4 Reasons Why the Leica M2 is Better Than the M3

[bushwick1234]

I was reading this review and wonder if you can corroborate this statement: 4 Reasons Why the Leica M2 is Better Than the M3


https://www.casualphotophile.com/2015/04/09/4-reasons-why-the-leica-m2-is-better-than-the-m3/

 

[Erik van Straten]

With very fast 50mm lenses, like f/1.2, f/1.1, f1.0 or f/0.95, the M3 is better, because the viewfinder magnification of the M3 is 0.9x and that of the M2 0.7x. The M3 has more precise focusing. I don't read that in the above review.


Erik.

 

[Richard G]

With very fast 50mm lenses, like f/1.2, f/1.1, f1.0 or f/0,95, the M3 is better, because the viewfinder magnification of the M3 is 0.9x and that of the M2 0.7x. The M3 has more precise focusing. I don't read that in the above review.


Erik.

Dear Erik, the article does indeed cover this point too.


It’s all a bit of mischief, but I’ve long held that the M2 is superior. I once held an M3 and also looked through the VF. Rounded corners of the 50mm frame lines? I was shocked, and quickly put it down. And see my avatar. The ancient astrolabe inspired frame counter is wonderful, tactile, simple.

 

[bushwick1234]

With very fast 50mm lenses, like f/1.2, f/1.1, f1.0 or f/0,95, the M3 is better, because the viewfinder magnification of the M3 is 0.9x and that of the M2 0.7x. The M3 has more precise focusing. I don't read that in the above review.


Erik.

Yes, the review doesn't mention the magnification!

 

[narsuitus]

I can only corroborate Reason #2 - Viewfinder woes. The only reason I considered the M2 and not the M3 was that I knew I preferred the 35mm lens to the 50mm lens and therefore knew that I would prefer the 35mm viewfinder frame line feature of the M2.

 

[froyd]

I was reading this review and wonder if you can corroborate this statement: 4 Reasons Why the Leica M2 is Better Than the M3


https://www.casualphotophile.com/2015/04/09/4-reasons-why-the-leica-m2-is-better-than-the-m3/

What? A little bored today? Way to stir up trouble! 😛

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

This has been going on far too long. One is not "better", they are beautiful tools for a specific user, and will be chosen for their particular features.

The M2 is for me because I prefer a 35mm lens. If I preferred the 50mm, the M3 would be the logical choice.

 

[Mackinaw]

I'm a 50mm guy. I prefer the M3.

Jim B.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

He lost me on "M3 is Ugly".

 

[WJJ3]

c'mon, the argument is irrelevant because nobody who buys a Leica is going to have only one Lecia. It's only a matter of time before you have whatever Leica you bought in the beginning, and the other 3 you bought after it 😛


Really though, the M3 simply cannot be beat for one reason (other than the reason Erik mentioned); 90mm lenses. That is the main role my M3 plays in my rangefinder setup, which is to shoot my 90mm lens.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I was reading this review and wonder if you can corroborate this statement: 4 Reasons Why the Leica M2 is Better Than the M3


https://www.casualphotophile.com/2015/04/09/4-reasons-why-the-leica-m2-is-better-than-the-m3/

Pretty ridiculous, but I wanted to clarify that this tongue-in-cheek article is more of a silly conversation starter than a true examination into which Leica is best.

Miss that bit, did you? It's the context within which the quoted title was phrased.

 

[Huss]

I'll put this right here:

"Leica M3 - the world's greatest 35mm camera"

https://kenrockwell.com/leica/m3.htm

"Every other LEICA since the M3 has been an inferior cost-reduction that merely plays on the M3's genius in an attempt to keep selling cameras.

If I dare compare the LEICA M3, the LEICA M2 (1957-1967), the "poor mans's LEICA," used a lower-magnification finder with a simpler, cheaper and inferior rangefinder system. It also lacked the automatically-resetting internal frame counter of the M3, and uses a primitive external wheel as a film counter, requiring manual resetting for every roll!"

 

[bushwick1234]

What? A little bored today? Way to stir up trouble! 😛

Well, Erik made an interesting and new point, for instance.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

c'mon, the argument is irrelevant because nobody who buys a Leica is going to have only one Lecia. It's only a matter of time before you have whatever Leica you bought in the beginning, and the other 3 you bought after it 😛


Really though, the M3 simply cannot be beat for one reason (other than the reason Erik mentioned); 90mm lenses. That is the main role my M3 plays in my rangefinder setup, which is to shoot my 90mm lens.

I sold another two film M and will keep just one, because of the CLA cost.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

With very fast 50mm lenses, like f/1.2, f/1.1, f1.0 or f/0.95, the M3 is better, because the viewfinder magnification of the M3 is 0.9x and that of the M2 0.7x. The M3 has more precise focusing. I don't read that in the above review.


Erik.

I'll be very happy to fly across the Atlantic to take that button rewind black M2 off your hands 😉

 

[ktmrider]

I like the M2 better primarily because of the 35 frame lines. Other then the viewfinder the differences between it and the M3 are very minor.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

It's just the usual clickbait.

I have both.

 

[giganova]

I'll put this right here:

"Leica M3 - the world's greatest 35mm camera"

https://kenrockwell.com/leica/m3.htm

If Ken Rockwell says so, it must be true. 🙄

 

[giganova]

I don't want to start a war, but ... 😀

Wouldn't the M-A be one of the best film M ever built? I don't see much love on this forum for the M-A and I always wondered why. I don't have one, but as soon as Leica announces that they will stop producing it (which they certainly will very soon), I'll buy one. Hard to justify almost $5k for a film camera, I know.

 

[aizan]

Will this topic ever get old? M3 vs. M2, M4 vs. M4-2/M4-P, M6 vs. MP. I’ve been reading this junk for almost 20 years, and I still click on it. Nobody has anything new to add.