friendly unit?

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Sure just check out my comparison video that reviews a few budget friendly rangefinders.

[@3flyte_3flyte]

Nice one, Eric. Thanks. Aren't you also on Flickr?

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

I am. My Flickr link is in the description of all my videos. Thanks!

[@patrickdaniels4217]

Hey brother, I really appreciate the time you've taken to Express to us here. Thanks

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Thanks Patrick, sorry I didn't see your post earlier. I appreciate you.

[@gurugamer8632]

Could you do a review of M11? Also which colour MP would you buy

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

I’m generally not a fan of digital Leica’s but have never tried the M11 so who knows-I may like it! I wouldn’t spend $9,000 on one so that would hurt my chances of ever reviewing one. As for your other question I would get a Leica MP black paint over the matte finish. I think it is the quintessential Leica M camera and I hope to buy one one day.

[@Dan-xf5fz]

Awesome channel, just subscribed :) I’m looking for an eye cushion for my OM2, do you know of anywhere that sells them?

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Hi I got mine on Amazon. Here’s a link: Olympus Eye Cup for OM-1 OM-2 OM-4 NEW Eyecup www.amazon.com/dp/B01G5U7966/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fab_YuKGFbQ2QM16M

[@Narsuitus]

I shoot rangefinders and I shoot SLRs. Love them both. For me, when I am shooting concerts with soft passages, theatre, funerals, golf, chess matches, recording studios, and other situations were loud mirror slap sounds are frowned upon, I prefer rangefinders.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Great point. I like both form factors as well but if both types of cameras would be suitable for what I’m photographing I usually will use rangefinder. That being said, there are times that I miss using a certain camera and will pick that one up. 😀

[@Narsuitus]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel If both types of cameras are suitable for what I’m photographing, I usually select whatever will get the job done. For example, last year, I had to photograph a 38-meter wide work of art and was limited by the distance at which I could back away from the art work. I needed to use my widest lens -- a 14mm Nikkor. Normally, I would mount the Nikkor on a Nikon film SLR; however, I decided to use a Nikon F to Leica M adapter in order to mount it on a Leica M6; not because I prefer rangefinders, but because the M6 was already loaded with film and all my Nikons were all empty.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Makes sense. I guess everything is almost always in focus with a 14mm as well. I have a 15mm Voigtlander which would be suited to that task. It has a max aperture of f4.5 which allows for a tiny size and is optically superb.. The Nikon is huge in comparison but of course has a much larger max aperture.

[@dianeswift]

Excellent, exciting presentation with gorgeous photos that sing! I loved your Mamiya 645 video demonstrating a camera a wee more affordable. Thank you for such wonderful photographic essays.

[@jacovanlith5082]

With a different split viewing screen a f/3.5 lens will not be a problem. When SLR got popular n the Sixies the most popular lenses were the 50 mm. Plus the bright 1 : 3,5 -135 mm tele lesns

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

An f3.5 indoors would not be great. Half of the split screen would start to darken. Even with the Minoltas excellent split prism screens aka the the SRT-1xx series they start to darken at f3.4/f4. This is why Lens manufacturers started making f1.4, 1.7, 1.8 and f2 lenses as their bundled lenses for SLRs. In any case the awesome Leica viewfinder is unparalleled for composition and focusing IMHO. It’s always in focus, bright, sharp, coated optical glass with a very accurate focus patch.

[@westonsmith4572]

Thank-you for the video. Do you have any trouble focusing with the 50mm Summicron? I am wondering if there are limitations/frustrations with the 0.72 M6 with the small focusing patch and smaller frame lines. Cheers from Canada.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Hi, no I don’t have any problems focusing with any lens at all. I’ve had the Leica MP viewfinder upgrade done which may be why. The upgrade includes the enhanced focus patch, coated viewfinder glass and I also had some of the frame lines masked off, i.e., 75mm. I talk about the M6 and the upgrade here kzbin.info/www/bejne/imXPkn6IfNKMitU

[@sterioma]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel so you spend so much on a camera and still need to pay extra for a viewfinder upgrade?

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Yep, I don’t like all of the extra viewfinder lines. I didn’t have to do it, I just wanted to have the upgrade. The viewfinder is absolutely glorious. Crystal clear coated optical glass with a perfect focusing patch. Keep in mind that while it seems to be a lot of money for a camera, my M6 is worth over double what I paid for it several years ago so if I want to cash out, I would be way ahead.

[@TheGazmondo]

As a professional for many decades, none of us would have used a rangefinder camera as a main camera, as there is no depth of field preview , which to my mind is pretty essential, and utterly fundamental.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

I’ve been using my M6 for so long, I can determine my DOF without actually seeing it. I’m sure you that half the time the screen goes so dark when you hit the DOF lever that you can’t see much anyway. After doing this for a while, I know that if I’m using a 50mm and I have the aperture somewhat open and I’m fairly close, etc, the background will be be out of focus. I also know how to get the background in focus if that’s the effect I want. I really like the big, bright viewfinder over the matte SLR screen. I also find that the M6 really gets “out of my way” and lets me concentrate on my subject and the composition. Maybe it’s just me cause almost no one that’s commented on this video agrees. Lol

[@TheGazmondo]

Film Photography Channel What you say is very interesting, and sounds like you’ve acquired a great deal of experience, and that takes time I guess. Love the channel, and certainly enjoying the vintage side.kind regards Gary

[@simonkeslake2782]

Great video, just bought my first Leica, the M2, looking forward to the experience.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Congratulations!

[@shamikchoudhury5924]

Hi... very well articulated views. While most of the views are related to technical, in my world IT, they are called functional requirements(FR), there are non-functional requirements(NFR) that also important to be successful. One of the main technical thing about Leica is not the body but the lenses that make them absolutely joy, the NFR of within budget makes them a bit difficult for us non- pros. Next is size, while it may be true for digital, this argument may not be 100% true for film SLR. Lastly, for film photography, what is important is skills, lens and film stock, all FR. But here there is only one variable where Leica has edge but not huge, i.e lenses but that can be offset by other two variables. For digital, these variables differ and Leica has clear edge. But all these arguments can be offset by the money you need to comit for a Leica system, I would rather consider it as a luxury even though I have a decent income. I would rather spend that extra for buying film and travelling. Hope I have not offended you, just my view.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

No offense taken at all I appreciate you’re well organized thoughts and opinion. Leicas are definitely luxury items. They are definitely not a need. There’s also other Leica Mount camera bodies that can be bought for much less, i.e., Zeiss Ikon or the Voigtlander Bessas. I have to say that there really is a very hard to describe “feeling” that comes when using a Leica. I personally feel inspired to take great photos every time I pick up my Leica. It sounds silly perhaps but I can say that for me at least it’s absolutely true. In my case it’s probably because I wanted to own a Leica since I was a kid so it’s probably all in my head.

[@shamikchoudhury5924]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel Same for me. I appreciate your feeling of shooting with Learn ca. Even though I have collected and used more than 200 cameras bodies, I always wanted to shoot a Leica film body. But price was always a roadblock. So, I picked up a LTM Leica and I am happy shooting. Learned the trick of film loading into them!!. All my comments was for M leicas. I generally would never buy a digital M as they have a expiry date unlike film M bodies. Thanks for your reply. Great comments. Appreciate!!

[@nmd1211]

Thanks for another great video. The only rangefinder I have is the Canon GIII QL17 and I have never really bonded with it, finding the focusing extremely difficult to see. On the other hand, it does produce nice images. This makes me wonder about a Leica - I've never handled one - but wonder if it would be worth it. I really like my Nikons - from oldies from the 70s to the F100 - and digital too; and equally I like my Oly OM1, 2, 4. Ah, well . . . I really enjoyed your insights as to why you like the Leica RFs so much.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Thanks so much! It sounds like you have a nice camera collection as well. I've never regretted getting my Leicas and the viewfinder is much, much bigger (and clearer) than the Canon. Leicas are really well-engineered and precise in their operation. It's not a "need" but a "want". I wanted one for years and I just went ahead and finally did it a few years ago.

[@analogreasonings8753]

Timeless Classic. Thanks for sharing.

[@franzscaramelli2651]

Excellent!

[@kenh.5903]

Do you want an affordable Leica Rangefinder or SLR look at Minolta and check out the history

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Minolta and Leica’s history is intertwined in their SLR products. The M series is ALL Leica.

[@L1RMO]

Another lovely video. The dial on the back for ASA is just a reminder of what film is loaded isn’t it....and has no bearing on the ASA setting?

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Thanks. On the M6, the dial actually is connected to the meter. On the M3, it's just a reminder.

[@L1RMO]

Film Photography Channel thanks. I’ve the M3 and looking to add the M6. Didn’t know that.

[@tigerhunter8878]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel then how do you change the iso on the m3 if it has no effect?

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

I just set the iso reminder dial on the M3 for whichever speed I’m shooting. That way if I want to push some frames from 400 to 800, I can meter correctly for the given iso.

[@tigerhunter8878]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel so it shoots with the same iso exposure for every dial you set it to? So it doesn’t make a difference if I shoot with a 800 speed film and a 400 speed film?

[@NextScamdemic]

Is there a rangefinder that could be considered a "poor man's Leica"? I didn't want to lay down so much money for an M3 or M6 right away but I still wanted to experience what it's like to shoot with something similar. Thanks!

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Of course. Just check out my video where I compare four classic rangefinders to a Leica M6. I was personally surprised by the results. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJS0hY2corB8ftU

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

@@audiotechnica4569 If you want an interchangeable lens aperture priority, the Leica CL is a great choice.

[@NextScamdemic]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel I picked up a Yashica Electro 35 for $20! I've never gotten more decisive moments per roll than with that little gem. For my next rangefinder I have my sights on a Canonet QL17!

[@NextScamdemic]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel Superb video! Thanks!

[@63nuke]

I think I would miss the depth of field preview in shooting food and drink and fairly close subjects (not macro though per se). I would want a meter as I'm not always in good light so an M6 would be the one. It's hard to "try out" a Leica. If you buy an old film SLR off of Flea-bay, shoot a few rolls and don't like it you're not out much. Leica is pretty spendy to gamble on unless you're really sure you're going to like it. Leica...like it..hmm sounds the same lol. My goodness though...there are countless iconic images made with Leica's so that says a lot for these cameras.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

I like the M6 for most types of photography but like most rangefinders, the closest focusing distance is 3 feet so it’s not great for close up shots. My Leica M3 video features a 50mm Dual Range Summicron with viewfinder “goggles” that allows focusing to about 1.5 feet. For closeups or macro I really like my Nikon F3 on a tripod with the waist level finder.

[@joeltunnah]

Most overrated overpriced camera of all time.

[@lugentaubner6853]

Thanks for the video! Completely agree with your main point that RFs are better for most applications that most of us are concerned with most of the time, including street, family etc. That said, SLRs are better for any sort of shooting that is carefully composed and/or “staged”. You mention that SLRs are better for sport, macro, and tele. But what is much more important for most people: SLRs are better for portraiture, due to their WYSIWYG features. Granted, you mention DOF preview, but only for 15 seconds near the end, as if it wasn’t that big a deal. (Of course, some shooters may have enough experience to do without it; but then again, some painters are experienced enough to be able to paint blindly. Still they don’t do it, because seeing what you paint is easier and more fun.) Also, an SLR does not only allow for precise framing (as you mention) but, more importantly, it gives you a preview of the lens’ *perspective*, i.e. which parts of your subject are accentuated perspectivally, which parts of your background are obstructed by your subject, and how close or far-away the background seems relative to your subject, all of which is crucial for serious portraiture. If you go trough the hassle of setting up one or more controlled light sources, you don’t want to take any unnecessary chances with the outcome.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

I agree with most of what you said. I made this video after years of using a rangefinder and being hit with the realization that when you’re familiar enough with your camera then you don’t need the additional "help" from an SLR. I guess the whole premise of the video is a call to have people learn their gear better which ultimately will empower you as the driver in the photographic process. I get your point about depth of field preview and lens rendering being instantly viewable in the SLR and helpful for portraiture, but I have to say that I haven’t used a DOF preview lever in years! They just make the viewfinder dark and unusable and I understand that a smaller aperture will make more of the photo in focus. Here's my point: I understand that a big lens opening will offer a smaller depth of field and vice versa; I get that a faster shutter speed will stop motion and vice versa; I understand that a strong telephoto lens will compress the background (although the strongest lens i use is a 90mm so not really a factor for me). I'm at the point that I can absolutely visualize all of these factors and I don't need the camera to show me any of them. Also remember that most SLRs don't show you 100 percent coverage of what the lens sees and Leica's show you lots more than the lens sees. I think that once you've used a lens enough times, you can predict with all certainty what the photo will look like. It really frees me up to think about my subject and not the camera. I mean, there's next to nothing on a Leica that will divert your attention from your subject. I have used a Leica M6 as a studio camera on a tripod with multiple remotely triggered strobes (and a Sekonic flash meter to calculate the light) and got the results that I expected but I'll admit it was not an ideal setup. I much prefer my Nikon F6 for this type of work. I liken the whole SLR vs Leica conversation to the difference between digital and film: With digital you can see your results right away but with film, you have to imagine (hope) that you did everything right. SLRs show you the end result up front. Most importantly, I thank you sincerely for sharing your thoughts and opinions; it only makes the channel and us better!

[@hlash99]

I’ve got some nice SLRs as well but I also reach for my M3. Another advantage to rangefinders, no mirror-slap…I can handhold down to 1/8 for low light photography

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

That’s a great point. I’ve shot similar shutter speeds with my Leica as well. I also use a mini tripod to brace the camera to my chest or a solid structure. I get some interesting shots at times. I prefer this approach to using fast films and lenses. Some of my favorite pics were taken Ektar at ASA 100 with a Voigtlander f4 max aperture ultra wide lens.

[@jasongold6751]

I disagee totally. If you want great 1950's, 60's images perfect. If you want o enjoy seeing what your lenses, plural, can do, run to SLR! We all did in 60's. Pentax Spotmatics, Takumar lenses or Nikon-F with Nikkor lenses. Professionaly and for personal use, the SLR. I wish we lost the word 'Compose'. It's only food photographers of old, who composed! We all Frame a shot! SLR is creativity big time! Leica-M often body jewelry.. My M3 is 56 years now used by me, from new! Some of my SLR's are also that old. All good lenses by major makes are better than us! I named my 2 makes! Canon-A series, Minolta SR 101 series, Fuji SLR are equally fine. Do not drink Leica Lemonade. The easy way to close-ups, tele photography, wide angles are there! Zooms are another tool. Important! Enjoy!

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

We’re saying the same thing. My Thesis is that Leica M’s are better than SLRs for MOST types of photography and it’s absolutely true. Emphasize most. SLRs put you in a tunnel that limits your vision. The first thing you do is focus since your lens will likely be out of focus as you peer through the viewfinder. Then you’ll want to do a DOF preview and figure out which focal length to use from the 200 focal lengths available on your zoom-no thanks! Give me a super bright and clear optical Leica viewfinder any day. I can figure out the rest while focusing on my subject, not the camera. Pick up that M3 with a fresh perspective and I hope you’ll agree! Cheers!

[@jaeAre200]

Great video!! I'm sooo glad I was able to pick up my 1st Leica and join the M6 gang. One of the best decisions I've made in awhile next to slowly switching to film.

[@MarcS4R]

with film, my hit rate in focus is much better on a rangefinder than with an SLR. one of the reasons why i prefer my rangerfinders (Xpan and MP)

[@whitebuffalo4904]

how come?

[@MarcS4R]

@@whitebuffalo4904 i wish i knew, maybe my eyes are not that great anymore. my hitrate was always higher on a rangefinder. only exception is my 500cm with the loupe that helps greatly with the focusing.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

@@MarcS4R My hit rate is near 100%! The fact that the rangefinder patch is so much bigger than the typical split prism and the bright and clear M6 viewfinder makes focusing in all lighting conditions much easier.

[@joeltunnah]

Marc H, you need to be specific about which camera you’re talking about. Some models have big bright viewfinders, some don’t. Also different focus screens affect it.

[@joashtsw1]

very informative. Probably the best explanations out there.

[@AustenGoldsmithPhotography]

Ultimate expression of wealth

[@Huginn1000]

Thank you, very interesting

[@hansformat]

it is better ... completely agree. I use SLR mostly for longer lenses (longer than 90)

[@Socrates...]

love your videos

[@peoriavideosltd6822]

If KZbin were a newspaper, this video would be on the "Opinion" page.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Haha haha you are absolutely right!

[@ignacioalcantara513]

and what if i needed to make pictures closer than 1 foot or at 1 foot, what if i need to have different focal distance lenses outside the pre-determined lines the camera gives, what about parallax, what about that stupid antiquated loading system of every film leica, did any body in this generation understand the reason why there was a natural evolution towards SLR? do anybody on youtube understands that the cliche of street photography is not the only way of doing photography? i understand the preference of anyone for a particular type of system but its something personal, the exposure triangle can be achieve equally with that same Olympus om-1 you were holding at the beginning without the need of spending that ridiculous amount of money, and for some one with big hands as me, with a nikon F2 or a canon F1 so smooth and without having to worry about needing an extra viewfinder for some lenses (not avery thing is a 35mm lens in this world) or that stupid bulky googles for closeups...there was a reason for the success of SLRs, there's more to photography than this narrow way of thinking.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

You're missing the point and making my point at the same time. In the title of this video it says "MOST" types of photography not "ALL". I own probably 20 SLRs so I'm not "anti-SLR". My point is that for years, when I reach for a camera to just go out and take "normal" photos , i.e., family, street, landscapes, portraits, long exposure, etc, I always pick up the Leica. If I'm doing something specialized (like in my Hummingbird video kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4PPi35vfMilZ7M , I would, without hesitation, pick up an SLR, (in this case the Nikon F6). Even when an SLR is appropriate, I tend to go for the simpler ones, i.e., the OM-2n, Nikon FE or F3. I don't know if you ever used a Leica for an extended amount of time (I've had one nearly ten years), but if you ever do, you might get the point. Leica's are so well crafted and dead-simple to use that there's no distraction from the camera whatsoever. SLRs have lot's of buttons and dials which tend to make the camera a distraction at times. The "tunnel" which is the viewfinder in an SLR has to be focused nearly every time you look through it and tends to go dark with slower lenses. When you aren't forced to look through the lens, the lenses can be slower, sharper and smaller as are the Voigtlander ultra-wides. Even faster lenses for rangefinders (Leica Summicrons) are smaller because the back element is so much closer to the film plane. While I know an experienced photographer can work around that stuff, it's liberating to use a camera without all the distractions-that is, if the camera can handle the subject. Like I said, if I'm trying to take a photo of an NFL receiver catching a lob in the back corner of the end zone, then I probably won't get that photo with a rangefinder. Just about everything else I would rather use my Leica. I came to the realization years ago that I don't need depth of field preview to know what will be in focus or matrix metering or exposure comp to know what will be properly exposed. I can make all those calculations in my head instantly instead of fiddling around with buttons and dials on the camera. Today we see nearly every camera manufacturer dumping the SLR form-factor and opting for mirrorless designs (ironically, I still prefer an optical viewfinder in a DSLR/SLR over an EVF in a mirrorless camera). Also new Leica rangefinders with "ridiculous" prices are on backorder and Fuji rangefinders like the X100 series have been selling like hotcakes for nearly a decade. BTW, I think the close-up goggles on my M3 look super-cool. I sincerely thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[@ignacioalcantara513]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel sorry but i'm not missing the point I just made the point, there are a lot of SLR that have nothing to distract you from the real experience, there are a lot of photographic experiences were a rangefinder is far from ideal, mainly when it's not about street photography. On the other hand you shouldn't confuse rangefinders with mirrorless or even compare them a rangefinder is about visualizing what you get and being able to manage to bring an image to life a mirrorless is about not needing even to thing about the results because everything it's already previewed for you...not work. I like rangefinders for some stuff I own a leica iiic, I got your point even a notch further buddy it's got separate windows for the rangefinder and for the viewfinder, it's a little jewel. But still the same issue of all rangefinder with getting close. I find no more knobs on a Nikon f2 with an eye level finder than a leica m6 the real difference is the prestige and the assumption that your pictures are any better for having the leica logo on a camera

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

@@ignacioalcantara513 At least we agree on mirrorless, lol; and that the Leica IIIc is a little jewel. We are saying the same thing also about rangefinders. I said that they are NOT good for every type of photography (which includes macro) but I much prefer to use them when I can. BTW, the M3 with close-up goggles focuses to 15 inches for what it's worth. Oh, I forgot to mention, I can load film in my M6 just as easily as any other film camera that I've ever used; probably because I've had it so long. I also didn't mention the other thing that I like about Leica rangefinders over SLRs which is the super-quiet, vibration-free shutter release. I've hand-held my M6 at around 1/15 and even 1/8 sec exposures reliably which I could never do even with the smoothest SLR because of mirror slap. Here's a sample: flic.kr/s/aHsjASEMku

[@ignacioalcantara513]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel i give you the quite shutter for what it's worth, i spent a couple of years shooting at night at speeds of 1/15th and 1/8th with the nikon F3 and the canon f1 new and they did the job well thought i wouldnt compare these to a rangefinder. about loading quick i just dont know what to say, one can get used to anything and master it but i think i saw one of your videos on the canonet QL 17... thats quick loading but again i don't care much about quick and easy, after all this is film. the last thing i would like to comment on is 2 point about the leica m6 as compared to a good mechanical SLR of any brand, 1- you talk about the viewfinder being like a tunnel on a SLR when using long lenses but did you ever put a 200mm on a leica m6...in the case there's one, the the frame lines would give you a very small box in the center and the same is true even for a 135mm.. but I know I know!!! who uses a 200mm or and 135mm with a leica, who uses flash with a leica!! etc etc. 2- did you ever try to do double exposure on that beloved camera of yours...and i suppose the answer would be the same, who you wanna do double exposure on a leica, who wanna do macro, who wanna get so close! again excuse me for this hater's actitud of mine commenting on this video I'm just so saturated of all this leica devotion on youtube. most of you talk about leica as the only camera having this type of properties of not being distractive but in reality that same is true for many analogue cameras before the 80s SLRs or rangefinder. some cameras are good for many different scenarios the leica m6 might be great for a niche type of scenario but very limited for a lot of other common situations. the one thing it's not for sure is cheap nor are the lenses. so after expending all that money on a system one morning you wake up and say to yourself: "today i;m going to think outside of the box, not more Henry Cartier Bresson wannabe...but wait i need to get a different camera system" P.D: excuse the sarcasm i'm a Dominican

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

@@ignacioalcantara513 Lol, No problem with sarcasm; I do it too. I use a 90mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit "skinny" as my only tele lens. It's great on the m3 especially since it has such a high-magnification viewfinder made for 50mm. I actually consider the SLR as niche when you say the rangefinders are niche. I use rangefinders for nearly everything except for when I need auto focus or long lenses. I like Nikon AI-s glass so sometimes I'll want to use the Nikkor 50mm 1.2, Nikkor or 28mm f2.8, 55mm f2.8 micro or one of my other favorites. When it comes to glass, I don't really have to say it but Leica has some of the best. But, like you said, you can't take macro or long telephoto shots which I also enjoy. The good thing about being a film shooter is that the cameras are so relatively cheap (ahem, except Leica), that you don't have to choose; you can have it all!

[@b_wtangible_moments]

Click bait! Someone's been drinking a lot of Leica koolaid today. Lol

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

I like-a my Leica!

[@b_wtangible_moments]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel I Leica both systems. Lol

[@northmcknight731]

😂😭

[@NBartrina]

My shoe box is getting full. That means good I'll have a Leica. Great video. Very informative, as all of yours.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Thanks so much!

[@Westgrovephoto]

Very nice! Thank you for the video!

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Thank you for coming by!

[@shademanirvanipour6870]

the Olympus SLR cameras are good cameras to buy but they DRAINS THE BATTRY POWER TO KEEP THE CAMERA RUNNING VERY QUICKLY

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

It’s funny that you mentioned Olympus and battery draining. I just picked up my OM-2 a couple of days ago and the battery was completely dead! I left the power switch on Auto and it drained the battery just sitting there. That’s a definite downside to an otherwise great camera.

[@calvinwu3861]

Everything you mentioned is right, but the M system is way too expensive

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

You’re right. I’ve wanted an M6 since I was in high school and I finally got one as an adult.

[@oceaniccurrents]

Film Photography Channel and you’ll have it for the rest of your life 👏

[@brianlee9234]

title should have been: “i carelessly spent $2000 on a 40 year old camera and i must justify why”

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

If you watched the video you would know thats not true. It’s worth $2000 now but my net outlay was about $700. Thanks.

[@idreaminsurfgreen5327]

Unless the camera isn't working properly its never a loss. In most cases with leica you make your money back or more upon sale.

[@fotographz_at_see_leVel]

Hey Eric I have a one of a kind M6 that Leica USA created for me let me know if you want to hear this story...cheers

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Absolutely. Sorry I haven't replied sooner. I would love to hear the story. Thanks.

[@fotographz_at_see_leVel]

Let's connect on a phone at some point, I was also Jazz Legion Lionel Hampton's photographer from 1995-2002.

[@lazopoprzencic5416]

What a load of crap? If rangefinders are better than any SLR for MOST photography then why is it that no one (apart from Leica) makes them? Nikon stopped making them as did Canon and the rest of the camera manufacturers followed suit as soon as the SLR was invented. Clearly, if the rangefinder was superior we would all be using rangefinders but we are not. Wonder why that is?

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

The question is why are Fuji rangefinders so popular and why is Leica still making and selling out their over priced rangefinders for nearly 100 years? You should try out a Leica film camera.

[@lazopoprzencic5416]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel L

[@lazopoprzencic5416]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel Leica’s and their lenses are not overpriced. They are hand made, precision instruments and extremely well made cameras that will most likely outlast your children’s children. My point is that people don’t like Leica cameras because they are rangefinders, they like them because they are Leicas and what they stand for; great optics, fantastic build, instant cache and they appreciate in value. I am actually looking to buy an M3 to add to my film camera collection and I don’t even like rangefinders.

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

The M3 is an awesome camera for sure. The Leica rangefinders in particular appeal to me because the viewfinders have very clear and coated optical glass. Keep in mind that the M3 is engineered for 50mm lenses (and up) so you would need goggles or external viewfinder for even a moderately wide angle lens. Leica by definition are overpriced because the company was too small and low volume to make a profit so they had to “overprice” their cameras and lenses to be profitable. Fortunately for them they have an extremely desirable and well engineered product that people are willing to pay for. This was true of Leica in the film days. I don’t know if it’s still true today.

[@thomaspirolt1686]

Great!

[@mistagregory]

been shooting with my Leica M6TTL and Summilux 35 f1.4 since 2004. It's the best camera on the planet. gregorywhitephoto dot com (some digital but mostly M6

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

Amen to that!

[@63nuke]

Just checked out your site. Very nice work. What's your favorite film?

[@Oxydus1]

lol lol lol, man I tried to watch if full but simply was not able, so much BS.... get a mirrorless than, better than a rangefinder! For some reason SLR got to be way more popular than rangefinders....

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

You should've watched the whole thing and you would understand my point better. The Leica is mirrorless; the original mirrorless.

[@Oxydus1]

@@FilmPhotographyChannel Rangefinders were the dominant cameras up until SLR were brought into the market, and for some reason SLR just torn the rangefinder market, so much so that Rangefinder became a niche in the industry and Leica a cult! I own from rangefinders, to SLR´s, to DSLR´s to mirrorless and even medium format cameras, so I have no bias towards any type. But, when you mentioned that in SLR the viewfinder brightness is limited to the max aperture of the lense and also that the viewfinder looks directly through the lense, that is a big plus, that was what changed the market and made SLR the most popular camera owned! If you look directly through the lense, its good because you see exactly what the lense "see", your composition is more accurate because you get real feed, no need to compensate for brightness or paralax in result of having a separate viewfinder. And that is also a major plus, because it allows you to use and adapt every lense on the surface of the planet, where the rangefinder....good luck! I don´t say you cannot shoot wildlife or sports with a Rangefinder.... but it has its limitations!

[@FilmPhotographyChannel]

@@Oxydus1 I actually made the point in the video that you can't shoot tele, macro or zoom lenses (except tri-elmars) with a rangefinder. I've seen shoe-mounted optical viewfinders for 90mm 135mm, 200mm tele lenses but that's silly and not what rangefinders are good for. My point is that looking through a viewfinder that's always bright, always in focus and easier to manually focus when compared to an SLR is a better system than looking through the lens. Also when you look through the lens, you are at the mercy of the max aperture to determine viewfinder brightness. To your final point, a rangefinder window is perfectly accurate for composition. Most SLRs don't show you 100% of the lens's field of view; more like 92-95%. Even so, let's be realistic, how accurate do you have to be with the edges and corners of a family photo or street photo, etc? When have you ever really had to have critical, 100 percent accuracy other than taking a photo of a test chart (and even then, the chart is mostly in the middle). This actually hinders, doesn't help your picture taking. You are distracted by the dull, out of focus viewfinder, choosing a zoom focal length and trying to focus the split prism. Every time you put the camera to your eye, you lose touch with your scene where with a rangefinder you can see more than the lens sees. For macro and telephoto the SLR system is great! For everything else, a Leica rangefinder is much easier to use, in my opinion. Remember, my video is specifically about Leica M series, because I know some other rangefinder cameras don't have as nice a viewfinder. :-)