Getting Giddy

[Sjixxxy]

Up until now, the only rangefinder work I've done, has either been with a QL-17, or a Speed Graphic (Awesome results, but not very subtle in a crowd). I've had it planned to eventually get a Bessa kit, since they are more in line with my budget then a Leica. Years passed, and I mainly worked in 4x5 & 6x6, so I never bought the rangefinder.

Then a few weeks ago I walk into my office, and the coworker who shares it with me had an eBay listing for a Leica on his screen. I asked him if he was planning on buying a Leica, and he said "No, selling one actually." Turns out his father had authorized him to sell his Leica M3, and its three lenses. (Sorry, don't know any specifics.)

We got to talking, and I let him know that I've hallways wanted to try a Leica, but have never touched one, so on & so on. He agreed that when he gets it, he'll let me test drive it for a few weeks. See if everything is in working order for him, and satisfy my curiosity as to what the big deal is for myself. He did also say he likes the idea of knowing that the camera would be going into the hands of someone who will keep using it, instead of someone who will put it in a display case. So I'm quite certain that if I really love it, I can end up keeping it at a price that is a steal.

Just venting my eagerness. Anticipating getting to use it has resparked me photographically. I spent the weekend getting my darkroom back in order, and starting printing up a bunch of my old rangefinder work that never made it to paper. I need hard prints to compare results to during my test drive. See for myself first hand if all this Leica magic I've read about is real, or just hubris. Can't wait.

 

[jky]

I'm excited for you! If you're in luck, it won't even need a CLA and will come ready for film....
Btw, plenty of friendlies here so enjoy the forum.

Enjoyed the photos of your site - thanks for sharing.

 

[Artorius]

Welcome to the forum of the "doomed".

 

[martin-f5]

I think if you use the M3 and he lenses in a proer way
the results will be exciting.
when I print my with leica taken negativs,
often there are so many more details in shadows and lights compared to my nikon images.
Also the handling is after some practice so easy.

You may have a look to this link:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49340

Good luck with your M3

 

[Sjixxxy]

Is it strange that I had a dream last night when I got my hands on it?

 

[hans voralberg]

Nah, you're just excited. Most people tends to carry matters which pre-occupied their mind into dreams, it's fairly well documented in psychological literature (sorry I just have to be geeky, i study psychology)

I just got an M3 as well, it's lovely, will post some pics when I got my lens on monday 😀

 

[Sjixxxy]

Got my hands on the camera. Yay!

Leica M3SS - sn: 1.09m

The body barely looks used. No scratches or dents anywhere on it that I can find. Rangefinder still looks pretty bright from what I can tell. The film counter wasn't reseting properly at first, but after going through the load/unload motion a few times, it seems to have loosened up, and now resets to -3 each time I open it.

The shutter at 1 second runs about 3 seconds. 1/2 second runs about 2. However, If I'm in a situation where I'm using 1 second exposures, I have the camera on a tri-pod. And if I have my camera on a tri-pod, Its most liekly going to be my 4x5 or 6x6. So I'm not too concerned about this lag for the time being. I tested 1/15th and up with a Calumet shutter tester, and they were pretty close. A little beyond 1/3 over at the lower end, but the middle ranges seemed accurate. I kept having trouble getting a reading at 1/1000th. And even looking through the shutter as I fired it, I'd be lucky if I could seem more then 1/8th of the total frame. Is it possible that the shutter curtain timings could be a little out of wack at the high speed, and they don't open completely? I did the same visual test with my Minolta SRT101 which also has the right-to-left cloth shutter, and I was able to see the entire scene every time. Guess I'll fire a roll through it and see what happens.

Lenses that came with it are:

135mm 1:4 Elmar
50mm 1:1.4 Summilux
35mm 1:2.8 Summaron, with the lens mounted viewfinder adapter.

35mm is the focal length I"m most interested in, though at two stops slower then my good `old ql17, I'm not sure if that will be as much use indoors as the 1.4 Summilux.

Summilux looks like this guy.

The 135mm, well, it just pretty much looks like a robot penis. Really.

I have no delusions that it will make me a better photographer in any way, but I am a sucker for srisp sharp photos, and that it may be able to deliver on. Though I do need to see first hand how the prints look to decide if I want to buy it. I figure I'll load it & my QL17 up with the same type of film, and go take matched exposures with each one. I'm sure it will be a lopsided battle, but I don't feel taking my SLR againt it would be as benificial. I've already replaced that with my 6x6 & 4x5 for 95% of what I used to do with it, leaving everything else, which is people shooting, to my humble QL17. And just to keep it real, I'll probably also take my $200 6x6 out and match a few frames with that as well. Get a good idea exactly where the lens quality falls vs film format.

I'm excited, I just hate that it gets dark now while I'm still sitting at work, so I guess I won't be able to do any of my comparative outdoor shooting until saturday. Oh well, just gives me time to practice loading it. I figure that getting it going in one minute my first try without reading any documentation is pretty good, except that I rewound the lead back into the cartidge by habit after the first attempt. Anyone know a DIY method to pull leads without needing an actual lead puller?

 

[ferider]

The only RF better than a > 1 Mio M3 is a > 1 Mio M3 CLA'ed by Youxin Ye.
He's quick and very good and not only your shutter speeds will benefit
but also the viewfinder, most likely.

That camera with that 50 is an absolute killer combo !!! Quite a valuable
package, too ! Congrats.

Roland.

 

[jky]

A CLA sounds like a good bet & a good investment. I'd go for that.... the extra time & money spent will be worth it!

 

[Sjixxxy]

Well. I haven't purchased it yet, I just have it on loan to "Kick the tires" We'll have to see what the offering price is before I decide if I can commit to purchase.

