M3?????

[ZdenekP]

Hello,
I am new on this forum. ... so one starter question.

I would like to know if it is worthwhile in these days of moderm Leicas to buy an M3. Can be this camera still factory serviced?

Thanks,

Zdenek

 

[Kim Coxon]

Hi,
Welcome to the forum. Many people still consider the M3 to be one of the best cameras that Leica produced. This is especially true if you like to use 50mm or longer lenses. If 35mm is more of a favourite, you might want to consider the M2 or M4. I am not sure if it can be factory serviced but I suspect so. However, there are some very, very good Leica trained technician's who carry out a very good service such as CRR in the UK and Sherry Krauter in the US.

Kim

 

[jaapv]

Yes it can be factory serviced.

 

[wyk_penguin]

This question of what is worthwhile is tricky. I mean who buys manual focus film cameras these days? Not to mention RFs.

 

[Silva Lining]

Its very worthwhile, I use one as an everyday shooter. Nothing to stop you putting modern M lenses on it either (except maybe finances of course 😀 )

 

[Uncle Bill]

Leica M3 is one of those classic cameras you put at the top of the heap as the Nikon F and the Rolleiflex. I use my Leica M3 and as the above posts mentioned, nothing stopping you from getting modern lenses. I even use a 35mm lens with accessory viewfinder. Get one while they are cheap.

Bill

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

This question of what is worthwhile is tricky. I mean who buys manual focus film cameras these days? Not to mention RFs.

I do and will continue to do so.

Welcome to RFF Zedenek 🙂

 

[Ben Z]

I bought an M3 a while back because I always wanted one, it being the quintessential M body, steeped in history and all that. Got me a dandy one too, late #, just serviced by DAG, not too shabby looking either. First thing I realized (and should've thought of before of course) was that using a 35mm lens is a huge pain, and that's a much-used focal length for me. So I resigned myself to just using the rigid chrome 50 on it. But then I discovered that because I wear glasses, I can't see far enough outside the framelines to compose accurately at farther distances. So I ended up selling it. The M4 is still my favorite Leica of all time.

 

[JoeFriday]

when I joined RFF, I was confounded by the 'old school' mentality of the people who touted the M3 as the best affordable camera in the RF world.. why would anyone want a meterless camera? I initially thought an M6 was the best way to go, but wanted to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each model in the M-series.. a year later, I bought an M3, mostly because of the outstanding viewfinder and classic look.. not to mention the proven reliability

you don't need 'factory service' for an M-body.. there are several camera techies who will do a better job than the Leica factory

lately, I've started to think about looking for a nice M6.. but I'm not sure I could give up my M3.. and I am the first to admit that using a meterless camera has made me a much better photographer.. instead of relying on a camera's metering system, I had to learn how to use a handheld meter, and thus how to properly meter a situation.. since buying my M3, I'm now fairly confident to use slide film without a meter at all because I've learned how to visually judge the lighting.. I never would have learned that otherwise

 

[gustav[] pEña]

using a meterless camera has made me a much better photographer also. It force you to understand ligth. I find myself shooting without exposure meter more often couse now I understand how the light behave in differents situations.



gustav[] pEña

 

[ZdenekP]

Thank you all for your answers. My question is not accidental. I know about an M3 in nearly mint condition, equipped with 50 'cron, which is for sale. It's a real beauty. But I am not sure if the price 980 USD (converted from local currency) is not too high. Despite of some of you encourage to use a meterless camera I am somewhat afraid of that as I am a below-average photographer at best.
Zdenek

 

[MinorTones]

I dont know how much this helps you but...I love my M6 .85. I can use a 35mm if I want, although the VF lines are kind of difficult to use. The 50 is great on that camera. It has ttl meter which is a big plus IMO.

I learned how to use a handheld meter in school, and using an incedent meter is pretty much foolproof so If you want to carry one around for those situations where it may be warranted. I dont think using a meterless camera will makes us a better photographers, I think it slows me down more than anything. My Fed-2 is a slow camera for me to use, it's fun but I like to have a meter to back up my guesses at exposures.

For me getting a Leica with a meter was important. Whats important to you?

-Mitch

 

[David Murphy]

OK, here's my two cents: I've owned and used a lot of cameras, but I've never owned an M3. A couple of months ago I was handed one by my camera tech when I was visiting his shop. He was selling it for another customer with a Summicron and a Leica Meter (the meter fits on top of the camera and is coupled to the shutter speed dial). It was excellent cosmetically and he had just gone over it all to make sure it was rock solid inside.

It was a defining moment! This thing really ROCKS ! This camera must have looked like something from another planet when it came out in 1954 -- it projects an aura of technical superiority even today !

My immediate impulse was to drive home and post about half my cameras on eBay to pay for it -- and then, somehow, a little better sense crept into my brain and I let it go. (he wanted just shy of $800 for it, which was certainly reasonable)

One thing is for sure, if you like mechanical cameras, your gonna love the M3. I still want one, and may yet get one, but budget-wise I'm not quite there yet ! 🙂

 

[wlewisiii]

I guess I just am going to have to post after all...

I have not owned and M3, but I have handled Brett's and one in a local store. While it is nice camera - well made and with a very fine finder, I do not find myself wishing for/lusting for one. I can understand why people want one - it is as nice a camera as has ever been made. However, there are, to my minds eye, other cameras that are as nicely made, with nearly as fine a VF & and are a heck of a lot cheaper. If you don't have an investment in M mount glass, a Canon 7 or 7s will give you a camera that is as well made, has several advantages (swing open back, accurate built in meter), nearly as good a VF and, in the case of the original 7, only one significant disadvantage - the lack of a built in shoe.

I am not telling anyone who wants one that they should not buy a M3 - but I am saying that anyone on the fence should carefully discern just what they really want and need. And never forget that what you want is often very different from what you need... 😱

William

 

[David Murphy]

William: I spoke those words as the owner of a Canon 7, which is, as you say, easier to use. The Canon 7 is also a much later beast than the M3 historically. There is also no question in my mind that the M3 has a superior built quality though -- I feel this is evident simply from the metal finish and machining quality to anyone with metal working or machine design experience. The mechanisms are smoother and more sure to the touch. The Canon has more of a feel of a mass marketed camera, high volume product, which it was. The meter on my Canon 7 works, and is interesing to play with, but not particluarly accurate.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Canon 7 *is* a helluva a nice camera to use and is recommendable. Canon 7 and 7s prices also seem to be inching up towards M3 prices though now, which makes this comparison certainly a relevant one.

My main point about the M3 is that it was so remarkably advanced for its time (1954), so much so as to still be a contender to this day as a user camera.

Incidentally I've also handled a Leica M4, and it beats the tar off a Bessa R for viewfinder quality. Leica M's may not be for everyone, but their owners get their hard-earned moneys worth in my view.

I guess I just am going to have to post after all...

I have not owned and M3, but I have handled Brett's and one in a local store. While it is nice camera - well made and with a very fine finder, I do not find myself wishing for/lusting for one. I can understand why people want one - it is as nice a camera as has ever been made. However, there are, to my minds eye, other cameras that are as nicely made, with nearly as fine a VF & and are a heck of a lot cheaper. If you don't have an investment in M mount glass, a Canon 7 or 7s will give you a camera that is as well made, has several advantages (swing open back, accurate built in meter), nearly as good a VF and, in the case of the original 7, only one significant disadvantage - the lack of a built in shoe.

I am not telling anyone who wants one that they should not buy a M3 - but I am saying that anyone on the fence should carefully discern just what they really want and need. And never forget that what you want is often very different from what you need... 😱

William

 

[rover]

A great man once said, "There are only 2 types of people in the world, those who need an M3, and those who do not yet know they need an M3." (We miss you Brian)

$980, $800 for an M3 with a lens, working, in good condition...... If I came across those two deals I would now own 3 M3s (not really, I couldn't afford both/either without selling stuff, but you get my point).

Now William is correct, there are a lot of wonderful cameras out there, the Canon 7 being one. I also have a Canon VT and P which are more contemporary to the M3, and yes they are very well made. As well made as the M3, I have no idea really, but if someone told you all three were made by the same craftsman without telling you what the cameras were it would be easy to believe his story.

None the less, the M3 is part of photographic legend, among a short list of the best/most important cameras ever built. You need an M3.

 

[terrafirmanada]

I think the merits forementioned about metering are true, although I have not mastered it yet.
I did get an M3, and now I also have an M2 as well. I have found that I keep wanting wider and wider lenses. I am now primarily using a 28 on the M2 as my daily shooter. When I shoot the M3 I often use a 40mm lense. This leaves me doing more approximating than a novice like me probably should. (Widest framelines are 35mm and 50mm for the M2 and M3 respectively).
The point is, consider what focal length you most enjoy now (28 is also my favorite on my Canon F1), and let that help you decide. If you shoot alot of 50mm photos, then get the M3. 980 is a good price, not the best bargain ever- but remember the bird in the hand saying...
I am now thinking about getting an M6 for the 28mm framelines, but no regrets. I am a beginner, and am learning along the way. No better cameras to teach you imho.

 

[dll927]

To me one of the interesting points here is the viewfinder frame question. I have an M4-2 that I bought new in 1983. I've never had an M-3, and I understand they had a somewhat larger viewfinder than later models.

At the time I bought my M4-2 the M4-P was already out, and it had frames for 28mm and 70mm. Since I already owned SLRs, I opted for the M4-2 without those frames. Along with the original 50mm (f/2 Summicron), I later got 35mm f/2 and 90mm f/2.8 lenses. Those were all I ever wanted, and I'm satisfied with them.

Now that the newer M's are available with the three different finder magnifications, I see different discussions about the merits of the various finders. Mine, of course, has the "standard" .72 magnification, since the others came out a good bit later. Also, since I wear glasses, I'm among that crowd that has a bit of a problem with ANY camera. But you learn to live with it.