JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
The endless circle continues... 
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.
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.
Last edited:
rolfe
Well-known
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...
So, that really isn't an issue...
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
RF newbie
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!
I just fell for the IIIf with Summicron. Prices have never been better for buying Leica gear.
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.
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
Perk11350
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.
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
Well-known
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
Well-known
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
larger than 35mm
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.
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.
Last edited:
tomasis
Well-known
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
Funny that m3 is older than both my parents. If I buy a leica standard so this might compete with grand-parents age wise