However, I just ran a roll thorugh it, and I beleive my assertion on the 1/1000th speed is correct. Frames exposed at 1/1000th were either blank, or gradualy showed density towards one edge. So it looks like the trailing curtain is getting an early jump(or the forward curtain is starting late) and slowing down before it stops.

Any guesses as to what a reasonable price for this kit would be, and what a *steal* price would be? I know that the seller is researching each pieces price on eBay, so that could add up to be well past my budget in a hurry if he isn't intested in willingly giving me a *steal*. I could possible settle for just the body and/or one lens if the price is right, and then later expand using the more affordable Voiglander lenses. If not, I'll have to resort to my original plan of just getting an r3a or r3m which I can budget easily.

Thanks in advance for any helpful info.

 

[ferider]

If the glass is clean, given the M3 needs a CLA, but is not
mechanically impacted, my quick guess for good buying prices
would be:

Elmar: US 150
Summilux: US 900
Summaron: US 400
M3: US 800

I recommend to check the lenses for haze.

The fact that you can inspect it is worth some by itself.

Good luck,

Roland.

 

[Ken Ford]

I would estimate the M3 a bit lower than Roland - I purchased a very clean late DS last year for $500 that didn't require a CLA (but I did one anyway). I'd say $600 for the M3. I have no opinion on the glass prices.

I hope it works out for you - that's a nice little kit!

 

[Sjixxxy]

Did some side-by- side shooting yesterday and developed both sets of negatives.

A) Yes, I can see the diffrence in the negatives themselves. I've been reading this liitle factoid on forums for years, but never had seen it first hand. The Leica negatives look punchy, with crisp details, especially through the shadows. The QL17, looked like mush.

B) I've made one set of prints from a scene so far. The improvment in sharpness within the format is also as stunning as the first time I seen a 4x5 negative print vs my SLR prints.

I'm going to make a few more prints of the same scene from both cameras, will probbaly have a write up on my experience so far on my web site within a few days.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've been reading this liitle factoid on forums for years, but never had seen it first hand. The Leica negatives look punchy, with crisp details, especially through the shadows. The QL17, looked like mush.

Yup. Interesting, innit?

That's one of the reasons I've been using Leicas since about 1969.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Krosya]

Got my hands on the camera. Yay!

The 135mm, well, it just pretty much looks like a robot penis. Really.

Hehe - now thats an interesting way to look at things! lol 😉

 

[Sjixxxy]

Just posted the results of my side-by-side shoot to my website.

See them here: http://www.kpraslowicz.com/technique/leica-m3-vs-canonet-ql17-g-iii/

 

[peter_n]

The Leica negatives look punchy, with crisp details, especially through the shadows. The QL17, looked like mush.

I understand there's some variability in the Canonet lenses. I use Leica and a Canonet and there is a difference, but I definitely wouldn't describe my QL17 lens as mushy, here's an example from mine that actually isn't the sharpest but it's not bad:

Maybe you have a bit of a dodgy QL17 lens?

 

[John Elder]

The most desired, most sought after M3's have a serial # of over a million, and therefore cost more. Also, M3's in good condition cost more. Sounds like the camera you are testing fits both of the above criteria. I would say that if the rangefinder is bright and contrasty and the camera is free of dings and dents, that the camera is worth at least $800.00. Retailers will sell this type of M3 for much more:check out KEH, Ritzcamera, Goldentouch. If your 50 summilux is black, it is a second version and worth more than a chrome first version. A chrome 2nd version is somewhat of a rarity, just a few were made. The 2nd version began with serial#1844001. An M3 with a serial # over 1 million in great condition is a hard camera to find. Don't let it get away. If you don't buy it, you could see the camera without lenses go for $1200.00 on e-bay. You have a great kit there, try and keep it. The M3 is the best camera made for a 50 mm lens,its great.

 

[Sjixxxy]

Maybe you have a bit of a dodgy QL17 lens?

I won't rule it out. I've been through three QL-17s so far since buying new ones is cheaper then getting repairs done, and they keep breaking down on me. Negatives from the older two look better then my test roll's results. But, none of the prints I've ever made from any of them them ever gave me that "Yes, this is what I wanted" tingle that I got from the Leica.

 

[Sjixxxy]

The most desired, most sought after M3's have a serial # of over a million, and therefore cost more. Also, M3's in good condition cost more. Sounds like the camera you are testing fits both of the above criteria. I would say that if the rangefinder is bright and contrasty and the camera is free of dings and dents, that the camera is worth at least $800.00. Retailers will sell this type of M3 for much more:check out KEH, Ritzcamera, Goldentouch. ... An M3 with a serial # over 1 million in great condition is a hard camera to find. Don't let it get away. If you don't buy it, you could see the camera without lenses go for $1200.00 on e-bay.

True. But I also have a 1mil+ M3 coming to me in the mail with a well used exterior, and a very affordable sticker price. If a CLA is all it needs have accurate exposures, I'd be more happy with a $350 body that I won't feel guilty as I further plunge it into hell, and let the guy sell the mint one for $1200 to feed his children.

If your 50 summilux is black, it is a second version and worth more than a chrome first version. A chrome 2nd version is somewhat of a rarity, just a few were made. The 2nd version began with serial#1844001.

Chrome, #1946314. Sounds like a 2nd version. What does that make it worth?

Right now, I only have about $1000-$1200 MAX to throw around. I don't use 50mm all that much, and I don't mind the goggles on the 35mm Summaron. If I can talk him out of that lens for $400 or less, and my scratch & dent body works fine, I'll have what I need for under $800+CLA. Well within my budget. I'd love to take this whole kit, but he knows what it is worth, and I doubt he'd part with it for what I can afford. Right now, starting small, and working up is probably going to be the path I take.

Thoughts?