M2 or R3M?

F

Fenwick

Established
Local time
3:28 PM
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
127
Cant decide M2 or R3M
Cost wise about the same I found an M2 in very nice condition $600. R3M $589
I know the build quality of the leica is much superior and will last many many years yet and its leica.But I also like the fact the R3M also has a meter and the 1:1 finder as I looking to use it for a 50mm only camera a new heliar 50 3.5 to be exact.

Any thoughts
 
Both cameras are fine, but you have to take into account about adding a lightmeter such as the Sekonic L-208 valued around 100 USD to the budget of 600 USD if you get the Leica M2 camera :)
 
This seems a strange comparison to me; I mean, if your primary concern is finding a camera to use with a 50mm lens and you are considering the R3, why choose the M2 as an alternative, and not the M3? Surely the higher .92 magnifcation finder in the M3 is a better match? M3's can generally be found for the about the same price, too.
 
+1 for M2. After going through all Ms (except M5), M2 was what I settled along with an MP. M2 can be 50 years old already, but I see no problem it will still outlast me.
 
Any chance your able to handle both of them? The R3 sounds the most functional.

Second, how often do you plan on shooting wide open? The M2 has a wider rangefinder base and all the benefits that come along with it. If your shooting with a f/3.5 lens a longer base might not be as important.
 
I've got an M2 and an R3A. Bought the M2 first, and would never sell it. But if having a built-in meter is important to you, and if you're going to be using primarily a 50, the R3M may be a better choice. And while the M2 is probably a sturdier camera, the R3* bodies are not cheaply built by any means. Keep in mind that whichever one you pick you'll probably be able to sell for just about what you paid for it if you turn out not to like it.
 
I started with an M2 and its a fantastic camera but as a 50 shooter since I got my M3 I've not used it much. I have a R2a which is a very functional camera but does not inspire me in the same way the M's do.

Save yourself some time and get the camera you really need and want otherwise you'll keep on hankering.
 
Yammerman said:
I started with an M2 and its a fantastic camera but as a 50 shooter since I got my M3 I've not used it much. I have a R2a which is a very functional camera but does not inspire me in the same way the M's do.

Save yourself some time and get the camera you really need and want otherwise you'll keep on hankering.
Click to expand...

I completely agree but it can take a few years of faffing about until you find the right camera for you. Thus, for example, I sold my last M3 many years ago: A camera that won't take 35mm (without auxiilary finder or goggles) just isn't for me. I kept trying to persuade myself otherwise, for a decade or more, because M3s are so beautifully made; but it didn't take.

Cheers,

R.
 
Go for the Bessa. The Leica is 50 years old, it's more possible that something will break. My M2 can't rewind film. Also, it's much qicker to load film into Bessa than into the Leica. If you have tried loading one you know what I mean. Also, the viewfinder on the Bessa is brighter and more contrasty. R2M/R3M's build quality is much better than previous Bessas. It's quieter too. Leica is still quieter but the difference is nothing to worry about in normal conditions.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I completely agree but it can take a few years of faffing about until you find the right camera for you. Thus, for example, I sold my last M3 many years ago: A camera that won't take 35mm (without auxiilary finder or goggles) just isn't for me. I kept trying to persuade myself otherwise, for a decade or more, because M3s are so beautifully made; but it didn't take.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


I'm ashamed to confess I didn't really understand the difference the view finder makes until I received my M3 and looked through it. It only took me 5 years "faffing" to find the right camera but still I have a considerable amount of gear to sell now.

I probably stole your advice there Roger so I'll pass on any royalties I receive.:)
 
tslesicki said:
Go for the Bessa. The Leica is 50 years old, it's more possible that something will break. My M2 can't rewind film. Also, it's much qicker to load film into Bessa than into the Leica. If you have tried loading one you know what I mean. Also, the viewfinder on the Bessa is brighter and more contrasty. R2M/R3M's build quality is much better than previous Bessas. It's quieter too. Leica is still quieter but the difference is nothing to worry about in normal conditions.
Click to expand...


Loading is a pain at first as with most things are that are new but now I actually prefer that system over the modern variants. Its very certain I find. I recently took my R2a to Jersey and while the pictures were great the sound of the shutter exploding was rather disconcerting. I think Leica win hands down in this area. I think an R3M is quiter than my R2a .
 
Last edited:
Try and get both in your hands -- then you will know you prefer.

For me I'd never trade my M2 for an R3M (and I was going to buy an R2M when the M2 came up) -- the Bessas are excellent cameras mind. I just love the feel, the heft and the resilience of my M2. But make no mistake, an R3M is a fantastic camera too.

FWIW, I use a 50mm lens a lot on my M2 and focussing in the lower magnification rangefinder isn't a problem. In fact I prefer my M2 for 50mm as I can see a lot of what is going on outside the frame, essential in my book because I am a left eye shooter and you just never know what you may find around the frame that you want in it, or you can judge when things are going to happen.

The lack of meter is a non-issue for me, shooting neg film as long as I have means I am pretty much on the money with my exposures, slides is a bit different but I have a Leica MR meter for that, though f/8 1/60th on ISO 64-100 on a summer's day in England sufficies for slides for me too.

Try them both and see which is most natural to you.

Vicky
 
Vicky's right.

Ignore the advice of those who tell you to buy one or the other. Try them and you'll KNOW.

Her advice on 50mm is especially important. Yes, some prefer M3. Others prefer M2. Until you've tried 'em, you'll never know.

Cheers,

R.
 
back alley said:
r3m if you have no ego.

m2 if you need to feed the beast.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but I've had both and kept the M2. I did eventually save up for, and now own and use constantly, an M7, as I wanted a metered camera as well. But the M2 is one of the most beautiful, pleasurable-to-use machines I've ever had my hands on. The Bessa's really nice though.

Vicky's right, if you can try them both, please do!
 
if 50mm only out and about: R3
No meter is a killer for me. I have a M3 and will now only use it under controlled conditions as my normal flow relies on integral meters in the MP/M6 combo I normally use.
 
I've recently been pondering a similar question. The M2 gives you the Leica brand, build and mythology. It also gives you a 50-year-old camera that will likely requiring a CLA and perhaps other servicing. The Bessa gives you a new and warranted camera. [EDIT: Bear in mind the lengthy turn-around times for many Leica CLA's that seem to be common right now. It's a factor for me, in that I want to use a camera when I buy it, not send it away for some undetermined period of months.]

I've used an R4M for a few years. I find it's more comfortable to handle than M's. Even though the cameras' dimensions are almost the same, the pseudo-grip and covering on the Bessa's right side is just right for my hands.

I certainly don't find the Bessa's shutter to be noisy or explosive. Yes, it's louder than a typical Leica, but Leica's are not silent, either, just quieter. In any case, shutter noise is always amplified when fired in a small room like an office or at home. Outside, I've found the Bessa's shutter noise is usually dampend by ambient noise. i've never seen anyone react to it. (Besides, anyone close enough to hear a shutter is close enough to see the camera. I'm not sure what people are trying to hide.)

If you can, follow the advice to check out each camera. Pay partcular attention to the viewfinders and the framelines to see which you prefer. Search this site for specific things to check out on the M2.
 
Last edited:
If it has to be one or the other then the Bessa gets the vote from me ... carrying a meter around is a pain IMO ... far better in the camera if possible!

If you remove all the emotive attraction of the M2 then the choice is simple.

edit ... I meant to add, tip in another couple of hundred dollars and you could probably get a used Ikon.
 
Last edited:
Keith said:
If you remove all the emotive attraction of the M2 then the choice is simple.
Click to expand...

That is totally false, Keith. 80% of a camera's value, for me, is handling, and in my experience, the M2 just handles better and is more satisfying to use. This is totally subjective, of course, but it isn't just emotion related to the camera's brand or history. I honestly don't give a hoot about that. It's my experience using the two.

It is totally possible to prefer the Bessa--on paper, it is definitely the better value, and it is objectively an excellent camera. (I had the R4A, too, and liked that one even better--but still not as much as the M7.) But the OP may find that the M2 works better for him, if he has the opportunity to try them both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom