M2 M3 viewfinder brightness

[Joshua_G]

Is there a difference in the brightness of the viewfinder between M2 and M3, assuming they were produced the same year?​

​

Alternate question.​

How bright can one expect a 50 years old M viewfinder be?​

 

[laptoprob]

They can both be beautiful. Especially when treated correctly and CLA'd if necessary they are great.
Due to the different build, the M3's finder is brighter than the M2's. Never compared that personally though.

The finder magnification and thereby presence (or not...) of the 35mm framelines are the main differences between the two.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

I recently shot a roll with an M3. The viewfinder, while having a lovely magnification factor for the 50mm length, had a blueish cast and was noticeably dimmer than my M7's. Is that normal? Should it be dimmer than the M7's?

 

[murrayb53]

The M3 offers a 1:1 life size viewfinder. The M2's is smaller. This difference could make the M3 appear a bit brighter.

Steve

 

[Peter A (NYC)]

M3 finder is not 1:1 life-size. Almost, but not quite.

 

[richard_l]

My M2's finder is brighter than my M3's. It is, in fact, as clear and bright as my M6's.

Richard

 

[payasam]

In practice, both are perfectly adequate. Unless you do available light TTF (through the finder) photography, the difference is unimportant.

 

[LazyHammock]

I recently shot a roll with an M3. The viewfinder, while having a lovely magnification factor for the 50mm length, had a blueish cast and was noticeably dimmer than my M7's. Is that normal? Should it be dimmer than the M7's?

The M3 is known for more of a blue cast with a gold rangefinder. My M3 is as bright or brighter than my MP - you may need to clean your M3 rangefinder JJ.
Cheers,
Nick

 

[Joshua_G]

Okay,​

I purchased recently M2 and M3, both made on 1959. The M2 viewfinder is very bright, brighter than my Konica Hexar RF, while the M3 viewfinder is much dimmer. So I wonder if that to be expected, or my M3 finder is dying slowly?​

 

[murrayb53]

I traded away my M2 some time back, kept the M3 because of the brighter viewfinder. From what I've read so far it really does come down to the individual camera in hand.

Steve

 

[erikhaugsby]

Another thought to keep in mind is there is always the (rather large) 50 frameline showing in the M3 finder, wheras in the M2 there is only one crisp and small frameline shown at one time. For me, at least, the M3's 50 frame detracts greatly from the overall apparent brightness.

 

[Vics]

On the M3, The 50mm frameline is the widest available and is (I understand) painted onto the viewfinder itself. It's pretty prominent. I always thought that the M2 would have had the same thing for the 35mm frameline. Does it not?
here's a pretty good discussion.
http://leica.nemeng.com/002be.shtml
VS

 

[erikhaugsby]

On the M2, all three framlines act as the 90/135s in the M3; that is, they are all independent, thin, floating lines.

 

[Gerardo]

How will you know if the balsam adhesive holding the optics have dried up causing glass seperation? Does it show up as dimming or patch problems? My M3 viewfinder is as bright as my canon 7.

 

[Film dino]

M3 finder balsam separation

M3 finder balsam separation

How will you know if the balsam adhesive holding the optics have dried up causing glass seperation? Does it show up as dimming or patch problems? My M3 viewfinder is as bright as my canon 7.

Some information here- http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/page10.html

Cheers
David

 

[telenous]

I used to have an M3 alongside my M2. I had them both CLA'd in CRR, including cleaning of the viewfinder and chemical cleaning of the rangefinder patch. After having them cleaned, it was obvious the M2 had the brighter rangefinder patch. M3s have a more complicated rangefinder patch mechanism, that make them impervious to flare (which, by the way, the M2s also are) but also slightly dimer, even compared to the partially concurrent M2. Here's also a link that explains the difference in brightness:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/m3.html

See also

http://nemeng.com/leica/002be.shtml

esp. the paragraph under 'Tinted viewfinder'.

The only reason I sold the M3 was that even after the cleaning my sample had a rangefinder patch that was rather difficult to use at night.

 

[Niko]

I have M2 (1958) and M3 (1960), also had M6 (1986). Of these the M3 has the brightest rangefinder, the difference being quite visible, after visiting Solms for a CLA.

Niko

 

[Never Satisfied]

Hello, I have both a M3 and M2, sometimes the M3 can seem a little less bright because of the tighter field of view .91 compared with the M2's much wider .72. Sometimes the Canadian balsm can yellow a bit in the M3 which can make the finder appear a bit dimmer, but there's really nothing in them. If the newer M7 finder is much brighter, your M3 probably needs a CLA, IMHO that is, Andrew.