suggest me for the 2nd body pls.

T

tummeng

Newbie
Local time
9:23 PM
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
3
Hi all,

I am deciding to buy a 2nd body.
I use M2 with 50mm and 90mm.
I am choosing between M3 M4p or another M2.
(M4 and M6 is too expensive for me.)

could anyone suggest me which one I should go for?
I use 50 all the timem some times 90 and plan to buy 35mm in the future.
I know that M3 is the best for 50mm but I wear glass .
the problem is I can not see entirely 50 frame line.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I would suggest an M4 or M5, as these both suit a 35 well and still cope with a 90 without trouble, have the better design of viewfinder (less prone to flare) and were designed and built with the philosophy that allowed the trained service-person to adjust the camera to perfection, rather than 'simply' replacing parts to bring it back to specification, as with later Ms. The down side to cameras of that age (more than 30 years old) is that you will almost certainly need to plan for a proper servicing of any camera you buy.

Edited to add: Oh, and welcome to the forum!
 
Last edited:
I suggest M4p if metering is not a concern for you. M4p is best user camera, and their price on market now quite low.
 
Do you really need help? If the M3 doesn't suit you, take a second M2, or a M4P if you prefer the look or the feeling. It's a very subjective matter.

Btw, Welcome to RFF :)
 
Get an M5. If I am to state the objective, authoritative opinion on this, they're simply the best.
 
I know that M3 is the best for 50mm but I wear glass .
the problem is I can not see entirely 50 frame line.
Click to expand...

Really, I have not heard that before. I wear glasses and love my M3. That said, if not the M3, why a second body? The others in essence are just the same as your current M2. An M2 with 35/50/90 kit seems quite nice without a second body.
 
Like Ralph said.

Or something different: get another M2.

There are many reasons to shoot two identical bodies ....

Roland.
 
Wouldn't the M3 be better for the 50 and 90? And then use 35 on the M2?
And welcome to RFF!
Rob
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Look at an M3 Single Stroke before passing over the M3 line. It has better eye-relief than the Double Stroke version. I can see to 50 frame with my very thick glasses.
Click to expand...

thanks for this notion.
Because couple days ago I tried an m3 double stroke version.
I'll look for the single stroke one.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Look at an M3 Single Stroke before passing over the M3 line. It has better eye-relief than the Double Stroke version. I can see to 50 frame with my very thick glasses.
Click to expand...

Brian, I'm not doubting you but why would this be? I've always heard the M3 VFs are all the same.
 
rover said:
Really, I have not heard that before. I wear glasses and love my M3. That said, if not the M3, why a second body? The others in essence are just the same as your current M2. An M2 with 35/50/90 kit seems quite nice without a second body.
Click to expand...

well said.... have a go at a M3, you won't regret it.
 
I'm with Gabriel here - are you sure you can't see the 50 framelines in the M3? If you can't see those, I think you're going to have a lot of trouble seeing the 35mm framelines in your M2 when the time comes to buy a 35. The 50 framelines in the M3 are hardly out to the corners.

Very hard to recommend any second body to you given that issue.
 
I don't know why I can see only 3 lines of the 50 frame line on m3 and 35 on m2...
Is there anything wrong with my eyes ?
 
Last edited:
I take it that you want a second body so that you can have different kinds of film in two bodies or, less likely, so that you can have different lenses mounted. If you are on good terms with your M2, I'd say that another of the same makes sense. Both will take care of the focal lengths you use and plan to use, and you will not have to re-adjust when switching between bodies.
 
tummeng said:
I don't know why I can see only 3 lines of the 50 frame line on m3 and 35 on m2...
Click to expand...
I sympathize with that, because I can only just barely see the whole 35 frame in my M2 without glasses. Given this extra difficulty with glasses, you might find it better to get a later Leica with the .58x finder magnification. Worth mentioning maybe, the Konica Hexar RF and Minolta CLE both have .60x finders that make even 28mm frames easy to see. Also, the new Zeiss Ikon body has a very large finder with a wide field and plenty of eye-relief so that the 28m frame is easy to see even with the .74x magnification. Something to consider, and please forgive these non-Leica suggestions. :)
 
I'd go with the M4-P, with all the needed framelines. The last I bought (about 2 yrs ago) I paid $700, then I saw a pristine one with the box and papers for $675. At that price I should have picked it up for a backup and could kick myself.

However, at the time I had two pristine late model M6s. I think the M4-P is well under-appreciated.
 
I found that once I got into rf shooting I wanted to use wide angle lenses. I think a great 2nd body would be the CV RM4-M (or the A if that's important) as it has built in 21/25/28/35/50 framelines. While you are duplicating two framelines, the 35 & 50, you are also eliminating the need for 3 external viewfinders. Again, if you want to shoot with wa lenses this would be an excellent combination.

Best regards,

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom