M3 viewfinder separation - does it affect the VF experience?

[yossarian123]

I recently bought an M3 for a good price. It has some separation around the edges (see pic below). I've talked to Youxin, he said he could fix it and CLA for about $270.

http://www.samlozanophotography.com/photos/i-bZVzKRL/0/L/i-bZVzKRL-L.jpg

This is my first M body, I'm coming from Nikon SLR-land so I don't really have anything to compare the viewfinder to. Does separation negatively impact what you see through the VF? Is there a loss of contrast, increased flare, etc.? In practical terms, is getting the VF fixed and re-glued going to make a big difference in shooting? I'd say that the image through the VF looks kind of lacking in contrast and a bit faded, but again I really wouldn't know what a mint, perfect M3 viewfinder should look.

 

[rogerzilla]

Normally it just goes black when they separate, so it works or it doesn't. if the separation has reached the viewable area, you'll obviously see it.

All Ms of this era have gold-coloured RF patches due to aged and brittle Canada balsam, which is why you eventually get separation. There is a persistent urban legend that the "silvering" between the mirrors was actually gold plating to increase the contrast of the RF patch, but that's hooey.

 

[sc_rufctr]

A clean M3 view finder is very nice to look through.
But I wouldn't do anything with yours except take photos until it becomes unusable.

On a side note: I wonder if it's such a good idea to use modern permanent glues when fixing these.
The old balsam may have its problems but at least you can disassemble a view finder fairly easily.
I can't even imagine what it would be like to disassemble an M3 view finder that's been rebuilt using modern epoxy glue.
What if you have to replace a small part? 🙁

There are alternative modern glues that will do the job but still come apart when needed.

 

[BobYIL]

In the 60's the finder prism of my M2 had seperated following a drop, totally dark. Being my only camera and having nothing at hand I "glued" it with a touch of olive oil and fixed at its place. Months long I used it so until a small bottle of optical grade Canada balsam is found in Istanbul and serviced propely. This camera is still in use by a friend of mine.

I tend to believe that the service people must still be using the optical Canada balsam as it is easy to seperate (boiling water) for further service (like the small glass windows on the top cover). BTW, I have eight M models with almost half a century behind and the original balsams on the majority of them seem not "aged" when compared to my latest M6s, for example; meaning the natural balsam is probably still the finest adhesive to employ.

 

[Freakscene]

A clean M3 view finder is very nice to look through.
But I wouldn't do anything with yours except take photos until it becomes unusable.

On a side note: I wonder if it's such a good idea to use modern permanent glues when fixing these.
The old balsam may have its problems but at least you can disassemble a view finder fairly easily.
I can't even imagine what it would be like to disassemble an M3 view finder that's been rebuilt using modern epoxy glue.
What if you have to replace a small part? 🙁

There are alternative modern glues that will do the job but still come apart when needed.

Modern optical cement can be released when required but is more stable in use than Canada balsam. These are the type of products all manufacturers use to cement lens elements together.

Marty

 

[rogerzilla]

Sometimes you just get unlucky with Canada balsam which is, after all, a natural product. I have a Elmar where the rear doublet separated. Cheap enough to fix.

 

[yossarian123]

I've only heard one person say that I don't need a CLA. But I haven't really heard an answer to my question - is there a huge difference between a viewfinder with separation and a CLA'd & repaired viewfinder? Particularly a viewfinder that is separating around the edges? Remember that I have nothing to compare this viewfinder against, this is my first M3....

If there is a big difference, I assume it would be in focusing - I'm planning on getting a fast lens (f/1.4) in the not too distant future.

 

[t.s.k.]

The RF has two tasks: framing and focusing. If you can do both accurately (without frustration), I don't see a need to spend $270. YMMV.

 

[BobYIL]

When you look into the finder, do you still see the 50mm frame ? Then use it as it is, because with the accuracy of the rangefinder it has nothing to do. As for the loss of contrast or increased flare, you need to compare it with an intact M3 finder. Maybe someone with an M3 in your area can help you.