Leica M: 3 or 4?

[ktmrider]

So, I bought my first film Leica in 1974, a CL. I acquired an M3 around 1977 and kept it a few years. I have owned an M2 (four or five bodies), a couple original M4's plus the M4P and M4/2. I also owned a couple M6's and M6TTL when they first appeared. My latest film camera is an M5 from Sherry and I truly believe it may be the best shooter if you want a metered M. I recently traded it for an M2. I have never owned a M7, MP or MA.

I enjoy shooting both 35 and 50 focal lengths almost equally. The M2 is my favorite viewfinder while I like the more modern film loading and rewind of the M4. A meter is nice but I really don't like the frame lines in a modern Leica as I find it just clutters everything up. And the reason I still use Leica's is the viewfinder and rangefinder focusing. But a Nikon F with 55f3.5 Micro Nikkor would be a close second, especially if I was restricted to 50mm.

I presently own a M2 and an MP240 and several M mount lenses from Leica, Zeiss and Voightlander. If push came to shove and I could only have one film body, it would be an M2 with either a 35 or 50. I would probably have to flip a coin to determine which lens I would keep. Luckily I can own more then one camera.

So, I am looking at another film camera. I may very well sell the MP240 keeping the FujiX100F for digital needs. My question is which film body? I am wondering if I am missing something since I have not shot an M3 since 1977, especially using a 50.

I am presently in Asia and will be returning to the US in March, 2020. I may go to Hong Kong or Tokyo and spend a couple days searching for either a M4, M2 with rapid film loading (can't remember model) or a M3. I know we each have favorite film bodies but what am I not seeing about the M3?

Thanks for commenting.

 

[santino]

The M3 has probably the best build quality of any camera ever made. The rangefinder patch is huge so is the viewfinder magnification. It is also very smooth in operation and looks great 🙂

 

[ktmrider]

I have heard the M3 was built better then the M2. Now I know the M2 had simplified features to save money but was there really a difference in quality? Honestly, I have talked to various Leica repair people and they differ in their assessment. Sherry believes the M5 was the highest quality M etc. And design and looks are in the eye of the buyer. Personally, I like the cleaner looks of later M cameras like the M2 or M4 or M6. My favorite M2 is the button wind without self timer.

I will reserve judgement on the build quality of the M3 vs later models until given evidence and not just opinion or rumor. Most of the parts are interchangeable like shutter, film advance etc

 

[santino]

Well then wait for evidence... I made my decision years ago and I don‘t regret it. But the viewfinder/rangefinder of the M3 is the largest, isn‘t it?

 

[ktmrider]

Highest magnification but of course you lose the 35 and wider field of view. All later Leica film cameras used the .72 as standard. Additionally, I have a 1.25 viewfinder magnifier which converts .72 to .94 which is very close to an M3. I use the 1.25 magnifier for super fast 50's on my MP240.

And honestly so many parts are interchangeable saying M3 is higher quality is a hard argument to make.

 

[madNbad]

The M2-R is the M2 with the updated loading system. They were originally made for a military contract that was canceled. You may want to look at the M4. It has the .72 finder like the M2 plus a few changes to speed loading and rewinding.

 

[ktmrider]

Yes, an M4 is also a possibility. As I stated earlier, I have owned the M4, M4/2 and M4P back when they were new. I like the more modern film loading /unloading of the M4 over the standard M2.

As I said, I am trying to figure out what I am missing (if anything) about the M3 since it has a legion of fans. Of course, the M2 may have just as many fans, including me.

Just for fun, I think I will throw this out. One of my old friends freelances for among other things, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. He has put together a camera kit for after the apocalypse and it consists of two M2's, rapid winders and 35/50/90 lenses and a couple hundred rolls of TriX. I think that says it all.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

KTM, I've used Leica M for decades and never personally bonded with the M3. My eye favours the 35mm lens. At the same time, i feel the advantage of the M2/M4 when using the 50mm lens is the context you see in the viewfinder as you can see the action outside the 50mm frameline. Although i used them, i found the multiple viewfinders of the M4-P,
M6,MP to be overly busy. My first Leica was the M2, although these days i'm using a '68 black paint M4. I'm sure DAG could retrofit the M2R loading system into an M2 for you.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Theoretically the M3 has the best rangefinder and the best 50mm viewfinder, but in practice the M2 is as good and has the advantage of a built in 35mm finder.

The M3 was more expensive than the M2, so most people back in the 1960's bought an M2. Therefore Leitz stopped the production of the M3 and went on with the M2 under the name M4.

It is impossible to say which camera was the best, the mechanical and optical quality of these cameras is the same.

Erik.

 

[Rob-F]

My latest film camera is an M5 from Sherry and I truly believe it may be the best shooter if you want a metered M.

I am wondering if I am missing something since I have not shot an M3 since 1977, especially using a 50.

I know we each have favorite film bodies but what am I not seeing about the M3?

I'm inclined to agree about the M5 being the best, at least for excellent 35, 50, and 90mm framelines plus metering.

What are you missing about the M3? Metering, and a 35mm frameline.

 

[David Hughes]

...It is impossible to say wich camera was the best, the mechanical and optical quality of these cameras is the same.

Erik.

Exactly. Build quality can only affect how long the camera will last and so, if you get a good one (not badly worn), and look after it then it will probably outlast you. Whether or not film will still be made then is another question that might be more important than build quality worries.


Regards, David

 

[rolfe]

FWIW, DAG can fit the M4/M6 quick loading to an M3. He can also update the sync connectors, if that matters to you.

Rolfe

 

[Ko.Fe.]

With such list of owned M you are still asking? 🙂.

Now, after using of F2 and Nikkormat for couple of weeks on big city streets, I'm emotionally ready and physically fit for M5. Oh, wait, it has VF ocular just as Bessa, too far from the edge. At least for my facial features. 😀

M3 is strictly 50mm camera just like my FED-2, but with additional 90mm frames somewhat usable. The whole goggle thing didn't fascinated me, while I owned goggled Summaron. Dis-balancing camera bulk.

I have sold very unique to me M3 ELC DS due to lack of use. For some young Nikon SLR user who wanted M3.

I had FG-20 with 50E, it was just the same as M3 in use. Just less prestigious and more convenient.

All is needed for 50mm is close or 1:1 view. My 90 CAD SBOOI has it. 😎

 

[waterlenz]

That the M3 works better for longer lens, 50mm and longer, is obvious due to the viewfinder. However, keep in mind the M3 rangefinder operates to 1m like the screw mount Leicas. So the M3 works better with older lenses that focus to 1m or greater. E.g. older 50mm lenses (newer 50s focus to 0.7m).
If one has one of the RF lenses (so called goggled lenses that were built for the M3), then the M3 is also a good camera to have.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Maybe try an M4 with the framelines that you don't want, removed. It can be done during a CLA.
Phil Forrest

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Maybe try an M4 with the framelines that you don't want, removed. It can be done during a CLA.
Phil Forrest

According to DAG.... the 135 can't be removed....

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Youxin removed mine in my M4-P which has a nearly identical viewfinder.
Phil Forrest

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Phil... Don had my M4 in for an overhaul & to adapt the Leicavit.... that's what he told me. would have loved to revert to the M-2 (35/50/90) style view.

 

[santino]

I get the impression that there is No love for the M3 here .... but thats ok, it keeps the price low 😉
It is not a camera for wide angle lenses but I am able to use 135mm lenses without bigger issues (the 135 frames are as big as the M6’s 90 framelibes with standard magnification).

Get the M2/M4 - no need to „justify“ the purchase of an M3.

 

[Rob-F]

That the M3 works better for longer lens, 50mm and longer, is obvious due to the viewfinder. However, keep in mind the M3 rangefinder operates to 1m like the screw mount Leicas. So the M3 works better with older lenses that focus to 1m or greater. E.g. older 50mm lenses (newer 50s focus to 0.7m).
If one has one of the RF lenses (so called goggled lenses that were built for the M3), then the M3 is also a good camera to have.

The M3 can be adjusted to track all the way to 0.7 meter by bending the limit stop. It's an easy adjustment, if you are comfortable with doing it.