Posh Mechanical SLRs of the 1990s - Worth It?

Posh mechanical 35mm SLRs of the '90s? Surprise, surprise...a Leica was involved ;-)

     By the time the 1990s rolled around, Auto Focus (AF) 35mm SLRs had become the de facto standard for amateur photogs and were well on their way to domination amongst professionals, too. Manual focus (MF) market share had fallen to less than 10% of total SLR production by 1989. As is common when such market shifts occur, manufacturers will often try to compensate for a loss of sales volume by trying to sell higher-margin products. And so it was in the early-'90s: you had dirt-cheap (often sub-contracted), beginner-targeted MF SLRs on one hand, and a retro-wave of premium manual exposure, mechanical-shuttered models at the other, with the previous mid-level MF models all but abandoned.

​    Ever since the advent of practical auto exposure models, there was a small, but vocal, group of hardcore traditionalists who railed against the constant march of automation & polycarbonization of their beloved SLRs. This niche market may have been small, but to the manufacturers with either zero AF market presence (READ: CONTAX, Leica, Olympus), or a relatively strong base of MF users (READ: Nikon) it was one definitely worth pursuing. This is their story... 

​    Both Leica and Zeiss had made the decision in the early-1970s to abandon mechanical SLRs in favor of electronic models produced in cooperation with Minolta, and by Yashica, respectively. By the late-'80s, with both companies long having been more niche than mainstream (with Yashica even having to be bought out by the KYOCERA corporation in 1983), they were more prone to listen to the relatively small, but influential group of enthusiasts that were clamoring for a return to the "simpler" manual controls and "all-metal" construction of yesteryear. This demographic was a bit older than your typical "plastic fantastic" AF SLR buyer of the time. And here is where first Leica, and then CONTAX/Zeiss saw opportunity: hardcore, well-heeled enthusiasts willing to pay for their "ideal" mechanical, manual focus SLR while the electronic AF SLR market was well on its way in a "race to the bottom" (hello Canon Rebel ;-)). "Low-volume, high-margin" was already the modus operandi for both brands, so this was a no-brainer. Thus, the posh mechanical SLR (PMSLR) movement grew in step with the posh Point & Shoot (PPS) trend (ironically, also fueled by a CONTAX: the tiny, titanium-sheathed T2) and would peak in the mid-'90s, by which time both Nikon and Olympus joined the fray. ​

  A Fearsome Foursome of Photographic Awesomeness 

   Leica. CONTAX. Nikon. Olympus. These manufacturers would comprise our swankilicious SLR syndicate. We will now consider them in the order they appeared and some basic specifications after which we will dig into the juicy bits. 

​  The Leica R6/R6.2  

Cutaway illustration of the Leica R6.2 & the Summilux-R 50/1.4 Version II

     If we're going to talk posh, it should never come as a surprise to meet up rather quickly with a Leica :-). But the roots of the R6/6.2 wind their way back to a slightly more plebeian beginning. The R6 was derived as a manual exposure, mechanical shutter model from its electronically-controlled ancestor, the R5 (which was, in turn, a second-generation development following the R4, which had been derived in 1980 from the basic chassis of the Minolta XD/-7/-11 that debuted in 1977). Unleashed upon the public in 1988, at the height of the the AF SLR revolution, the R6 definitely fit the bill of a niche product and was priced accordingly at $4,530 USD (inflation-adjusted to 2022 as are all prices in this article). Popular Photography referred to the price as "breathtakingly high", even when "economizing" with the 50mm Summicron (f/2 @ $665 USD) versus the Summilux (f/1.4 @ $2,510 USD). As always, Leica set the top of the market (easily enough at this stage, when it was in a class of one ;-)) and would do so for the entire PMSLR era. For reference, the R5 came in at $3,010 USD, a third less. Aside from the substitution of the mechanical shutter, the addition of Mirror-Lock-Up (MLU), and the loss of the auto exposure modes of the R5...the R6 had nearly identical specifications, including:

• A shutter speed range from 1/1000 - 1 sec. + Bulb versus 1/2000 - 15 sec. (manual settings from 1/2000 - 1/2 sec.) on the R5; 1/100 sec. maximum flash sync.
• ISO range of 12 - 3200 with +/- 2 EV of exposure compensation in 1/3-EV steps.
• Viewfinder showing 92% of the film frame @ 0.8x, with built-in +/- 2 diopter eyepiece adjustment and eyepiece shutter. Five different interchangeable focusing screens were available.
• TTL flash metering with +/- 2 EV override control in 1/3-EV steps.
• 130-degree stroke manual film advance lever.
• A choice of two metering patterns: Full-field Integral (aka covering nearly the entire frame with "mild" centerweighting); and Selective, covering only a 7mm diameter circle in the middle of the frame (aka a 4.5% "fat" spotmeter).
• Identical dimensions and weight (138.5 mm W x 89.1 mm H x 63.5 mm D; 625 g.)

    The R6.2 appeared in 1992 (just as it was joined by our next contestant ;-)) with three upgrades over its predecessor:

• A top shutter speed of 1/2000sec. (now the same as the R5)
• The relocation of the higher-magnification frame counter window in front of the film wind lever.
• The flash-ready indicator in the viewfinder now offered both "ready" and "confirmation" signals in "B" mode. 

  The CONTAX S2   

The CONTAX S2 was introduced in 1992 to commemorate 60 years of Contax camera production

    This was the camera that truly started the struggle for posh mechanical 35mm SLR supremacy. The S2 would distinguish itself from the competition by virtue of being a virtually clean-sheet design (when it came to the exterior styling at least ;-)), rather than being just a gussied-up derivative of an existing model. That is not to say that KYOCERA's engineers didn't take a a verrry close look at the Nikon FM2N (introduced in 1984) when they came up with the S2 as we will see when we look at a few specs:

• A shutter speed range of 1/4000 - 1 sec. + B and a top flash sync. speed of 1/250 sec. (identical to the FM2N)
• ISO range of 12 - 6400 (identical to the FM2N)
• Right hand control layout including: multiple-exposure lever at the top right corner with only the location of the frame counter being different than the FM2N's
• The inclusion of a mechanical self-timer activated via lever on the front right panel. Aside from the original CONTAX RTS of 1975, the S2 was the only other CONTAX SLR to forgo an electronic self-timer.

    There would be two things that would make the S2 distinct, the second of which would become a hallmark of the PMSLR. First, although the R6 did offer the option of "almost" spotmetering, the S2 went all-in on the idea of being a machine for experienced photographers only by being singularly faithful to this near-mystical art, and steered even harder into the corner with a center spot comprising only 2.3% (falling comfortably short of the 3% upper limit generally accepted for a true spot pattern) of the film frame area (basically half the area of the R6's) with no other metering option. This would end up complicating matters for CONTAX, which we will get to in a little bit ;-). Second, KYOCERA opted to use one of their favorite upscale materials to encrust their latest photographic jewel: TI...TA...NI...UM...YUM...YUM. I mean come on...posh just drips from your lips (and possibly your nose) when you say it all breathily like that ;-). Don't laugh too hard though; both Nikon and Olympus would introduce their own titanium-enrobed PMSLRs in 1993 and 1994, respectively, completing our fabulous foursome of photographic frippery ;-). Lest you start to get the impression that CONTAX was being somewhat frivolous, check out the retail price of the S2 versus the R6: $2,140 USD for the body and the Carl Zeiss T* 50/1.4 for a steal at $460 USD. If you ever have been in doubt about who really puts the P...O...S...H in photographic posh, that should put it to bed; when Zeiss is almost a third of the cost for the body/lens combination...you know who the OG really is ;-). 

    Underneath its sano skin the S2 sported a whole lot of electronic CONTAX DNA. The overall dimensions were very close to the 139Q and 159MM models, with the chassis being a close derivative of the latter's (from the rear, the 159 and S2 are nearly identical, save for the electronic remote release port of the 159MM and the film back w/ window of the S2). The S2 also utilized the same pentaprism and eyepiece that CONTAX had adopted with the 159MM and 167MT models along with the FU-series of interchangeable focusing screens introduced with the 167MT.     

In 1994 CONTAX gave in to the calls for an easier-to-use centerweighted version: the S2b

   ​There was just one problem for the S2. There simply were not enough willing practitioners of spotmetering out there, and soon after its introduction, people were asking for a centerweighted option. Instead of adding the feature to the existing model, Zeiss and KYOCERA chose to make a separate, centerweighted-only model: the S2b. Aside from the meter, the only other difference was its gunmetal finish versus the champagne-toned original. But it was a worthwhile concession...they sold more cameras that way ;-).

​  The Nikon FM2/T

Nikon's response to CONTAX: Anything you can do...we can do better...and it will cost less, too ;-)

    Nikon didn't take long to take a cue from the S2, which had taken a few from the evergreen FM2N. Just over a year later, the FM2/T debuted, with the "T" boldly proclaiming their intentions of taking CONTAX and Zeiss on directly in the PMSLR market. It was a bit of an "oh, yeah?" from Nikon, no strangers to using titanium internally and externally for decades (shutters and mirror frames & boxes from the debut of the F in 1959, then releasing the first titanium-covered F2s in 1978 & '79, and following that up with the F3/T in 1982; a black version of which became available in 1984). The titanium exterior was the only change from the otherwise-familiar FM2N. And, just as CONTAX undercut Leica on price (not exactly the most difficult thing in the world to do ;-)), while Nikon brought the FM2/T in at a $450 USD premium over the standard FM2N, they were still a fair chunk of change under the S2, sitting at $1,300 USD, with the 50/1.4 AI-s Nikkor matching the Zeiss 50/1.4 at $460 USD (thus undercutting CONTAX/Zeiss by a third for the combo). In other words, things really hadn't changed much from the 1950s (except for Zeiss threatening to sue the New York Times for daring to compare Japanese optics favorably to theirs ;-)). Discontinued in May 1997.

​  The Olympus OM-3Ti

The Poshest Olympus OM of all time: 50% more expensive than the electronic OM-4Ti it came from

     If Nikon's response to the S2 was basically tit-for-tat, Olympus was just grateful to be able to get back into the mechanical SLR game somewhat. Having completely abandoned their abortive attempt at AF with OM-77/-88 in the late-'80s, they had been slogging along with the odd couple of the Cosina-built OM2000 beginner model and the higher-end OM-4Ti, a PESLR (posh electronic SLR :-)). The (relative) success of the S2 (selling in the thousands, rather than tens of thousands per year), gave Olympus a chance to resurrect and revamp their very advanced OM-3 mechanical model, which had originally been introduced in 1984 but was discontinued rather quickly. This was a result of poor sales and the never-ending AF onslaught, with the OM-3 disappearing from dealer shelves by late-'88. In similar fashion to the derivative nature of the R6/6.2 from the R5, the OM-3Ti was basically an OM-4Ti (introduced in 1987) with a mechanical shutter. Features of the original OM-3 that lived on with the OM-3Ti included:

• Multi-Spot Metering with the ability to memorize and average up to eight separate spot meter readings while allowing the user to bias exposure towards highlights or shadows. This was, by far, the most sophisticated metering system amongst our four PMSLRs under consideration. Spot meter readings were easily taken by pressing the SPOT button on top of the camera, instantly overriding the standard centerweighted reading. Spot metering was automatically cancelled upon exposure or after 60 sec. had elapsed. It could also be manually canceled by pulling the CLEAR lever on the top, front, right side of the camera.​
• ISO range of 6 - 3200
• Shutter speed range of 1/2000 - 1 sec. + Bulb 
• 130-degree, ratcheted film advance with 30-degree standoff position
• 97% coverage viewfinder @ 0.84x magnification with LCD display
• Built-in eyepiece dioptric correction from +1 to -3 diopters

    Improvements inherited from the OM-4Ti were:

• TTL Flash metering
• Super FP Flash mode which enabled high speed flash sync with the F280 flash unit up to 1/2000 sec. at very short distances
• Improvements to the circuitry that mitigated, to an extent, the battery drain problems that had plagued the original OM-3 & OM-4 models. The OM-3Ti also received the added tweak of a shorter 60 sec. automatic meter shutoff versus the 120 sec. of the OM-4Ti and all other previous OM-3 and OM-4 versions.
• And of course, the titanium top & bottom plates, but in a gunmetal finish similar to the CONTAX S2b. Hmmmm? ;-)

    
    The original (non-Ti) OM-3 had last sold for $910 USD and a 50/1.4 Zuiko lens for $250 USD. The rising tide of the R6/6.2 and S2 now floated Olympus to another bracket entirely (more like two-and-a-half ;-)) sitting at $2,500 + $320 USD for the 50/1.4 Zuiko in 1995, placing the opulent OM-3Ti squarely in S2/S2b territory.

    Let's now take a closer look at how our quixotic quartet stack up against each other in terms of relative cost; two decades after their market finally died at the start of the digital era. First, we will look at the cost of the bodies when last retailed versus now on the used market, and then (and perhaps more importantly) the cost of lenses for them today. Prices when new are from B&H Photo listings (please note that the last available listings for the CONTAX S2b and the Nikon FM2/T were from Dec. 1996); current used prices are for Excellent condition or better from KEH or averaged from sold units on the big auction site (mostly listed as "near mint" which will not equal KEH's Excellent rating 99% of the time; eyeroll); in one case, a "new in box" (NIB) is included.
​

Model
​
Leica R6.2

CONTAX S2/S2b
​​
Nikon FM2/T 

​Olympus OM-3Ti

​Dec. 1999 New Price

$2,845 w/ $600 rebate

$1,575/$1,830 (12/1996)

$1,035 (12/1996)

​$2,250

Oct. 2022 Used Price

$850-$900

$500-$900/$800-$1,200 

$500-$700/$1,200 NIB

$1,400-$1,600

​     The first thing that might jump out at you is the level of depreciation on the R6.2: it has depreciated by 68% of its last new value. When compared to the S2 (43%), the S2b (35%), the FM2/T (33%), and the OM-3Ti (29%), it may seem like not a bad deal...but here comes the caveat: lenses. While Leica R bodies can be quite attractive pricewise (particularly the R3 - R5 models), R glass remains the priciest vintage SLR glass around, and not by a small margin. Let's now compare the 50/1.4 standard lenses that were usually kitted with these bodies.
​  

Model

Leitz R Summilux V. II

Carl Zeiss C/Y T* MM

Nikon AI-s Nikkor

Olympus Zuiko MC

New Price from 1990s

$3,145 (12/99)

$460 (1993)

$420 (12/99)

$320 (12/1994)

Oct. ​2022 Used Price

$1,800

$300-$400

$150-$200

$100

   Features and Foibles - Posh Does Not Equal Perfect ;-)

   So, will paying the premium demanded by any of these fabled SLRs and their accompanying glass guarantee complete photographic fulfillment and eternal bliss? Sorry, reality bites as much as it did in the mid-'90s, and there is still no perfect camera, nor will there ever be as long as they are designed and built by such flawed creatures as ourselves ;-). Each one of these models has its share of quirks and missing features, as hard as that can be to accept when you are dishing out four figures just to have one with a single standard lens. Without further ado, let's have a go at them individually, looking at the good and the bad in relation to each other.

  Leica R6/6.2
   
    The Leica had the unenviable, yet completely justified, burden of bearing the highest expectations due to its cost when new, even though time and depreciation have now softened the blow a bit (at least when it comes to the camera; lenses are another story). We get a clue as to why the Leica has depreciated considerably more than its peers from the Test Report in Popular Photography of Sept. 1989: "What then is the Leica R6? After all is said and analyzed, it's a gilt-edged paradox, a camera that is stunningly straightforward and thoroughly likeable, and a camera that, to be charitable, carries a list price that is easily twice as much as it ought to be" (the more things change... ;-)). And after referring to the Minolta parentage of the chassis they continued: "Yes, it's definitely well made, and nicely finished, but not breathtakingly so, or better than its rivals" (referring primarily to the Nikon F4; italics ours). And that theme holds for most, if not all, of the functions of the camera:

• It beats the S2 and FM2/T when it comes to offering TTL flash metering, but is matched by the OM-3Ti.
• It alone has a dedicated MLU (versus requiring the use of the self-timer to pre-fire the mirror on the CONTAX and Nikon; the OM-3Ti has no provision whatsoever for pre-firing or manually locking up the mirror), but it will waste a frame of film if the user changes their mind and deactivates it. The Nikon F's MLU operated in a similar way. The only problem for the R6/6.2 was that the F was released in 1959, and there was no excuse 30 years later for having an MLU that could not be deactivated without sacrificing a frame of film.
• ​A common complaint with the R6/6.2 is the long time lag between initially pressing the shutter button and having the exposure begin. The other cameras in this class have average mirror/shutter lag, and thus the Leica's tardiness is exacerbated by comparison with them. This was another cost-saving move by reusing R5 parts instead of redesigning the shutter release for a manual exposure system that did not require the extra milliseconds of processing time for autoexposure modes.

  CONTAX S2/S2b

     CONTAX had the advantage of being able to carefully examine both the R6 and the Nikon FM2N in the process of developing the S2. And their design choices definitely reflected that. They basically matched the Nikon spec-for-spec and then threw in some sano Porsche Design Group styling with the magic ingredient (titaniumyumyum) for many a posh camera and went a-hunting R-Sixes (which led to Leica hastily upgrading the shutter to come up with the R6.2, trying to remain at least competitive with the S2 on paper). Starting fresh, instead of trying to backwards-engineer an electronically-controlled SLR design, as Leica did, made for a cleaner, and more cohesive design. And bringing it all in at the price point the Leica should have been at was the icing on the cake. Still, there were a couple misses:

• Why CONTAX failed to simply include an option to switch between spot and centerweighted metering patterns, opting instead to introduce a second separate model is, at least initially, baffling. The R6 had already proved that it could be done all in one body, and very conveniently, too, one might add, so it can only be postulated that the spotmetering purists were out en masse at CONTAX when the S2 was being conceived. The irony was that the S2 was being promoted as putting control back in the hands and minds of photographers, and here CONTAX was arbitrarily taking away options right from the get go. Or maybe was it more about trying to sell cameras than really giving users what they needed to get "back to camera basics" with their photography?
• With all of the spec-matching they did with the FM2N, evidently they had stretched the budget a bit too thin at CONTAX to copy one last feature from the Nikon (and indeed from their own 139Q, and numerous other electronic CONTAX models): an aperture setting readout in the viewfinder. Or maybe, just maybe, those same product planners that felt that spotmetering was all anyone needed also decided that an aperture readout would be cluttering the viewfinder unnecessarily thus impeding "true artisans from capturing images photographically with all the true depth and subtleties of light" (CONTAX' words, not mine ;-)). It seems to me that being able to know your aperture setting without having to take your eye from the viewfinder might just increase a "true artisan's" chances of capturing the true depth and subtleties of light, but what do I know? I certainly am no artisan, not even a reasonable facsimile of one ;-). Again, for a feature that was commonly available on all manner of mechanical (not to mention plenty of electronic) SLRs from the mid-'70s onward to be omitted from what was supposed to be the pinnacle of the type was inexcusable (no better than a K1000 or an AE-1....OOOOH, feeling the burn yet, CONTAX? ;-)) 

  Nikon FM2/T

​    The roots of the FM2/T go back to the original FM of 1977. It was Nikon's first compact mechanical SLR, replacing the venerable, full-sized Nikkormat FT series and was targeted at enthusiasts and as a backup body for F-Series-wielding pros, just as the Nikkormats had been. Nikon twice updated it in the intervening 15 years before the S2's release, first in 1982 as the FM2, and then, again, in 1984 as the New FM2 (FM2N). The big improvements being the shutter (1/4000 sec. top speed and 1/250 sec. flash sync) and interchangeable focusing screens (inherited from the FM's electronic twin, the FE of 1978). The FM2N was the main functional target of the CONTAX engineers when they were bringing the S2 to life. 

    With the right & left top plates, prism cover, and bottom plate, together with their colour-matched screws being ostensibly the only changes to create the FM2/T, the list of features and possible foibles is virtually identical to the former model:

• Having the main power switch integrated into the film-winding lever, which pokes into the right eye of left-eyed users when pulled out to its ON position.
• The relative lack of precision of the vertically-arrayed, three-LED (+ O -) exposure readout in the viewfinder. If the center "O" and either of the other two LEDs were lit simultaneously, there could be a 1/5 - 1 EV difference in the actual meter reading, with the only recourse of the user being to carefully shuffle the aperture ring between the full-stop clicks to try and get a little closer idea of just how much difference there was. But, at least you could do so with the camera still to your eye, with Nikon's handy ADR (aperture direct readout) feature versus the S2's noteworthy lack of such ;-). 
• It was clear that Nikon was responding to the CONTAX, rather than the Leica, by not bothering to upgrade to TTL flash metering, which the S2 had also forgone in the name of "simple is best". This did not seem to bother the many pros that carried FM2Ns as backups for their electronic models, so Nikon could skate by with this one rather easily.
• Aside from its greater dent-resistance, there was no tangible functional benefit to the titanium construction of the FM2/T (or the S2/b and the OM-3Ti). Titanium in this case was all about cachet, not function ;-). The less-than 5% weight savings of 25 grams was negligible. Nikon also promoted the higher corrosion-resistance of titanium, but there remained the same innards of the camera that were going to succumb to corrosion just as easily regardless of the type exterior panels used, with no other changes to the weather-sealing from the bog-standard FM2N being made. Interestingly, although it was never advertised by Nikon, there seems to be a general consensus among those who have used both versions that the shutter speed dial and film-winding mechanisms feel smoother on the FM2/T. This may well reflect a bit higher level of quality control that Nikon could have specified for the T. One cannot say for sure, but anecdotally, it seems like a distinct possibility.

  Olympus OM-3Ti

​    Finally, we come to the OM-3Ti. Being an Olympus instantly qualified it as having some quirks (the collar-mounted shutter speed control, and forward aperture ring location on most Zuiko lenses being the most apparent). This control layout also precluded having the set aperture displayed in the viewfinder (definitely not the end of the world among this bunch, with the S2/S2b to keep it company ;-)). The multi-spot/centerweighted meter was undeniably the most advanced in the class, even if it took a bit of getting used to (again, Olympus = quirky, yet effective :-)). Of all these cameras, the Olympus could make a case for being the most "professional" among them, with the largest viewfinder, fastest motor drive, and a plethora of specialist accessories. The Super FP high-speed sync. TTL flash was definitely more gimmicky than practical (the range was so short that it was useful only in a few very specific cases), but a feature that would, nevertheless, be adopted by other manufacturers in time. On paper, the lack of MLU was a drawback, but honestly, not the end of the world, with Leica's imperfect implementation, and the sometimes-impractical, self-timer-activated type used by the CONTAX and Nikon not really granting a decisive advantage in most situations. MLU was a long way down the list of critical features for almost every potential buyer of PMSLRs. It would be interesting to know how many true professionals actually used any of these SLRs, as it always has been the enthusiast, more than the pro, that drives sales of photographic gear (especially the geek-out, luxury-targeted stuff). That is not to say that pros did not make use of any of these cameras, but they were among the minority of buyers and users ;-).  

  PMSLRs Today - Are They Worth the Premium?

​     In the midst of the latest social media-fueled PPS boom, PMSLRs have seen a similar renaissance. While certainly built to a much higher quality standard than the plastic-glutted innards of the PPS crowd, the question remains: are PMSLRs really worth the considerable sum they command over more mainstream vintage SLR offerings?

     Objectively, of course, the answer is no. Red dots and titanium are, at best, tangental to actual photographic accomplishment. But objectivity is the last thing on anyone's mind when considering these types of cameras. Instead, it is all about how having/using one makes you feel :-). A larger part of the decision (as with any SLR) should be about the lenses and their cost. It is no big surprise that any given Leitz R-mount lens is going to run you 5 - 10 times more money than the corresponding Zeiss C-Y, Nikkor, or any of the standard Zuikos (the more premium 80's-era Zuikos have gone all Leitz-native in the last few years when it comes to price, due to their relatively small production numbers).  

     So, should you buy one? That's for you to decide, but bear in mind a couple of points:

1. None of these cameras will magically make you a "true artisan", not even the S2 ;-). It is a long-standing fallacy that manual mode-only SLRs with "classic" controls give the photographer "more control" over exposure. Yes, they will force you to slow down, which can give you the opportunity to think a bit more about what you are actually doing, but that is a false equivalency to "more" control. The key to improving your skill as a photographer is knowing when and how to take more control of your equipment to accomplish your objective. That means learning the full potential and limitations of said equipment through practical use. It was very true that many pros selected manual, mechanical SLRs to backup their electronic AF models, but therein lies a key word: backup. What is the whole premise of that term? Something held in reserve in case of emergency. In an emergency, basic functionality trumps convenience or precision. Very few (certainly there were some) pros in the '90s would willingly trade the greater precision and capability of their electronic SLRs in day-to-day use for a mechanical SLR.
2. At their core, PMSLRs were/are luxury items. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The way they feel and operate can, undoubtedly, impart a level of satisfaction and enjoyment to the user which enhances their personal photographic experience. And if that is your sole motivation in deciding to purchase one, more power to you. But if you expect it to confer "true artisanal" status simply by virtue of ownership, well...that may be a bit of a stretch ;-). An FM2/T will do nothing more for your photographic development than the plain FM2N, at over double the cost.  

  Wrap-Up

    The bottom line? PMSLRs came about as the film era was entering its final decade. They were a fairly blatant attempt to cash in on a niche, but vocal market. And it worked...for a few years, until that market saturated (tellingly, Nikon bailed out after only three-and-a-half years, with around 25,000 units produced). The others also sold in the low tens-of-thousands range. Which has served to keep values up (limited production has been Leica's bread & butter for the last several decades ;-)). Luxury items are just that, not remotely necessary, but something to be enjoyed, nonetheless. No, none of these will make you a "better" photographer. But that has never really been the point, anyways. If you have one already or can afford it, go head and enjoy it. If you don't or can't, relax. Your photography will not suffer, either way :-).

  References:

    Various Contax Brochures & Documents @ https://www.contax139.co.uk/
    Contax S2 User Manual @ https://www.butkus.org
    Leica R5, R6, & R6.2 User Manuals @ www.butkus.org
    Leica R6 Review @ https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-review/leica-r6
    Leica R-System Brochure - 1996-97
    Handbook of the Leica System - 1995
    The book of the LEICA R-series Cameras (2019) by Brian Long 
    Leica R6 Test - Popular Photography Sept. 1989
    Nikon FM2N User Manual @ http://cdn-10.nikon-cdn.com
    Nikon A Celebration (Third Edition; 2018) by Brian Long  
    Nikon FM2/T Year of the Dog edition @ https://www.cameraquest.com/nikonfm2.htm
    Olympus OM-3Ti & OM-4Ti User Manuals @ https://www.butkus.org
​