ScottMac
Member
I need a little input, guys. I'm looking for a camera that is better suited to the longer lenses, like the 100/2 and 135/3.5. I have narrowed it down to two cameras, the Canon 7s and the Leica M3. All of my lenses are currently ltm mount, but I have an adapter or two. I understand that the M3 has the better viewfinder? So....which would you suggest?
Last edited:
Uncle Bill
Well-known
I am partial to the M3, the viewfinder is very bright compared to everything but the Bessa R2a and the Zeiss Ikon. The M3 is built like a tank and well cared for it will outlast you.
Bill
Bill
Mackinaw
Think Different
Both are fine cameras but, for long-lens work, I'd go with the M3, which can take the 1.25 screw-in eyepiece magnifier (giving you a 1.13 viewfinder).
Jim Bielecki
Jim Bielecki
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
I vote for the M3 as well, spectacularly clear viewfinder
ScottMac
Member
Thanks guys. I've got my eye on a single stroke, preview model. Anything special about that model that I should be aware of?
Solinar
Analog Preferred
I've owned both - The M3 rf patch wins hands down. Focusing a fast lens close-in with the M3 is a no brainer. The rf patch on the Canon 7 on the other hand isn't as contrasty and in dim light requires a bit of patience when focusing.
Hmmm, I never thought of using a 1.25 eyepiece magnifier with a 135mm lens. Given the superb optics of the M3, it should work quite well.
Hmmm, I never thought of using a 1.25 eyepiece magnifier with a 135mm lens. Given the superb optics of the M3, it should work quite well.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I've owned an M3 (and sold it) and a Canon 7s (and still have it), which should tell you where my personal preferences lie.
However, if the consideration is strictly which will work better with long lenses, I'd concur that you'll probably be more comfortable with the viewfinder of the M3. An advantage it has that no one has mentioned yet is the sharp-edged rangefinder patch: if your subject happens to have strong vertical lines in it, you can use this feature to take advantage of "split-image" focusing, which is more accurate than focusing by merging two semi-transparent images together ("coincident-image focusing.")
In case anyone is curious, though, the reasons I ditched my M3 and kept the Canon included:
-- The Canon is much more convenient to load; it has a conventional hinged back and fixed takeup spool, compared to the M3's removable baseplate and takeup spool. Drop a takeup spool and have it roll away just once, and you'll see why I like the fixed spools better. (Yes, some M3s have been converted with a "rapid load kit" that provides a fixed spool, but it's not a perfect solution either; I had one, and sometimes it just wouldn't take up the film no matter what I did.)
-- You can change rolls faster with the Canon; not only is it quicker to load, it's quicker to rewind with its folding crank. The M3 only has ye olde knob for rewinding, unless you can find one of those add-on accessory cranks.
-- The Canon has parallax-compensated frame lines for 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm and 135mm lenses, while the M3 covers only 50mm, 90mm and 135mm. The Canon's rangefinder may not be as contrasty as the M3's, but it's plenty accurate enough even to focus demanding lenses such as the 50mm f/0.95, 85mm f/1.5, and 100mm f/2.
-- The Canon has a built-in CdS light meter which, although not as sensitive and selective as we're used to today, is still useful in many situations. It's nice to have when you just want to carry a camera with one lens on it, nothing else.
-- The Canon's epoxy-coated stainless steel shutter curtains may be prone to "wrinkle," but you'll never have to worry about the sun burning a pinhole in them, which (regardless of what people might tell you) is all too real a possibility with the M3 if you're careless.
However, if the consideration is strictly which will work better with long lenses, I'd concur that you'll probably be more comfortable with the viewfinder of the M3. An advantage it has that no one has mentioned yet is the sharp-edged rangefinder patch: if your subject happens to have strong vertical lines in it, you can use this feature to take advantage of "split-image" focusing, which is more accurate than focusing by merging two semi-transparent images together ("coincident-image focusing.")
In case anyone is curious, though, the reasons I ditched my M3 and kept the Canon included:
-- The Canon is much more convenient to load; it has a conventional hinged back and fixed takeup spool, compared to the M3's removable baseplate and takeup spool. Drop a takeup spool and have it roll away just once, and you'll see why I like the fixed spools better. (Yes, some M3s have been converted with a "rapid load kit" that provides a fixed spool, but it's not a perfect solution either; I had one, and sometimes it just wouldn't take up the film no matter what I did.)
-- You can change rolls faster with the Canon; not only is it quicker to load, it's quicker to rewind with its folding crank. The M3 only has ye olde knob for rewinding, unless you can find one of those add-on accessory cranks.
-- The Canon has parallax-compensated frame lines for 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm and 135mm lenses, while the M3 covers only 50mm, 90mm and 135mm. The Canon's rangefinder may not be as contrasty as the M3's, but it's plenty accurate enough even to focus demanding lenses such as the 50mm f/0.95, 85mm f/1.5, and 100mm f/2.
-- The Canon has a built-in CdS light meter which, although not as sensitive and selective as we're used to today, is still useful in many situations. It's nice to have when you just want to carry a camera with one lens on it, nothing else.
-- The Canon's epoxy-coated stainless steel shutter curtains may be prone to "wrinkle," but you'll never have to worry about the sun burning a pinhole in them, which (regardless of what people might tell you) is all too real a possibility with the M3 if you're careless.
Last edited: