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

[hepcat]

Don't do it!!! It'll cost you a fortune down the road in M-mount glass and your Nikon will gather dust. It's a horrible experience.... 😀

Ok, seriously, it's a VERY different experience. You'll either tumble to it quickly or you won't... and that depends on how you shoot your DSLR. If you frame, manually focus, and set your own exposure (in other words, shoot it with deliberation, like a manual film camera) and wait for your shot to develop in the viewfinder then the transition in shooting won't be so hard. It'll be mostly an exercise in shooting with primes, which in itself is a discipline.

If, OTOH, you use your 'motor drive' regularly to 'catch the action,' and let the camera auto-focus and auto-expose, then you're going to be starting from scratch, because basically very little of what you know as 'photography' will carry over. If you're somewhere between those extremes, you'll still have a learning curve to climb.

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.

Elegantly and well said.

By virtually any standard that matters, the Zeiss Ikon and the Hexar are better cameras.

And I have to take issue with this statement... The ZI and Hexar are both excellent cameras, and even the Bessa gets the job done, but 'better' is always subjective and covers a lot of ground.

Having owned and used M2s, M3s, and M4s (and variants) I would also recommend an M4 or variant. I currently have an M4-P.

Good luck!

 

[nobbylon]

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.

I have no idea where the myth that a film M is faster than an SLR. Why would it be? As far as been faster than a D700? Forget it. A/F and a matrix meter blow them away in the speed stakes.
It's not about speed and if anything, using a rf slows you down. Focus and metering with an M take time but in certain circumstances I like that. When I want speed I pick up a D700, D3 or F5.
The only reason to use an M3 with a leica lens is to a/ get back to basics and think about every single frame. b/ use a moderately small set up or c/ you like the look of the pictures that your chosen lens produces.
No need for a this or that is faster or better bla bla bla. Pick and use what you like using but if you are coming from a 700 expect a slower and smaller experience combined with the wait for final results. Expect less keepers/ 36 frames than from a D700 due focus and metering errors but also expect a look from the leica lenses that is fabulous when it's done correctly.

 

[Vics]

My Leica is an M3, and I've been shooting with it for nine years. I've never even handled another Leica. I've never had a CLA and the camera works fine. I sent it to Don Goldberg at DAG Camera Repair in Wisconsin. I thought the RF patch was "vague", hard to see the moving image. He cleaned the whole VF/RF assembly, and made it a bit better, but it's still tough going. The point is that it, like all M3 VFs, is unrepairable. If I were doing it again, I'd go for the M4.

 

[Monochrom]

don´t hesitate and go for it.

although i´d suggest you an m2, more versatile camera with biult in 35mm FL...also you can use the whole VF in order to use a 28mm lens, things taht cannot be done with the m3´s VF.

 

[Pablito]

...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.

perhaps the romanticizing is driven by nostaliga, but in my experience, and that of many colleagues in the photo world, the Zeiss Ikon and Hexar RF are FAR less reliable than the M cameras, especially when it comes to RF alignment. The M cameras are just better made and more solid, at least the pre-digital ones. Having said that, I don't consider the M Leicas to be as reliable as the Leica Myths and Legends would indicate.

To the OP's point, The M3 would be at the bottom of my list given how many of them now have crappy finders due to age. I much prefer the quick load bodies (M4 onwards), though virtually all my work these days is with DSLR.

 

[hepcat]

I have no idea where the myth that a film M is faster than an SLR. Why would it be? As far as been faster than a D700? Forget it. A/F and a matrix meter blow them away in the speed stakes.
It's not about speed and if anything, using a rf slows you down. Focus and metering with an M take time but in certain circumstances I like that. When I want speed I pick up a D700, D3 or F5.
The only reason to use an M3 with a leica lens is to a/ get back to basics and think about every single frame. b/ use a moderately small set up or c/ you like the look of the pictures that your chosen lens produces.
No need for a this or that is faster or better bla bla bla. Pick and use what you like using but if you are coming from a 700 expect a slower and smaller experience combined with the wait for final results. Expect less keepers/ 36 frames than from a D700 due focus and metering errors but also expect a look from the leica lenses that is fabulous when it's done correctly.

Wow. This is quite a perspective, and exactly what I was talking about in my post above: trying to shoot a manual rangefinder camera with the same style as a digital DSLR. They're not comparable and really can't be used in the same way. Well, they can, but you'll be VERY disappointed with a rangefinder.

If used as designed, a manual rangefinder camera is always faster than a DSLR to use on the street because you pre-set the exposure and either zone focus or use hyperfocal distance. Once set, there's no reason to touch the controls again unless the light changes dramatically or the subject-lens distance is outside your pre-set parameters. All you have to do is compose and release the shutter. An auto camera has to do all the calculations for exposure, and also find a point of focus before it can release. If you're shooting auto/auto, you lose control over both shutter speed and depth of field to who-ever did the programming.

Further, while the DSLR is capable of umpteen frames per second, it takes time for the shutter to re-cock, and release again... and it seems that the 'good' shot always happens in-between frames that way. With a rangefinder, you watch the scene develop in the VF and release the shutter at the appropriate time. I've always found that one good frame showing exactly what I want is much better than a dozen frames that are close.

And shooting primes introduce another whole set of compositional challenges that folks accustomed to having zooms may struggle with.

They're really very different styles of shooting.

 

[newsgrunt]

The only reason to use an M3 with a leica lens is to get back to basics and think about every single frame.

not buying this since EVERY camera allows one to deliberate over single frames. it's the user, not the camera that decides. Want basics, go large format 😉

use a moderately small set up

agree

you like the look of the pictures that your chosen lens produces

This would be probably the main reason imo. A 35 is not a 35 is not a 35, depending on who made the glass.

 

[errorlogin]

Go for it!

And go for it directly. I spent a lot of money for Canonets, Minolte CLE and other RFs, just to end up with an M3 finally.
I just love it. It is always a big pleasure to take it and to shoot. This camera will never go. . . 🙂

 

[nobbylon]

Wow. This is quite a perspective, and exactly what I was talking about in my post above: trying to shoot a manual rangefinder camera with the same style as a digital DSLR. They're not comparable and really can't be used in the same way. Well, they can, but you'll be VERY disappointed with a rangefinder.

If used as designed, a manual rangefinder camera is always faster than a DSLR to use on the street because you pre-set the exposure and either zone focus or use hyperfocal distance. Once set, there's no reason to touch the controls again unless the light changes dramatically or the subject-lens distance is outside your pre-set parameters. All you have to do is compose and release the shutter. An auto camera has to do all the calculations for exposure, and also find a point of focus before it can release. If you're shooting auto/auto, you lose control over both shutter speed and depth of field to who-ever did the programming.

Further, while the DSLR is capable of umpteen frames per second, it takes time for the shutter to re-cock, and release again... and it seems that the 'good' shot always happens in-between frames that way. With a rangefinder, you watch the scene develop in the VF and release the shutter at the appropriate time. I've always found that one good frame showing exactly what I want is much better than a dozen frames that are close.

And shooting primes introduce another whole set of compositional challenges that folks accustomed to having zooms may struggle with.

They're really very different styles of shooting.

I think that maybe my point is being missed though.
As designed a rangefinder was meant to be focused hence it has a rangefinder.
Zone focus and hyper focal are just techniques used by photographers and not necessarily limited to R/F.
My Nikons can be set to release regardless of focus and metering is thankfully instantaneous or as good as.
It doesn't matter what camera is used be it SLR rf or dslr's. The shutter can be tripped as and when the scene is as required.
Used as designed a rangefinder will always be slower compaired with the op's D700 and that was all I was trying to convey. I like and use both but after using dslr's an rf will be an acquired taste and will take practice and patience.

 

[Margu]

But apart from the obvious, what should I expect?

compliments and admiring looks from people on the street and not to mention a lot of new friends.

 

[DaveMcQueen]

Wow, firstly thanks very much to everyone for the thoughtful, and thought provoking, responses. I suspect that I'm going to rather enjoy this forum and all the new friends.

A little more background and answers:

I've shot and processed plenty of b&w and infra red film in my many years behind a lens. I have always loved processing and printing my images. THAT'S MAGICAL. Hp5 XP2, and tri-x and Ektar were all lovely films. Velvia was always my favourite colour film.

I have no plans at all to divest myself of the digital gear, it's still a heavily used workhorse. I suspect that just like the Leica, I could resell the fast Nikon lenses for much the same as I paid for them some years ago. Additionally, my beautiful wife would kill me if I sell all the lenses! She probably uses them more than I do.

I shot RAW files strictly in manual mode. Unless I'm shooting sports, I generally take my time over the shot and have a high success rate. I typically have an images in my mind that I try to capture. I think that I am seeking a new challenge, a new experience; and this is likely to push me creatively as well as technically.

The lack of metering and simplifying my craft back into full manual mode really appeals to me. I see it as having more of a meditative quality, getting lost in the viewfinder even more than I do now. Sunny 16 here I come. I will probably begin by using an iPhone app or the D700 to get into the swing of metering by eye and feel, and then stepping out into full manual in real RAW mode with film.

If I don't like it, I will have given it a good try and found that I don't like it. Nothing lost really.

I will see what body and lens comes available and try to find a good tech to CLA it. I'm in Canada, can any of you recommend one in the great white north, or if not, perhaps in the states somewhere? I wear a 30 year old mechanical watch, so I'm somewhat used to the need to maintain old gear.

Which lens I end up with (to begin with) will be availability and price. 50mm will probably be my first choice, but I shan't rule out the 35mm with the goggles. Perhaps both in time...

I'll probably begin with having the film processed and scanned by a lab to begin with, and then consider doing it myself. Then I'll see what Lightroom can make of the results. I'll probably keep the computer and printer in the equation for sometime to come. But there again who knows.

The simplicity of a tool that does one job really well, very much appeals to me. One (kind of) pocket sized piece of kit, as opposed to a heavy bag to cart around sounds great to me.

Newsgrunt asked why a Leica? Good question. I like mechanical things that are well made, craftsmanship. I want to reach my own limitations, before the equipment limitations.

 

[nobbylon]

not buying this since EVERY camera allows one to deliberate over single frames. it's the user, not the camera that decides. Want basics, go large format 😉



agree




This would be probably the main reason imo. A 35 is not a 35 is not a 35, depending on who made the glass.

I agree to deliberate over single frames but sometimes it's nice to have a burst run and pick the nicest shot for expression etc. A lifesaver with wedding groups and closed eyes etc!

 

[Wulfthari]

Wow, firstly thanks very much to everyone for the thoughtful, and thought provoking, responses. I suspect that I'm going to rather enjoy this forum and all the new friends.

A little more background and answers:

I've shot and processed plenty of b&w and infra red film in my many years behind a lens. I have always loved processing and printing my images. THAT'S MAGICAL. Hp5 XP2, and tri-x and Ektar were all lovely films. Velvia was always my favourite colour film.

I have no plans at all to divest myself of the digital gear, it's still a heavily used workhorse. I suspect that just like the Leica, I could resell the fast Nikon lenses for much the same as I paid for them some years ago. Additionally, my beautiful wife would kill me if I sell all the lenses! She probably uses them more than I do.

I shot RAW files strictly in manual mode. Unless I'm shooting sports, I generally take my time over the shot and have a high success rate. I typically have an images in my mind that I try to capture. I think that I am seeking a new challenge, a new experience; and this is likely to push me creatively as well as technically.

The lack of metering and simplifying my craft back into full manual mode really appeals to me. I see it as having more of a meditative quality, getting lost in the viewfinder even more than I do now. Sunny 16 here I come. I will probably begin by using an iPhone app or the D700 to get into the swing of metering by eye and feel, and then stepping out into full manual in real RAW mode with film.

If I don't like it, I will have given it a good try and found that I don't like it. Nothing lost really.

I will see what body and lens comes available and try to find a good tech to CLA it. I'm in Canada, can any of you recommend one in the great white north, or if not, perhaps in the states somewhere? I wear a 30 year old mechanical watch, so I'm somewhat used to the need to maintain old gear.

Which lens I end up with (to begin with) will be availability and price. 50mm will probably be my first choice, but I shan't rule out the 35mm with the goggles. Perhaps both in time...

I'll probably begin with having the film processed and scanned by a lab to begin with, and then consider doing it myself. Then I'll see what Lightroom can make of the results. I'll probably keep the computer and printer in the equation for sometime to come. But there again who knows.

The simplicity of a tool that does one job really well, very much appeals to me. One (kind of) pocket sized piece of kit, as opposed to a heavy bag to cart around sounds great to me.

Newsgrunt asked why a Leica? Good question. I like mechanical things that are well made, craftsmanship. I want to reach my own limitations, before the equipment limitations.

Hello, I'm also new to the M3 and I can give you my opinion on the matter: the main challenge is that you will switch from a camera that makes all the work to you to camera that requires YOU to do everything, manual focus, exposure, sutter speed selection, aperture.

You would find the same difficulties with for instance a Pentax Spotmatic with a broken meter (same size and weight of the M3), or with a Zorki, etc...the M3 is the gold standard of rangefinders but it's not a "small" camera at all, in my small system I've a 35 mm Summaron with googles, a dual range 50 mm Summicron and a 90 mm Elmart (I'm looking for the right 135mm too) but you don't really need the googles, the viewfinder itseld is a good approximation of the natural 35 mm and I used my Jupiter 12 (very good lens indeed! As good as the Summaron) without any problem.

The Sunny 16 rule is not Gospel and needs to be adjusted to many factors: film, time of the day, and your location, with B&W it's easier to "guess" the correct exposure, if you have some experience with film the transition will be easier.

For the lenses I would recommend the dual range Summicron because it allows you to take close ups unlike almost all the other lenses and you have the advantage that it works on the M3...the rest shouldn't be too difficult at all, still the M3 is not the only camera you might consider, a good manual SLR can also help you in the transition, in that case I would recommend a nice Spotmatic, in terms of feel and quality it's the closest reflex to an M3 I have ever used.

 

[Particular]

Nobbylon,
I think you are talking about a different kind of speed than I am, which i think gets to the point of why if you expect (d)slr results from an rf, or visa-versa you will be disappointed.
The way I define speed as it applies to the way I like to work, is the time between deciding I want to take a photo of something, and having taken the shot.
There are usually a number of constants and a number of variables in any situation; changing compositions, changing light, changing action etc. By using a combination of pre-setting and anticipation I can keep an eye on the variables that I am not in control of, and try to incorporate them in a satisfactory way. Of course this applies in some way all photography.
All the simplicity and back to basics-ness of a camera like the m3 allows me to do that fast and in a concentrated way, and I do focus and compose most of my shots, but I don't meter between every shot.
I just wanted to be clear that there is a speed argument in favour of leica m. It is not all about slowing down and contemplation, although they can handle that very nicely as well.

 

[newsgrunt]

Newsgrunt asked why a Leica? Good question. I like mechanical things that are well made, craftsmanship. I want to reach my own limitations, before the equipment limitations.

Well you can't beat Leica afaic, well maybe Hasselblads but for 35, nothing comes close. If you have the funds, and like built in meters, I'd suggest considering an MP. Love mine but wish it had the M4 style rewind knob instead 😉

Have fun searching, buying and using your future Leica !

 

[Pioneer]

What can you expect from an M3?

A 1950s design. It was certainly the gold standard and the benchmark in its day but that was quite some time ago. Have you ever driven a 1954 car?

My M3 kind of reminds me of my 1954 Desoto. Wonderful car. Great Firedome Hemi V8. Beautiful to look at. But, the handling really isn't that great. It wallows and rolls. It goes like crazy but...it doesn't stop very quickly. But it is a bunch of fun to drive around once in awhile on a sunny weekend day, and it certainly gets lots of looks. But, that's enough and you park it back in the garage until the next sunny weekend day when you have some spare time.

That is the M3. If that is what you are looking for, great. You will love it. But if you are expecting to be able to grab it for a quick set of pictures when your kids, or someone else's, are acting up, not so good. You will probably be disappointed.

If you have to own a Leica, buy the M7 or the MP. Expensive but they are currently at the top of the Leica heap for film. You can use them just like an M3 if you want, but still get some metering assistance. And they are new, with new warranties, because even Leicas need repair and adjustment from time to time.

If you are willing to consider other options then I can strongly recommend the Zeiss Ikon ZI. Internet anecdotes and rumors aside it is a wonderful, reliable rangefinder with an M bayonet mount. Of course, the biggest problem is that there are very few new examples still on the market as they were discontinued by Zeiss a while back.

 

[Vics]

You're not likely to enjoy shooting a 35mm lens with goggles. I have a 35/2.8 Summaron for my M3. I usually go instead for my w-Nikkor 35/2.5 with an adapter and an accessory VF in the shoe.

 

[Livesteamer]

Consider watching the classified ads here. M3 and others turn up now and then and you might find what you want.

Do be careful tho. An M3 was my first Leica in 1990 and I've bought a bunch more since then. A bit expensive but it's been wonderful. Good Luck. Joe

 

[jarski]

speed of all manual system comes from anticipating exposure and (up to a point) focus before lifting camera to eye. quick compose and pressing the button will be faster than peering through viewfinder of latest pro SLR. having lot of practice naturally helps. which one gives better results, is of course entirely subjective.

 

[Vincent.G]

As the title says, I'm seriously considering changing to an M3 and I'm wondering what I should expect.

I have a D700 with a bag of fast lenses, a variety of primes and zooms (f2.8 from 17-200mm). I have no plans to discard that line completely as I shoot sports and my wife uses them whenever she wants.

I'm seriously considering getting an M3 (and a lens...) and I'm hoping some of you can help me with what to expect.

Yes, I realise that it'll be film and a rangefinder, so I'll be looking though the finder and not through the lens. I wouldn't be able to do macro photography very easily. It'd be manual focus, and I'd be guessing and practising. I'd need to get my film processed and scanned so I can take it into Lightroom.

But apart from the obvious, what should I expect? Additionally, do you have any lens recommendations for me?

Thanks in advance.

You probably may realize the M3 will not make you a better photographer.

You might be expecting rather costly repairs on the body and/or the lens. These are vintage equipment and its hard to tell what can go wrong from the apperance. Some times the surprises come after you have developed your film and some times halfway while shooting. It depends on your luck.

You may also get more heads turning your way with that M3 around your neck. You may need to prepare an elevator speech on why you are shooting with that shiny-chrome-vintage camera.