JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
I've had myself convinced that I want/need a M3 due to the bright finder with the .9 magnification. The M3 is the only Leica I've ever held in my hand, so it's my benchmark for viewfinders. However, I don't foresee myself shooting with a 135mm lens at any point, but could get a lot of use out of the 35/50/90 lengths
so the obvious alternative is the M2 with the .72 magnifcation VF
having practically memorized the Effective Baselength Chart devised by Stephen Gandy, I see that the M3 and M2 share the same baselength (68.5mm) and differ only (for the purpose of our discuss, at least) in magnification and framelines
would I be correct in assuming that adding the 1.25X eyepiece magnifier makes the M2 into an M3, with perhaps a slightly darker VF, and framelines to suit my preferences?
who among us has experience with both models, and what are your impressions?
so the obvious alternative is the M2 with the .72 magnifcation VF
having practically memorized the Effective Baselength Chart devised by Stephen Gandy, I see that the M3 and M2 share the same baselength (68.5mm) and differ only (for the purpose of our discuss, at least) in magnification and framelines
would I be correct in assuming that adding the 1.25X eyepiece magnifier makes the M2 into an M3, with perhaps a slightly darker VF, and framelines to suit my preferences?
who among us has experience with both models, and what are your impressions?
peter_n
Veteran
would I be correct in assuming that adding the 1.25X eyepiece magnifier makes the M2 into an M3, with perhaps a slightly darker VF, and framelines to suit my preferences?
I think you would, but before you do, take a look at the 1.25mag and how far it sticks out from the back of the cam. Then if you get one and use it you can change your signature to I put my eye out!.
I think you would, but before you do, take a look at the 1.25mag and how far it sticks out from the back of the cam. Then if you get one and use it you can change your signature to I put my eye out!.
aizan
Veteran
there's a 1.35x magnifier sold at map camera. brings the view to .972x instead of .85x.
http://www.mapcamera.com/shopping/v...e=1&navi_method=maker&main_cate=F&maker=msopt
http://www.mapcamera.com/shopping/v...e=1&navi_method=maker&main_cate=F&maker=msopt
Fred
Feline Great
I use a 1.25x on my 'M' and it's much better to focus the 90mm. You need to check if it fits an M2 though, I don't know if that had the screw in thread to accomodate it. I might be wrong though (I'm pretty good at that).
peter_n
Veteran
but not cheap at ~US$150.
x-ray
Veteran
I've owned many M2 and M3 bodies and mainly shoot with the 35, 50 and 90 lenses. My personal likes are the M2 VF. I've never liked the feel of the goggles on the 35 lenses and dislike the external VF unless I have to use it on the 28 or 21. I've never found focusing the 90, even summicron wide open, a problem and what little I use the 135 the goggles on the elmarit arent that big a deal. In my view anything over 90mm is marginal on the M2. It's all a matter of personal taste and what fits my needs won't fit anothers.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
Why not get an M3 and get the 35mm lens with "eyes". It converts the 50mm framelines into 35mm FOV.
I have both the M2 and M3. I like the extra precision of the high-mag finder. When I need a wide, the Summaron 35 F2.8 with eyes is quite good. Total cost was $350 for one in near mint condition.
I have both the M2 and M3. I like the extra precision of the high-mag finder. When I need a wide, the Summaron 35 F2.8 with eyes is quite good. Total cost was $350 for one in near mint condition.
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
good point, Brian.. I guess that's what I was originally planning to do until this new 'revelation' of getting the M2 hit me.. there are so many variables to keep track of that I forget why I decided one way or another to begin with
richard_l
Well-known
I agree with Brian. I don't understand the general dislike of goggled lenses. Maybe it's because they don't look pretty enough or something, because when taking pictures I can't tell if a lens is goggled or not. The "feel of the goggles" mentioned by x-ray totally escapes me. The only time I "feel" the goggles is when I attach the lens to the camera.Brian Sweeney said:
FrankS
Registered User
Brett, the only answer is to get both an M2 and M3 like me. One for the 35mm lens and the other for the 50mm lens. Personally, I do not use 35mm very much. The 50 works best for me because I can use the narrower field of view to exclude unwanted background elements and kee[ my images cleaner/purer/more graphically organized than if I were to use a 35. I don' tlive in a beautiful European city. I need to be selective to make the kind of images I like.
(pictures soon)
(pictures soon)
Ben Z
Veteran
richard_l said:
I've tried the googled lenses and the view through the finder is distorted and much lower contrast. Not difficult to see why, there's an inch- thick prism added in front of the regular finder. They also don't fit well into the lens cubicles in my camera bag. Finally, the only lenses that came googled were the 3.5 and 2.8 Summarons, and the fist versions of the Summilux and Summicron. The latter lens is the most sought-after, and used prices are in the realm of a used ASPH. On the rare occasion I've had to use my 35 on my M3 I used a shoe-mounted finder. PITA but for me better than a googled lens.
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
Frank, I actually do have a camera for the 50mm lens.. my Kiev.. so I'm looking for something to get outside of that, with framelines.. 90mm would be handy.. something in the 35mm range would be good for 'artistic' shots.. actually, I might need to look at something even wider.. maybe a 28 or 21?
see, the more I think about it, the more confused I get.. and I can't afford both an M2 and M3, since I spend all my money on tube amps and fly fishing rods (but I've only bought 2 new rods this year)
see, the more I think about it, the more confused I get.. and I can't afford both an M2 and M3, since I spend all my money on tube amps and fly fishing rods (but I've only bought 2 new rods this year)
felipe
Established
Same problem here..I'm leaning towards an M2 as I'm already used to the 0.72 finder. In the end it boils down to which one can be had cheaper I guess..
but at the moment I'm lusting for a Riviera Sedona and an Ampeg Superjet - were it not for the Alvarez WY1, or an M2 instead? This is contageous..
good luck!
phil
but at the moment I'm lusting for a Riviera Sedona and an Ampeg Superjet - were it not for the Alvarez WY1, or an M2 instead? This is contageous..
good luck!
phil
JoeFriday said:
If you are going to go wider than 35 then I would put the M3 back on top. To get real accurate composition with a 28 or wider you really need to use an external finder so may as well start with an M3 and work from there.
richard_l
Well-known
Just get an M2 or M3 and learn to work around its limitations like everybody else does. If you're not willing to do that, then maybe a Leica rangefinder isn't the right camera for you. Actually I'm beginning to think you might be more satisfied with a fine manual SLR. For example, the Nikon FM2n is a splendid camera, and they're very inexpensive nowadays. The controls are almost the same as on a Leica M, and some of the manual focus Nikkor lenses are among the best ever made, and they are also inexpensive.
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
I cut my photographic teeth on a Minolta X-370, so I know what manual SLRs are about.. besides, I've got a Nikon D70 if I wanna go that route
I probably would be blissfully happy with either the M2 or M3.. it's just the different finder magnification that I was mulling over
I probably would be blissfully happy with either the M2 or M3.. it's just the different finder magnification that I was mulling over
FrankS
Registered User
Like Rover said, Brett, if you are going wider than 35, get the M3 and use an external finder like you would have to regardless of what camera you get. I like my M3 a bit better than my M2 (remember I mostly use 50mm) because of the finder and the exposure counter. Actually, I think the best advice is to just leave yourself open to fate. Whatever camera (M2 or 3) comes along in fine condition at the right price, go for it. Fate gives you what you need. (Like the Scott amp I'm going to send you pictures of really soon. I've been away on holiday visiting with my parents.)
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
Scott amp? what Scott amp?
yeah, I figure fate will have more of a say in the outcome than I do.. but I appreciate all the advice.. I'm sort of in a photographic no-mans land regarding camera shops.. finding a Leica to actually play with is a bit of an undertaking
yeah, I figure fate will have more of a say in the outcome than I do.. but I appreciate all the advice.. I'm sort of in a photographic no-mans land regarding camera shops.. finding a Leica to actually play with is a bit of an undertaking
Brett, it may be odd for me as a long-time M2 user to suggest this, but you might wait a couple months and consider the Zeiss-Ikon, with its big .74x viewfinder and framelines from 28mm to 85mm...
S
StuartR
Guest
As others have hinted, I think the real question you want to ask yourself is whether you want to primarily use a 50mm or a 35mm lens. I like the 35mm lenses, but I am a 50mm user overall. I am shy, I appreciate the extra reach. If you enjoy getting right up in the action, you will be happier with the 35mm lens. If you primarily want to use a 35, then get the M2. Otherwise, there is really nothing like shooting a 50mm lens on the M3 -- clear as a bell, no extra framelines, and a big contrasty rangefinder patch.