An unfortunate turn of events... With hope will be redeemed

[dow]

Hi All,

This is my first thread, though I've lurked about quite a bit and learned a great deal. Between the writeups and cameraquest I've been motivated to amass a small collection of inexpensive rangefinders. Years ago when I was even poorer than I am now I went to peru with my first rangefinder - a canon GL17. I shot Kodachrome and had a blast.

Recently, as me, my wife and out 11 month old daughter slept our house was broken into and they stole the usual stuff - computers, tv, wallet, car keyy (apparently is was a lot to carry so they loaded it into my car and drove away). Hard luck story aside, they helped themselves to my favorite camera (now a little forgiveness here it's an SLR but let me explain) my Leicaflex SL. I got it because it was very cheap, in decent shape and it allowed me to shoot a Summicron 50mm lens. I couldn't afford what I really wanted - an M2. (I wear glasses and I thought the framelines would be more forgiving). I loved that camera.

The insurance company was generous, and based upon a replacement value I submitted I was able to replace the camera for roughly $800 at KEH. It was "in excellent condition". But not really. It arrived with shmutz (probably old light seal gunk) in the viewfinder window. It drove me nuts, and at that price I can't pay for a CLA. So back it goes.

All that said the really odd thing is that though it was the same model, same lens, same hood (you get the idea) it just wasn't the same as the one I lost to the thief. It was something more than just the dirty viewfinder. It didn't feel the same. (The advance lever wiggled too- the old one didn't, and for the record this isn't to knock KEH, I know most people have great experiences with them. I'm a picky SOB.)

It's as though for some reason it just can't be made right.

Anyway, now I'm going to sell off some of my other stuff, put it with my settlement from the insurance company, and get an M with a summicron.

So finally we get to my question - I've read up a great deal lusting after an M, but one bit of info eludes me:

Is it true that the M2-M3 rangefinders are hard to focus in low light like it says at Leica FAQ? IS there a "best" M for low light? I've searched but with little luck.

I live in Columbus, Ohio (which gets just slightly less rain than Seattle believe it or not) so I shoot indoors a good deal, mostly of my family. Low light is the norm.

Anyway, all my rambling aside, any insight would be great. And if you're like me and never bother to copy down the serial numbers on your cameras, I suggest you do so. Experience is a cruel teacher but a fool will learn from no other.

Thanks in advance for any help - and for tolerating this long post. I don't have photog friends so most people I know don't have the same appreciation for my loss as I imagine you all would.

Happy Shooting,

Dow

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Bessas and the Ikon have brighter finders and are easier for me to focus. They are also more eyeglasses friendly IMHO. As far as the Leica, with my glasses, I much prefer the M2 to the M3 for shooting a 50. YMMV.

 

[david.elliott]

Sorry to hear about your troubles. :\ At least insurance is helping out.

I dont have any trouble focusing either my bessa r or m3 in low light. Cant say that one is better than the other. I think for the older leicas, condition is everything. Some might be better than others for low light, but that should mainly depend upon condition and not upon the model.

If you want to get another leica sl and summicron, check out this listing at tamarkin: "Leica SL #1221298, Ex++ and 50 Summicron f2 #2320401, Ex with Ever-Ready Case, UVa Filter and reversible Hood. Battery and strap included! $425"
http://s95521.gridserver.com/?page_id=64

 

[Roger Hicks]

Personally I've always found Ms easier to focus in poor light than reflexes.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dow]

Thanks for the quick replies! It looks like I should have looked at Tamarkin first!

 

[wgerrard]

Someone at the Leica FAQ perhaps thinks M3's are less useful in low light than other M's. That's an opinion I don't think I've heard expressed around here. In general, RF viewfinders are considered easier to focus in dim lighting.

Frameline visibility with eyeglasses seems to very much depend on the individual. For example, I wear glasses and have no trouble seeing the 50mm framelines in an M3, while I have to work a bit to see the 35mm framelines on an M2. Meanwhile, the finder in my R4M is nice and bright, and the framelines are easy to see, but the lower magnification level sometimes makes focusing at 50mm a challenge.

In any case, good luck with this, and here's hoping you don't have to repeat the experience.

 

[Keith]

I think the opinion of the M3's finder is based on it's age ... being the oldest M.

My M3 and M2 are much of a muchness when it comes to lowlight focusing ... they both have very good contrast but the finders themselves are rather dim compared to an Ikon which sets a standard that's near impossible to match IMO.

In your position I'd be choosing an M2 because the 35/50/90mm framelines give it far more versatility than the M3 which has 50/90/135mm framelines. Most rangefinder users don't even own a 135mm lens aside from a few fanatics who just like to shoot longish occasionally but refuse to own an SLR for ethical reasons! 😀

 

[dow]

Thanks everyone for the insights. I think I'm going to make a move and go from Leicaflex to M2. I loved that Leicaflex - but rangefinders just feel better.

 

[BillBingham2]

You might want to keep the SL in mind for glass 90mm or above. The M2 will rock on wider stuff but I found I liked a mixed kit of SLR and RFs, using each for what they do best.

Sorry about your loss, it really sucks on so many fronts.

B2 (;->