Out to Lunch
Veteran
Let's go to bed.
4 Reasons Why the Leica M2 is Better Than the M3
- Thread starter bushwick1234
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 111
- Views 10K
Huss
Veteran
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=166544
"Some M2 bodies are susceptible to this very specific type of light leak. "
"Some M2 bodies are susceptible to this very specific type of light leak. "
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
bhop73
Well-known
I prefer 50mm, but I like the M2 over the M3 because I wear glasses and can see the 50 frame lines easier on the M2.
raid
Dad Photographer
I do not wear glasses, and “therefore, the M3 must be the superior M camera”.
santino
FSU gear head
I second raid. No glasses and 50 shooter, no better camera than the M3.
WJJ3
Well-known
This Macro Elmar is a real joy to own and use, especially on my close focus modified M3. I used an M-Rokkor 90 for about 7 years before I upgraded to the MEM. That is also a fantastic M mount tele.
Huss
Veteran
Not thru the rf mechanism like the M2 can. Apparently the parts r not the same - stuff is cheaper (obvious example is the film counter). Obviously it only affects a few so perhaps a fit issue with those in conjunction w the diff parts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M2
“The rangefinder system was also simplified from that of the M3 and this made it potentially more prone to rangefinder flare. The M2 has a rangefinder with a 0.72 magnification and framelines for 35, 50 and 90mm lenses instead of the 0.91 magnification and 50, 90 and 135mm framelines of the M3. This made it better suited for photojournalists who favour shorter lenses or for spectacle-wearers using a 50mm lens who sometimes find it difficult to see the framelines on the M3. The ground glass frameline illumination window of the M3 was replaced with a fresnel-type plastic lens. Finally, the ornate beveling around the various windows on the front of the M3 were flattened on the body of the M2. Unlike the M3, the widest framelines were not always visible so only one set of framelines were ever displayed at one time. “
raid
Dad Photographer
OK.
Huss has just proven that the M3 rules!
Huss has just proven that the M3 rules!
Huss
Veteran
Not if you want to use 35mm lenses w/o goggles or external finders!
I’m just pointing out the build differences.
😉
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Without M3 there would have been no M2.
Erik.
Erik.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Leica M3, Cooke Amotal 2'' f/2, 400-2TMY.
Erik.
Erik.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
The "review" is highly subjective being based entirely on opinion. It's a complete waste of time, in my opinion.
I've owned and shot dozens of Leica M film cameras - in fact, all of the incarnations except the M-A (which I don't get at all BTW). Although my personal favorite is, in fact, the M2, I will freely admit it is entirely due to intangibles - none of which I will defend.
OTOH, my distant second favorite would be the M6 classic, which is based entirely on practicality (tangibles).
I've owned and shot dozens of Leica M film cameras - in fact, all of the incarnations except the M-A (which I don't get at all BTW). Although my personal favorite is, in fact, the M2, I will freely admit it is entirely due to intangibles - none of which I will defend.
OTOH, my distant second favorite would be the M6 classic, which is based entirely on practicality (tangibles).
Nyc Dito
Established
Stopped reading after "M3 is ugly" Click-bait internet junk.
Huss
Veteran
The M-A has the best frame lines out of any of the modern M cameras.
This is because as it does not have a light meter, the bottom horizontal frame line is solid/complete. The Leicas that have a meter readout do not have a complete bottom frame line as that is where the exposure values are displayed.
It makes for an excellent viewing and framing experience.
tonyc
Established
. . . . Except the ZI which has an unlcuttered viewfinder without all the extra Leica framelines.
Huss
Veteran
where can I buy a new one?
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Since it's, by all accounts, an MP without a meter, I'd have a very difficult time justifying the cost of buying even a used one. An early M4-P has everything you describe with all six framelines. Yea, I know it doesn't have the RF condenser "fix", but that's a $150 add-on during a CLA (through DAG).
At a third the cost of an M-A that'd be the ticket for me; or I could have M4-P framelines installed in my M2 (currently with that unlcuttered viewfinder without all the extra Leica framelines). 😀
Huss
Veteran
U make a valid argument for buying a used Leica. I love my beater M4-2 and it has frame lines arguably better than the M-A. They are bolder/thicker. But any new M just feels tighter, fresher, unworn and new.
Your used Leica would not exist if Leica did not sell new Ms. You could never have your M2 if someone else didn't buy it new.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
As far as I know are the framelines of the M4-2 and later (all the models after the M5) less precise than those of all the earlier M camera's. This is because there are too many framelines in them, so there was no space to make them as precise as those in the M2, M3, M4 and M5.
So when one does not need a lightmeter it is better to use an M2, M3 or M4 if the precision of the framelines is important.
Erik.
So when one does not need a lightmeter it is better to use an M2, M3 or M4 if the precision of the framelines is important.
Erik.
Similar threads
- Article
