efix
RF user by conviction
Bessa -- good cameras for sure, but again short rf baselenght could lead to focus errors, no? Also, I'd much prefer a Leica
Ikon -- makes my mouth wet, but faaar out of my budget, sadly.
As concerns metering -- I wouldn't be using it without a meter, I would get an external one as I'm not yet confident enough to judge exposure time by simply looking at the light. Although I have sufficient experience with manual operation on the M8 now that I think I'd be happy with a meterless M + external meter.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
M2.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
errorlogin
Love vintage Hifi, too!
M2 and M3 is all you need! Go for the M2, you won't regret it. But you should consider spending some money for a complete overhaul.
The M3/M2's are more than 40 years old. All the old glue inside needs to be removed and all new adjusted for really proper working.
But then: they are the best for me!
The M3/M2's are more than 40 years old. All the old glue inside needs to be removed and all new adjusted for really proper working.
But then: they are the best for me!
B.S.
Member
CL and CLE will NOT support all M mount lenses. For example, I have a Nokton 50mm 1.1 lens which, yes, is kind of ridiculously sized for a 50, and it covers up the majority of the RF patch on my CL, which makes it incredibly difficult to focus, I have to go by feel much of the time.
But if you were to go with the CL and a small 35mm or 50mm lens (or even the 40, and keep in mind there are no 35mm framelines) then you'll be hard pressed to find a more compact and discreet rangefinder of comparable quality (aside from CLE, of course).
As a CL owner, I'd say go with the M2, M3 or M4. Point being, go full sized M.
But if you were to go with the CL and a small 35mm or 50mm lens (or even the 40, and keep in mind there are no 35mm framelines) then you'll be hard pressed to find a more compact and discreet rangefinder of comparable quality (aside from CLE, of course).
As a CL owner, I'd say go with the M2, M3 or M4. Point being, go full sized M.
efix
RF user by conviction
Thanks for your opinion, B.S. I'm quite torn between M2 and CL, to be honest. I'd prefer the compactness of the CL (which I'd be using with a 50/2 Planar ZM), but the M2 seems to be sturdier and more reliable overall. Tough decision ... but at least the CLE is ruled out now, as I don't want a camera that can't be serviced in a few years from now ...
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Don't forget the M5 (above serial number 125000). Ya, it's not a nifty odd to load M2, but t does have an awesome meter and can handle all the lenses you need. It's generally not that expensive and really is better then the Canadian M4's.
Plus the M5 would kick ahem and take no prisoners.
or go for the CLE, its another awesome camera.
Plus the M5 would kick ahem and take no prisoners.
or go for the CLE, its another awesome camera.
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
What is this "classic look of M2" ?
Apart from the angled rewind button, what's different or "not-classic" about M4-[whatever] bodies?
Just curious
Beemermark
Veteran
M2. The Cl was a very unreliable camera from day 1. Meters rarely work. The CLe is vastly improved over the CL, however meter does not work in manual omly AE. If your not going to use AE then don't buy it. Now your choice is 3 meterless cameras, the M2 is the best of the 3.
StillKicking
Established
Sums it up for me.. I love my M3 so much that I bought a 2nd one to keep it company.
efix
RF user by conviction
What is this "classic look of M2" ?
Apart from the angled rewind button, what's different or "not-classic" about M4-[whatever] bodies?
Just curious
"classic" means M1/2/3-style rewind knob and advance lever, no decals on the front and "classic" (= M1/2/3-style) engravings on top. But I think I could live with an M4(-2/-P), too
efix
RF user by conviction
Thanks, but M5 is also way over my budget. Also, I am quite fond of the classic (for definition see my post above) Leica design.
efix
RF user by conviction
Thanks for your suggestion, but I will eventuall be using a 35, and I will probably never be using a 135. (Well, they tell you never to say never ...) Also, with the 0.9-ish magnification of the M3, using the whole finder area would probably be as uncomfortable as using the 28mm framelines on the .72 finder (or the 24mm framelines on the M8).
Nomad Z
Well-known
If there's a 35mm lens in your future, I suspect an M2 is the way to go if you're on a budget (the various M4s were rarer and more expensive when I was shopping for an M about a year and a half ago, in the UK). With negative film, not using a meter apart from the occasional check is really quite liberating. The knob rewind is widely reputed to be more robust than the canted crank, and the all-metal bits are definitely 'classic'. The default lens on my M2 is a 35mm - perfect combination for me.
Ljós
Well-known
I owned a M2 and CL at the same time, and now my rig is two M2s.
To me, the M2 gave and gives a "user satisfaction" that is hard to beat.
The lighter weight and smaller (but not much) dimensions of the CL can be nice in daily use, if you carry it a LOT in your hand. But every time you press the shutter, you might miss the sound of the M2
I found the metering readout of the CL to be actually quite nice and usable (battery can be solved via a 13 Euro or so adapter from Frans de Gruijter (Netherlands, ships quickly and works well on the CL).
You also asked about loading film etc.: prefer loading the M2, hands down. Once you pop open the CL, it feels and looks very much like a slightly larger Rollei 35 - never liked how thin and easy to bend the metal of the back door is with the CL. Keep in mind that the white plastic uptake spool of the CL is prone to break - can be fixed/glued though.
I also was not crazy about the CL's viewfinder. On the right side, where the meter readout is, there is a "bar" of the same translucency etc. as the framelines. It's "thickness" changes with parallax-correction/whether you focus near or far. That also means that just glancing through the finder, the framelines seem unbalanced/not symmetrical. Using a 50mm, it is not so bad, because of the 50 mm framelines "inside" - but with 40mm, I found it very distracting. I always had to mentally reconstruct the "true" outline of the 40mm frame.
Maybe some CL users here will think I am bonkers (I had never before read about this parallax-depending variable thickness of the bar on the right, and was quite surprised when I got my CL), but that was my experience.
The good stuff about the CL:
- it's black, if you care about that. M2s in black cost an arm and a leg
- finally for a Leica rangefinder, the hotshoe is actually laterally on axis with the lens!! I see the CL as the perfect "host" for 28mm and wider, where you would use an external finder anyway. NO lateral parallax at all distances.
- the shutter speed dial on the front surprised me positively. It is made from metal, feels solid and is very intuitive. Also, I found I had no trouble using it alongside a M2. It is so different that you will not get confused
Final thought: at some point, any Leica rangefinder will need professional attention/care/whatever, and when that moment comes, I would gladly pay to have a M2 brought to spec, while I would not equally feel confident or willing about sinking money into the upkeep of a Leica CL.
Greetings, Ljós
To me, the M2 gave and gives a "user satisfaction" that is hard to beat.
The lighter weight and smaller (but not much) dimensions of the CL can be nice in daily use, if you carry it a LOT in your hand. But every time you press the shutter, you might miss the sound of the M2
I found the metering readout of the CL to be actually quite nice and usable (battery can be solved via a 13 Euro or so adapter from Frans de Gruijter (Netherlands, ships quickly and works well on the CL).
You also asked about loading film etc.: prefer loading the M2, hands down. Once you pop open the CL, it feels and looks very much like a slightly larger Rollei 35 - never liked how thin and easy to bend the metal of the back door is with the CL. Keep in mind that the white plastic uptake spool of the CL is prone to break - can be fixed/glued though.
I also was not crazy about the CL's viewfinder. On the right side, where the meter readout is, there is a "bar" of the same translucency etc. as the framelines. It's "thickness" changes with parallax-correction/whether you focus near or far. That also means that just glancing through the finder, the framelines seem unbalanced/not symmetrical. Using a 50mm, it is not so bad, because of the 50 mm framelines "inside" - but with 40mm, I found it very distracting. I always had to mentally reconstruct the "true" outline of the 40mm frame.
Maybe some CL users here will think I am bonkers (I had never before read about this parallax-depending variable thickness of the bar on the right, and was quite surprised when I got my CL), but that was my experience.
The good stuff about the CL:
- it's black
, if you care about that. M2s in black cost an arm and a leg- finally for a Leica rangefinder, the hotshoe is actually laterally on axis with the lens!!
I see the CL as the perfect "host" for 28mm and wider, where you would use an external finder anyway. NO lateral parallax at all distances.- the shutter speed dial on the front surprised me positively. It is made from metal, feels solid and is very intuitive. Also, I found I had no trouble using it alongside a M2. It is so different that you will not get confused
Final thought: at some point, any Leica rangefinder will need professional attention/care/whatever, and when that moment comes, I would gladly pay to have a M2 brought to spec, while I would not equally feel confident or willing about sinking money into the upkeep of a Leica CL.
Greetings, Ljós
huntjump
Well-known
M2!! crazy question