Why does Leica M3 have "frames"?

M

Moriturii

Well-known
Local time
11:28 PM
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
647
Always wondered, is it just to make it look good or? Why does M3 have frames around its windows as opposed to the flush latter models.

As we know M3 was over-engineered really does the frames have something to do with that? Are they bomb-proof or something?
 
no they're not "bomb"-proof I can say :D I've ever seen the inside of the M3 top plate, it's the same, so I guess it's only cosmetic different.
 
Also, the M3 came on the heels of the iiif and iiig, both of which had frames around the viewfinder windows. So it was Leica's style at the time. When they went to the M2, which was after the M3, they went with the smooth face that they still use today.

Best,
-Tim
 
The Bentley Mulsanne has a different grill than the Bentley Continental :).

The same brass, same size, probably some engineer thought that by eliminating some forming operations under the press they might save a couple of Deutche Marks while introducing the M2. However they have ended up with a more "plain" styling, more modern in many eyes so they sticked to it while introducing the M4 too.
 
I think there's a practical aspect too, albeit a minor one: I have to clean the viewfinder of my M3 less often than my M2 - maybe the frames somehow protect it better from fingerprints?
 
Austerby said:
I think there's a practical aspect too, albeit a minor one: I have to clean the viewfinder of my M3 less often than my M2 - maybe the frames somehow protect it better from fingerprints?
Click to expand...

Bingo! Along with the horizontal bar. It also adds some minor strength to the camera case itself.

I usually carry my IIIF with a wrist strap and the frames are very good for keeping my fingers off the glass as well.:angel:
 
Interesting thread. I agree with the fingerprint protection. Didn't think about the IIIg antecedent. Whenever I have suggested that the M2 is a more modern design and I don't like the look of the bumps around the windows of the M3 people have responded with incredulity - "What? The M2 sleeker and more modern?? What do you mean?" - like they had never actually noticed the difference in form of the two cameras. I am so glad someone has noticed and asked a question relating to it.
 
Richard G said:
Interesting thread. I agree with the fingerprint protection. Didn't think about the IIIg antecedent. Whenever I have suggested that the M2 is a more modern design and I don't like the look of the bumps around the windows of the M3 people have responded with incredulity - "What? The M2 sleeker and more modern?? What do you mean?" - like they had never actually noticed the difference in form of the two cameras. I am so glad someone has noticed and asked a question relating to it.
Click to expand...

The sales of the M3 had been affected with the introduction of the M2; not only from the cost point of view but many users in the '60s loved the overall design of the M2 better and practical for using 35mm lenses as well. We were using goggled 35's on the M3, heavy and cumbersome; and frankly most of us were not minding much about the superiority of the M3 finder. It was these years the 35mm focal length suddenly become to be as popular as the 50mm. Soon the M3 had been discontinued and a finder based on 50mm FL has not been introduced anymore until the M6 0.85. It's for these reasons that the M4 had been based rather on the M2 and we found it "a Leica can not be more modern than this" :D until the introduction of the M5.
 
I really like the window frames of the M3, because yeah, they warn my fingers to stay away. I've often thought that a great aftermarket addition for M cameras would be some self-adhesive frames to place around the windows if you so choose.
 
In fact the design of the M2 top-cover is earlier than that of the M3. The top-cover of the M2 was designed by Herbert Jancke in the years before the introduction of the M3, but it was rejected by Leitz for use on the M3 because it did not look "technical" enough. Then Jancke designed the top-cover of the M3 as we know it. The top-cover of the M3 was in fact Janckes second design.
Later, when the M2 was made, Leitz decided to use for that camera Janckes first design.
Herbert Jancke was trained as a sculptor. Later he became an industrial designer for Leitz.

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
In fact the design of the M2 top-cover is earlier than that of the M3. The top-cover of the M2 was designed by Herbert Jancke in the years before the introduction of the M3, but it was rejected by Leitz for use on the M3 because it did not look "technical" enough. Then Jancke designed the top-cover of the M3 as we know it. The top-cover of the M3 was in fact Janckes second design.
Later, when the M2 was made, Leitz decided to use for that camera Janckes first design.
Herbert Jancke was trained as a sculptor. Later he became an industrial designer for Leitz.

Erik.
Click to expand...

Ah ... so that's why the M2 is the prettier camera!

... I had always thought it was to make it look like it had Georgian windows
 
And a few things were cheapened for the M2: frame counter, no self timer etc.

My guess is they wanted it to look different from the professional's M3.

An aside, also in those days the first lens most people bought after the standard lens was a tele.

Aside 2, yet in the 1931 catalogue they explain about the 35, 50 and 90 lenses being a nice outfit; that was when they were introducing the standardised lens mount.

Regards, David
 
The ridges on the M3 protrude out further than M2 and later models. It could be there to provide extra shading when using goggled lenses like the DR Summicron and 35mm Summaron and Summicron lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom