Leica help

[Time Freeze]

I have the opportunity to buy either a M2 or a M3 DS. THe M3 is from 1956, the M2 is from 1966. Both are functioning but will need a CLA.

My question is there any reason to pick one camera over the other (ie repair costs, known mechanical problems etc.). I probably won't be using any lens longer than a 90mm so I like the 35mm frame lines on the M2.

Thanks in advance,

John

 

[Livesteamer]

Go with the M2. The finder is more universal and the single stroke is nice. Mechanically, both should be equally reliable. I used my M3 with a 35mm lens for many years and it is workable but not the best. I still have/love my M3 but mostly use an old M6 which has an advanced M2 finder. Good Luck. Joe

 

[Rogrund]

Another vote for the M2. Same build quality but you get the 35 framelines. And it's more beautiful than the M3... 🙂

 

[Paul C. Perkins MD]

Livesteamer is correct.

 

[Paul C. Perkins MD]

I actually use a 100mm lens with my M2 on the 90mm frame - I've never had any problem.

 

[Meakin]

If you are sure you won't be going beyond 90mm and like 35mm.....well ,in my mind there is no question really - get the M2 ( you can always ad an M3 later ) Personally, I went with the M3 ( but then again i´m either 50mm or longer or 21mm and wider.

Good luck 🙂

/Meakin

 

[Ronald M]

Get the M2 because of the 35 frames.

Get the M3 if you favor 90mm which you do not seem to. DS are early M3 and the transports go bad plus there are other problems resolved with later cameras. I had all my DS converted to SS, but who knows if new transports are still available.

 

[oscroft]

I'd go for the M2 too. Mechanically they're great - there are no specific M2 weakness that I've heard of. And for me, the 35mm frame and lower mag viewfinder make for a better all-round camera.

 

[Ronald_H]

I love my M2. It was old and a bit ugly but after a CLA it is clean and smooth as butter. Images made with a same vintage Summicron DR have to be seen to be believed.

 

[35mmdelux]

M2 because it has the frames and less milegae presumably.

enjoy.

 

[Time Freeze]

Thanks to everyone. I guess it will be the M2. I was leaning that way because of the frame lines.

John

 

[Steve Bellayr]

You made the right decision. Now all you need is the 35mm summicron.

 

[Time Freeze]

The same seller also has a w-Nikkor-c 1.8 35mm. But I don't know if my pockets are deep enough 😀

 

[Paul C. Perkins MD]

The 35mm F:1.8 Nikkor is a ggod optic. I had one for a long time - then sold it on the evil auction site to get a 35mm F:1.5 Canon. I about crapped at the final price . . . something like $645 . . . and this was nearly ten years ago!

Did you go with the Nikkor?

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I was going to recommend the M3. Why? I have one, and it's led me to reconsider and rediscover the 50mm focal length. The viewfinder is, indeed, incredibly light and clear, and when using it with a 50mm you do feel as if you had a wide-angle lens in the camera.

However, I must admit that the M2 is actually more versatile... and newer (in relative terms). In any case, you live with your choices and if you're happy with an M2, I must congratulate you for your choice. Have a very nice day! 🙂

 

[Tom A]

I would go with the M2.Not just because I am heavily biased, but the early M3's DS can develop shutter brake problems (expensive to fix) and also if the finder is getting "grotty" it is really expensive to fix.
The M2 is made for the 35/50/90 combination - and with a 35 it becomes one of the great "street" shooting cameras.
The 35f1.8 Nikkor is wortwhile picking up. It is a very good lens, better than the Summilux 35 of the same era and rivals the 35f2 Summicron. A bit prone to flare but very sharp. It is also a highly priced collectible so if the price is reasonable, you can turn it around for either a Summicron 35 or even better, a ZM Biogon 35f2.0.