Considering a switch from Nikon D-SLR to an M3.

Keith said:
The M3 is no mystery tour and it's not some magical device. Shutter, aperture and focus ... the same as photography has always been.

Glad you're keeping the D700 because that's about as good as it gets in DSLR land. 🙂
Click to expand...
Oh Keith, you know the M3 is pure mysticism. Glides in your hand and eye. ..........but I would keep the D700 for a few months, so you will know for sure. Lots of good prices out there. Be prepared to get a CLA so it will work right. I mean it is a 50 year old body for goodness sake. I love mine (M3) and if making money was not a concern, I would not own a Nikon DSLR.
 
Ronald M said:
You can expect a 50+ year old camera that needs a cla, possibly new shutter curtains, new light shields, new film transport, a rangefinder that is glued with Canadian Balsam and is now weak. This is the common stuff. Add light leaks, streaks on the film.

This is like trading a Ferrari in on a dump truck.

At least buy a digital M9 or a cheap RF for <$50 that works.

And I forgot about fogged lenses and sticky focus. All fixable at great cost which you can not recoup on a resale.
Click to expand...
Hogwash!! Nothing compares to an M3 and they are still very viable.
 
I have done as you intend. I added the rangefinder experience to my digital slr's. I love it and highly recommended. As other have pointed out there may be a better body for you depending on your focal preference. For me it was the M2, IIIf, an a CLE. I own the three kit lenses for the CLE and two canon 50's and a 35mm. Not a single Leica lens. For me the canons were a solid cheaper alternative. For the money I spent on all three I would have been able to buy one older Leica lens in good shape.

Go for it. You will not regret it.
 
Get the Leica

Get the Leica

You seem to know what to expect. If you want a Leica, get a Leica as you can turn around and sell it for what you paid for it and you will not be satisfied with any other camera.

I would get it from a good dealer like KEH or Tamarkin. If they say it is good to go, it will be good to go. Compared to digital, there is not that much that can really go wrong with them that can't be easily repaired (which is why they last so long).

If 50mm is your favorite prime, get the M3. If 35mm, then any of the other M's work as the finders are all based on the M2's .72 magnification. If a meter is required, then an M6 variant. If you don't want a meter, then they are all good and everyone on this forum has a favorite. I favor the M2 for its simplicity and 35mm frame lines. My guess is a M2 or M3 with a 35 or 50 Voightlander or Zeiss lens can be had for $1000. Both the 35f2.5 and new 50f1.4 from Voightlander are considered OUTSTANDING. Check out Cameraquest's links for new prices on Voightlander products and information on all the Leica models.

I am just getting back into black and white which is where these older cameras shine. The technology in modern digital is absolutely amazing but these older cameras will make you slow down and learn the light but that does not mean they can't bring home the bacon. Of course, since film has been around a lot longer, more memorial images have been recorded on film then digital.
 
If you're getting the M be ready for a decent CLA with a reputable tech i.e YY, Dag or Sherry and you will be good to go for many years. M3 with a rigid summicron and a handheld meter or a VCII will be perfect.
 
I see the m3 as the reference standard. It is limited in some ways. What it does do, it does simply, elegantly and reliably. Any other cameras I own need to have some trick that the m3 doesn't have, because none of them do what it does better. Every disadvantage, or lacking feature can be taken as an advantage.
Example: it took buying an m6 for me to realise that having a meter, and info in the finder, means that you spend twice as much time standing around with the camera up to your face. Without the meter, I only bring the camera to my eye to focus, frame and shoot. I started seeing needing the finder to change the exposure as a disadvantage, and now appreciate the lack of meter as a feature.
If you don't expect it to do things it wasn't made for, you will love it.
 
gilpen123 said:
If you're getting the M be ready for a decent CLA with a reputable tech i.e YY, Dag or Sherry and you will be good to go for many years. M3 with a rigid summicron and a handheld meter or a VCII will be perfect.
Click to expand...

I'm a member since 2008 and still don't know what CLA means. Maybe you can explain it for me and the TO?
 
Might I suggest a Voigtlander R3A for your rangefinder needs?

I've owned a Leica M3 and M6, and believe it or not I prefer the Voigtlander to both. Leicas are built sturdier for sure (especially the M3), but metering and aperture priority on the R3A make shooting faster and easier. The viewfinder is nice on the Voigtlander too.

(I personally use an R2A so I can use wider lenses like a 35mm, but the R3A has a 1:1 finder and uses 50mm (or 40?) for the widest setting, so it's the closest to an M3.)

P.S. - CLA stands for cleaning, lubrication, and adjustment. It's an overhaul especially needed for decades old cameras as their oils can dry up and cause mechanical problems. Having a CLA done can give you a decade or more of perfect operation with an old mechanical camera.
 
tom.w.bn said:
I'm a member since 2008 and still don't know what CLA means. Maybe you can explain it for me and the TO?
Click to expand...

A camera that has been Cleaned, Lubricated and Adjusted.

Pretty much any camera with a good CLA is one that has been serviced and put into a similar operational state to one that is new (it may still look worn).
 
I did exactly what you are suggesting, only it was about seven years ago and I got an M3 to go with my D70. I still have both cameras but have never bought another dSLR as I've hardly used the D70 since - though I have quite a few rangefinders now.

From my experience, I would suggest you may find:

1. Feeling a bit underwhelmed at first - is this what all the fuss is about?
2. Enjoyment of the manual, mechanical experience
3. The results you get are not the ones you expected, which can be great
4. Struggling to replicate the results you like
5. Experimenting with different films and developers
6. Trying out different camera bodies - eg to understand the difference between an M2 and M3 etc
7. Trying to learn and apply Sunny16 in non-sunny conditions
8. Accumulating a set of lenses
9. Having much more involvement and enjoyment in photography than before - a real sense of satisfaction when a photo turns out just the way you wanted it to (not what the camera's automation did)
10. Producing a completely different set of photographs compared to the dSLR

That's what I've found anyway. Since 2007 I've used over 400 rolls of film and have had a great, great time making every single one of those photographs.

At some point you'll produce a photograph that is completely unlike anything you've ever taken before, or could have done with the modern kit. It may be a portrait, or a photo of a park bench where the light and tonality and texture are just so exquisite it thrills you.

747237540

Oh, and do get an M3 - the perfect starting point.
 
The slowing down part is a myth. It's up to the user to determine when to push a shutter button whether digital or film. There's a lot of BS thrown around about M cameras... but one thing that is true is that they are very elegant machines. I think this elegance is what makes people buy into all of the other myths about a M. I'm not being critical really... I love M cameras. One of the true top notch classics in the camera world.

You may take different photos with a RF, you may not. Ultimately, it comes down to framing and content and that is the same with any camera.
 
Keep both if you can. That is pretty much both ends of a very wide sprectrum of gear. The main thing that hit me first was the lack of close focusing with the Leica. But it's such a beautiful machine, and it can take great photos within it's own capacities. It is very satisfying when you get some good pics out of one. Well worth the effort! Best of luck.
 
jsrockit said:
The slowing down part is a myth. It's up to the user to determine when to push a shutter button whether digital or film. There's a lot of BS thrown around about M cameras... but one thing that is true is that they are very elegant machines. I think this elegance is what makes people buy into all of the other myths about a M. I'm not being critical really... I love M cameras. One of the true top notch classics in the camera world.

You may take different photos with a RF, you may not. Ultimately, it comes down to framing and content and that is the same with any camera.
Click to expand...

This pretty well sums things up, I couldn't have said it better myself. Absolutely agree re:slowing things down and romanticization of rf.
 
@Dave,

The biggest change to your photography will come from using film, rather than the type of camera. In fact, I would suggest you pick up a bargain Nikon FE and shoot some color film first, before investing in an M and Leica glass.

For color work, unless you plan on printing at home, you're going to want to find a lab that does good work. And I mean not just conscientious to handle the film with gloves or use fresh chemicals, but with the right lab gear.

The best lab in my town does a good job with developing and printing, but their downfall is the scanning part. Inevitably, the images have blown highlights and overly dense shadows. The negatives look fine, and they can print a digital file to RA4 paper just fine, but their scanning sucks. The net effect for me is that my color negative work lacks the dynamic range I expect of film which, due to the increased cost of processing and printing, has me seriously thinking about retiring my film cameras, or relegating them to just silver gelatin B/W use.

So unless you find a really great lab, your color work will suffer, there will be this huge gap between what your Leica kit costs and the quality of commercial printing, which will make you think twice that perhaps you made a poor choice.

If you wish to shoot silver gelatin B/W, there is a long learning curve involving hand processing to get to the point where you have results equivalent to your D800. I say this from experience, your biggest challenge will be dust on the negatives. For scanning the film, see Ming Thein's website about using a DSLR and flash as an alternative to a dedicated scanner.

I write all of this so that you'll know that the results will not be immediate. There are new skills to learn and problems to overcome. Keep us informed of your progress, and post some images. Good luck.

~Joe
 
jump from digital to film is far bigger than from SLR to rangefinder. try first e.g Nikon FE/FM with your lenses, and see how it feels.
 
jsrockit said:
The slowing down part is a myth. It's up to the user to determine when to push a shutter button whether digital or film. There's a lot of BS thrown around about M cameras... but one thing that is true is that they are very elegant machines. I think this elegance is what makes people buy into all of the other myths about a M. I'm not being critical really... I love M cameras. One of the true top notch classics in the camera world.

You may take different photos with a RF, you may not. Ultimately, it comes down to framing and content and that is the same with any camera.
Click to expand...

I have to agree, the romanticizing of the M cameras is driven by nostalgia, not by any objective measure of the camera. By virtually any standard that matters, the Zeiss Ikon and the Hexar are better cameras. So are your SLRs you use now.

It's a different shooting experience (viewfinder vs. TTL), and being all manual means things will inherently be slower. That slowness isn't as "zen-like" as you may imagine; it can be frustrating when I try to focus on kids moving in low light. Critical focus takes a LOT of practice.

I love M cameras, and RFs in general, but that doesn't make them better for everyone. You may come in with so much expectation that you frankly are a bit let down, especially with the M3.
 
I bought into the rf thing because I consider it faster than using an slr, not slower. I have no idea where that myth comes from. When I want to be slow, I use a larger camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Horatio
Trade M3 for M4?
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
8K
raid
raid
Ken Ford
Considering a SL series body
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
8K
Ken Ford
Ken Ford
EddieO
Parallax Correction Using Voigtlander 40mm on Leica IIIf
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
aw614
A
R
Leica M4 Trainer?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
JeffS7444
JeffS7444
kxl
Considering my first Leica M body (film)
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
4K
Pioneer
Pioneer
Back
Top Bottom