M3 or M2 with wideangle (25mm) lenses info please (newbie)

[horosu]

Hello,

I am a Nikon user very much tempted by the rangefinder principle. I would love their smaller size and possibility to shoot at smaller speeds. I shoot mainly landscapes while traveling and informal portraits of my loved ones.

I am tempted by a M3 or M2 in good user condition. However, there are some things holding me back. While I could live without the inbuilt meter by using a handheld one, I am a bit concerned of their handling with wideangle lenses (I have my eye on the 25mm ZM).

You need an external finder, I have read, however which of these cameras would fit best with the 25 mm and a 50 mm lens?

Thanks for any info, Horea

 

[jaapv]

Any of the two, the 50 mm focusses fine on either. If you plan to buy a 90 mm later on you'll need the M3, if the 35 will be your next stop, the M2 is a bit more practical, although I have no problem using a goggled lens.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

As Jaap said, both cameras would work with the 50mm, although the M3 is particularly well suited for the 50mm.

If 25mm is the only other lens you intend to pair with the 50mm, I'd get the M3, which I personally prefer as a better made camera. Then work with a 25mm viewfinder.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

I know this is nitpicking, but I really prefer the fully-functioning frame counter of the M3 over the M2's adjustable one. Moreover, the M3 has one of the best built-in viewfinders around. Really opens things up, extremely clear and bright.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

The M3 has built in frame lines for 50mm to 135mm, M2 has 35mm framelines as well. Using anything wider means you'll need to buy an external finder for accurate framing.

Todd

 

[RML]

The Voigtlander 25/4 comes with its own auxilliary viewfinder, and that works well. I've shot extensively for years with the CV 25/4 on a Bessa R and I got used to the auxilliary VF very quickly.

 

[horosu]

Thanks for all the informative replies. Is focusing easier with the M3 (even with a wideangle lens)?

 

[jaapv]

Slightly, the viewfinder of the M3 is configured to show 50 mm, the M2 35 mm, making the measuring base slightly shorter. However, the M2 will, in practice, give as good results as the M3. On a 25 mm the question is moot anyway, in a lot of cases you can scale focus that one. I would advise you to look at both cameras and buy the one you like most. Forget about technical considerations.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Thanks for all the informative replies. Is focusing easier with the M3 (even with a wideangle lens)?

In the sense that the magnification factor is higher on the M3, yes, it will be marginally easier to focus with the M3. But the M2 is a fine camera too, so you won't have any trouble focusing with it either.

 

[horosu]

Thanks for all the nice replies.

Just one more thing: I read somewhere that the M3 and M2 are considered by some the best made Leicas, that their reliability was exemplary. OTOH, the same reviewer opinionated that the same cannot be said of the M6. Is that true? When I weigh in the fact that the M3/M2 needs a proper CLA and an external meter, the price difference is not that much anymore, so a M6 would also fit, provided it works.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

who is this 'reviewer' ? 🙂

That has not been my experience. The M6 classic and M6TTL are as high in quality as the M3. These cameras from M2, M3, M4 to M6 are all time-proven cameras. You will not go wrong in choosing any of them.

 

[vrgard]

Thanks for all the nice replies.

Just one more thing: I read somewhere that the M3 and M2 are considered by some the best made Leicas, that their reliability was exemplary. OTOH, the same reviewer opinionated that the same cannot be said of the M6. Is that true? When I weigh in the fact that the M3/M2 needs a proper CLA and an external meter, the price difference is not that much anymore, so a M6 would also fit, provided it works.

I have both an M3 and an M6. Both are beautifully made cameras. My personal opinion (and nothing more - everyone is entitled to their own opinion) is that those who say the M6 is inferior to the M3 are worrying about things that are beyond anything I'm likely to be concerned about. If you're good without a built-in meter (e.g., using the Sunny 16 rule or a handheld meter) and don't mind possibly having to get the camera CLA'd then the M3 is a great choice, particularly with its larger viewfinder. If you would prefer to have a built in meter and/or want the versatility of multiple framelines for different lenses then the M6 may be preferrable. Bottom line is you can't really go wrong with either one.

 

[horosu]

I think it was Roy Moss in a issue of Viewfinder magazine who made that assertion: http://www.jimarnold.org/downloads/leica/Leica_M2_Finest_M_Leica.pdf

 

[Dougg]

Depending on age and usage, an M6 may well be due for CLA also. For fine machinery like the Leicas, a CLA every few years is good preventative maintenance. The 25mm Biogon ZM should focus equally well on any Leica M, and focusing by guess guided by the DoF scale on the lens is satisfactory too though more critical at wide apertures and closer distances. By all reports this is a lovely lens. If you're more interested in a 90mm than 35mm focal length, then the M3 would have a bit of an advantage, or an M6TTL with 0.85x finder. If you develop an interest in 75mm, then none of the earlier M models have matching framelines.

 

[phototone]

Thanks for all the nice replies.

Just one more thing: I read somewhere that the M3 and M2 are considered by some the best made Leicas, that their reliability was exemplary. OTOH, the same reviewer opinionated that the same cannot be said of the M6. Is that true? When I weigh in the fact that the M3/M2 needs a proper CLA and an external meter, the price difference is not that much anymore, so a M6 would also fit, provided it works.

While there are some manufacturing economies utilized in later model Leicas, such as the various M6 models, that should not translate to inferior durability in the least. Leica's are very well made cameras, regardless of model. You cannot purchase a better built 35mm rangefinder camera. As an example, the standard way of machining metal parts these days is computer-controlled milling centers, where in the past it was manually controlled lathes. Does the modern method make for inferior quality? Absolutely not, and can actually yield a better conformance to specifications and less deviation between parts.

 

[Josburke]

I can't claim to be an expert in any way regarding Leica's but I had an M3, sold it, now have an M2 (long story). I prefer the "particular" M2 I now have over the M3 I had---smoother operation---silky smooth---It had a recent CLA and has an M4(I think) take up spool! So my preference is only in the fact that one was in better operational condition-----I did prefer the M3 counter over the M2 but that is nothing but adaptation---either way the M3 or M2 are first rate 35 mm cameras and you'll be well pleased with either but a serviced camera does make for a smoother camera but that again depends on who does the CLa/tweaking doesn't it!

 

[ghost]

for a 25/50 pair, the m3 is ideal. get the m2 if you also want to use a 35mm lens.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[FrankS]

Going in another direction here, I have found that the combination of a Leica CL with the CV 25mm lens and ext. viewfinder, is a sweet package that somehow works (for me) with a greater synchronicity than average.