M3 vs M4 Rangefinder--Not the Cameras

[wjlapier]

I'm considering the installation of the M4 rangefinder in my M3 and was wondering how much different the view through it would be, specifically, at 135mm. The cost of the installation is considerably less than the purchase of another camera. Besides, I'd prefer to not carry another body and don't want to sell my M3 to get the 35mm framelines.

Anyone have this conversion done and have an opinion? Or does someone have a M3 and M4 and can tell me how the view through the rangefinder differs? I'm going to assume the 135 framelines are going to be smaller, but by how much? RFer patch similar size and contrast?

Thanx--

 

[jmcd]

The 135 framelines in the M4 are smaller than in the M3, but not by much to my eye. More of a difference, the M4 framelines are simply corner marks, so more subtle than those on the M3, which also have horizontal and vertical lines to emphasize the frame.

The rangefinder patch sizes look similar to me, and both are easy to use, but the M3 rangefinder has a golden cast to the floating image. The M4 has no such color cast. In use, both seem very good to me.

 

[John Elder]

There is a huge difference in the 50mm and 90mm framelines since the M3 rangefinder has a magnification of .91 and the M4 rangefinder has a magnification of .72. The frame for 50 and 90 is much larger with the M3.

 

[xayraa33]

In the old days I solved the using of a 35mm lens on my M3 problem by a use of a separate viewfinder and left the built in exquisite VF/RF of the M3 alone.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

User M2 cameras are under $500 these days. I'm not sure how much you are paying for the conversion, but do not expect to get it out of the M3 if you sell it. You are likely not going to lose much (if anything) selling a User M2.

I use the M2 for 35mm and 50mm lenses, and use the M3 for 50-90-135. The 0.92x finder provides speed and accuracy for telephoto lenses, the 0.72x finder is "pushing" it. Yes, you can focus the lenses with it, but it is slower.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

It's true. The finder on my CLA'd M3's are like Heads-up-Displays. The M2 was not getting much use until I picked up a Canon 35/2 with an M-Adapter lately (Heads-up from RFF). I've never had the desire to pick up an M4. Of course, if I stumble across one for $15- it's mine.

Some M3's, those with SN over 1M or under 800K, will always command a premium if you do not modify them. Both of mine fall into the "cheaper" range, but you could not tell by using them.

 

[wjlapier]

Before I read all the posts I decided not to do it for a couple of reasons. The main one is I really like the M3 the way it is--the way I see through the viewfinder. I've never owned other M's so I can't comment on how it compares. I usually say never say never, but I think this body is going to the grave with me. I can't see myself selling it just to have 35mm frames. It's a funny thing, but it's my first M body and I'm kinda attached to it. Sounds silly or stupid, but I really like it alot. I enjoy shooting with it, I like the way it feels in my hands, I like that it's fully manual and I especially like the way it shoots with the DR 'cron. So, it's not going to have the M4 rangefinder installed. It will stay as it is, and will continue to shoot lots more film.

But I appreciate the comments.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

That's what we're here for.

I know they are not "elegant", but they are sharp and usable: 35/2.8 Summaron with Goggles. My lens was <$400. You can also find a Summicron 35/2 with goggles but is 2x more money.

Strange how everyone "likes" 5cm f2 DR Summicrons, but people LAUGH at the wide-angle lenses with goggles. Makes them cheaper.

 

[xayraa33]

a good decision.