M3 Loading System

The chief advantage the M3 offered over the screw mounts was that no long leader was needed and you could actually see if the film's perforations were in the right place. Getting the leader under the spring on the spool can be fiddly, which is where spare spools come in. Although I spent 17 happy years with an M3, I'll agree with ManGo about the M2's being better. With practice, you should be able to rewind and reload in under five minutes: but if you have Frank's sort of luck, that's too slow.
 
payasamI'll agree with ManGo about the M2's being better. .[/QUOTE said:
Interested in your experiences M2 vs. M3.

Better build quality => M3
Better, brighter finder => M3
Better for <= 35 lens => M2


Thanks for sharing.
Every time I am shooting 50, 90 I grab the M3 over M6, MP (.72).

Andreas
Click to expand...
 
Andreas, although the M2 was introduced as a marginally less expensive sibling to the M3, I don't think you can say that they differed in build quality. It is true that the finder of the M3 is unique in the entire M series: but it is more complex and is prone to blacking out (though only after many years). I do not see the M2's manually set frame counter as any kind of handicap. Where that model wins is in having built-in 35mm frame lines. This, I believe, was a demand of press photographers which Leitz met. The "bespectacled" Summarons made for the M3 worked, but they added complexity and risk of damage. There are those who speak of the advantage of being able to keep both eyes open when using an M3, since its finder magnification is close to life size; but for me this was neither here nor there. With its uncluttered finder, the M2 is more of a pure picture taking tool. The missing 135mm frame lines are no major disadvantage, since relatively few RF users like that focal length anyway. Besides, some lenses of that focal length were also made with magnifying "goggles". So, while the M3 was the acme of the camera maker's craft, which many hold to be still unsurpassed, the M2 was more the lean and mean kind of beast.
 
payasam said:
Andreas, although the M2 was introduced as a marginally less expensive sibling to the M3, I don't think you can say that they differed in build quality. It is true that the finder of the M3 is unique in the entire M series: but it is more complex and is prone to blacking out (though only after many years). I do not see the M2's manually set frame counter as any kind of handicap. Where that model wins is in having built-in 35mm frame lines. This, I believe, was a demand of press photographers which Leitz met. The "bespectacled" Summarons made for the M3 worked, but they added complexity and risk of damage. There are those who speak of the advantage of being able to keep both eyes open when using an M3, since its finder magnification is close to life size; but for me this was neither here nor there. With its uncluttered finder, the M2 is more of a pure picture taking tool. The missing 135mm frame lines are no major disadvantage, since relatively few RF users like that focal length anyway. Besides, some lenses of that focal length were also made with magnifying "goggles". So, while the M3 was the acme of the camera maker's craft, which many hold to be still unsurpassed, the M2 was more the lean and mean kind of beast.
Click to expand...

Payasam,

thank you for providing the info. Agree with you on all points.
If I would not use other Leicas and be a fan of 50s, the M2 would be higher on my list. In my hands, 135 is a pretty useless focal length; I don't even use a 90 on anything but the M3.

Although a German family relative (who worked for Leica for 30+ years) said they cut quite a few corners moving from the M3 to the M2, for my non-engineer eye it is hard to see the difference. 😉

I had heard about the finder issue, but have not actually met one who had the problem with the M3. 😀

Thank you for your informative reply,
Andreas
 
Thanks, Andreas. What I gave you was mainly my own opinions and a few odds and ends picked up along the way. In an earlier post you said you reached for the M3 when using a 50 or a 90, but now you say the M2 is better for 50. I must disagree. The sole advantage the M2 offers over the M3 is 35mm frame lines (which make it good for 35, not for <=35, if I may pick a nit). For 50mm and 90mm I'd say the M3 is better on account of its greater finder magnification (you agree with this where the 90 is concerned.) When I got my M3, a 35/3.5 Summaron was among the lenses which came with it. At first I thought the accompanying accessory finder (SBLOO) would be a handicap: but in a week or two, using it became second nature.

Other than the finder and the frame counter (and the absent self-timer in early models), I doubt that any cutting of corners was involved in the making of the M2: but then I'm no engineer either. Offhand, I'd say that the M2 is probably the winner in terms of longevity. The brass gears which give the double stroke M3 its silken feel are liable to failure; and, as I said earlier, its finder can black out. Believe me, it can: I have seen two examples. Almost made me cry.
 
payasam said:
In an earlier post you said you reached for the M3 when using a 50 or a 90, but now you say the M2 is better for 50. I must disagree.
Click to expand...

We are not disagreeing, because that is not what I said about the M2. This is what I said:" If I would not use other Leicas and be a fan of 50s, the M2 would be higher on my list."

Probably not a very eloquent way to express my thoughts... But what it means is that if my standard lens would not be a 50 but a 35, then the M2 would be my choice over the M3. But since I like the 50 as my standard, I reach for my M3 more often then the M6 or MP.

Love to agree,
Andreas

😀
 
Ah, I see now that the "not" applied to both parts of your sentence. Damn language, turning agreement into disagreement. Surely there's something we can disagree over? How about plastic-tipped versus plain metal advance levers?
 
Just got my M3 today, loaded a roll with no problems. Of course having a IIIf for 6 years helped a bit. I like that I don't have to trim the leader with this camera. The viewfinder is gorgeous. It advances so smooth and it's pretty quiet. I love my new toy. It's the last Leica I'll buy for a while.
 
The quick loader does not even need the commercial short leader. A 45 degree cut will do.

Why were you in the dark Joe?

And the M4 or M2 (with QL) are easy in the dark there is no risk of a finger in the shutter blind syndrome. You do need small fingers to detect the orientation of the QL spool.

Noel
 
M3 Loading

M3 Loading

Loading the M3 is no problem at all once you get the hang of it. It is actually easier than the M4 and later in terms of actually seeing the sprocket holes engage and the take up spool will NEVER let the film slip out if you feed it under the perforated arrow on the clip. If you put the camera bottom in your pocket (or even hold it in your mouth!) you can even change film on the run -- well maybe actually on a fast walk. I've done it many times. Good luck.
 
Buy a second take-up reel and pre-thread the next roll of film. Leave that in the case, ready to drop in.

I have an M3 with the quick-load, and find the M2 and regular M3 faster to load using the pre-threaded spool system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
Who invented the Leica M3 and IIIg? Two great men at Leitz Wetzlar! Both projects were team efforts led by innovative engineering geniuses.
Replies
13
Views
606
Ljós
L
J
  • Article Article
What exactly is a point & shoot camera? Glad you asked!The Kodak of 1888 may have been the first, and even Leica got into the act!
Replies
17
Views
1K
Mos6502
Mos6502
O
DAG FrankenLeica M2R
Replies
7
Views
1K
OliverHardinge
O
J
  • Article Article
What Were They Thinking? A compendium of camera design blunders and omissions
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
7K
chuckroast
C
J
  • Article Article
What's happening with Photographic Film in 2025? Is this robust niche still growing?
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
8K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
Back
Top Bottom