m comparison

[JNewell]

The endless circle continues... 😉

it seems to me that the m2 and the m3 are the most popular m cameras being used today.

I doubt that's true, by the way. Unless someone's sent a lot of other M bodies to the landfill, I'd guess that numbers favor the M6 classic/TTL. The vocal adherents of the M2 and M3 here (and btw I still own and use an M3 and an M4) are not necessarily representative of the whole user community.

 

[rolfe]

In case anybody is unaware, DAG can add the M4 style loading to an M2 or M3 for a comparatively small amount of money. He did it to my M3 and it works great.

So, that really isn't an issue...

 

[former member]

The M3 has the no-expense spared viewfinder that is optically much more complex than the M2 and all that followed. It is flare-free. The M2 was the "economy model". For fast-50s and portrait telephoto's, the finder is the best of the M's. For 35mm and wider, a simpler layout of the viewfinder optics has to suffice.

 

[dshugar]

I just bought my M4P (with 2 lenses and an MR4 meter) in excellent shape for $1250 a week or two ago, so deals are out there. I love it so far!

 

[former member]

I just fell for the IIIf with Summicron. Prices have never been better for buying Leica gear.

 

[rover]

Brian, I was thinking the opposite re the prices on Ebay of Ms. I see a lot more high starting prices than I have noticed before. Of course, the U of Michigan sold two M4s this week which both closed under $700, great buys for the winners.

 

[Doug]

Something strange about my M2... Seems I get a higher proportion of "keepers" with this camera than with other (non-Leica) M-type bodies. Weird, huh?

 

[Paul C. Perkins MD]

Dear dadsm3,

Last thing I would do is question the build quality of an M3.

I just never understood WHY the 50,90,135 frame lines in a world where 35mm rangefinder cameras were already defined as operating in a (for the most part) 35 -50 - 85/90/100 - 135 environment.

What I didn't understand about the M2 (since it came AFTER the M3) was the non-resetting frame counter. The primitive re-wind was just part of the Leica M-series experience up to that time. . .

I have a black paint M-2 and my father's M-4 (1968). I use the M2 more than the M4 - and that is probably more a function of familiarity than design. The M4 has the self-resetting frame counter and the (allegedly) easier film loading. I say "allegedly" because I've had more trouble reliably getting my M4 into action than either my M2 or (in order) my IIIc!

Paul






Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Perkins, MD
M4 = Apex of the classic built M-cameras
M2 = Next
M3 = Why?



Why? M3's were the flagship model and priced so. M2's were considerably cheaper. They're not identical cameras in more than just the viewfinder mag.

 

[Ororaro]

M3 is simply the King. I've come to hate Elvis but I can't deny he's the king and always will be. Same for M3.

 

[tomasis]

good observation hehe. I'm simply hesitate that MP vf can compete against M3 vf. I'd love to have a second body m3 😉

 

[kalokeri]

If you don´t wear glasses and don´t hate goggles for your 35mm lens the M3 is a great camera. If you wear glasses and like to see 35mm framelines in the viewfinder without goggles on the lens you might prefer a M2.

M2 and M3 are not cheaper than M4-2 or M4-P but at least 15-20 years older.

Thomas

P.S.: M2 for me because the one I have was build the year I was born.

 

[tomasis]

I'm concerned that it might be too close to look at space around corners of M3 vf if I add 1,1x magnifier to get vf about 1,0x like rd1. I'm wearing glasses btw.

Funny that m3 is older than both my parents. If I buy a leica standard so this might compete with grand-parents age wise 🙂