Horatio
Masked photographer
Just curious whether anyone here has gone from an M3 to M4, and what was the motivation? I have a decent, user-grade M3 I'm considering offering in trade towards an M4. Other than the improved film loading and rewind knob, is it worth the bother? The M4 is priced at $1500. How much should I expect to pay?
B.J.Scharp
Still developing
Aside from the (un)loading, which I've never found a bother on my M3s, the only real change is the 35mm framelines in the finder.
Whether that is an advantage or disadvantage depends on the lenses you use. I don't use anything between 21mm and 50mm, so for me, it'd be a downgrade.
Whether that is an advantage or disadvantage depends on the lenses you use. I don't use anything between 21mm and 50mm, so for me, it'd be a downgrade.
Last edited:
punkzter
Established
The M4 has additional framelines. I suspect that the number one question you might want to ask yourself is whether you primarily shoot with a 50mm lens and if you care about the having the 35mm framelines.
I also prefer being able to "see" around the edges of the 50mm framelines, which the m4 would offer.
I also prefer being able to "see" around the edges of the 50mm framelines, which the m4 would offer.
JeffS7444
Well-known
IMO, M4 is the better shooter, but M3 has more "charisma". Viewfinder magnification is also different, with M3's being more optimized for 50 mm and longer lenses, but M4's lower-magnification finder adds 35 mm frame lines. Some people have strong opinions about which is "best", but this is very much a personal thing.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
An M3 double-stroke is a nuisance, but a single-stroke is the ultimate Leica shooting machine if you don't ever go wider than a 50mm. And it's prettier than any other Leica. 
owlie
Member
M3 has EBL of 62.33mm. M4 has 49.32. You’d be trading focusing accuracy for additional frame lines.
Horatio
Masked photographer
Thanks so much for the replies!
I'm fortunate enough to have a single stroke.An M3 double-stroke is a nuisance, but a single-stroke is the ultimate Leica shooting machine if you don't ever go wider than a 50mm. And it's prettier than any other Leica.
chuckroast
Well-known
An M3 double-stroke is a nuisance, but a single-stroke is the ultimate Leica shooting machine if you don't ever go wider than a 50mm. And it's prettier than any other Leica.
Thems fightin' words, buddy
In my judgment ...
The IIIf wins for most elegant design
The M2 wins for pure understated beauty and utility
The M4 wins for most beautiful maturity
The M5 wins for "hot, slightly overweight girl sitting next to you in homeroom"
The M3 has always been an oddity to me. Yes, it's the first of the M line (discounting the M1) but it's inability to deal with the 35mm focal length without those ugly goggles is a huge downside. You're effectively buying an interchangeable lens pro camera with a very limited palette of choices.
So ... my M2 is purtier than your M3 ...
Richard G
Veteran
Remember the current film Ms for sale have the same rewind as the M3/2. And I agree with Chuckroast’s thoughtful analysis - 100%.
chuckroast
Well-known
Yeah, but - IMHO - that's Leica tapping into the hipster and nostalgia markets, not some deeply thought through design choice. Either that, or they found a bunch of those rewind knobs in the back of their parts storage and needed to do something with them.
Horatio
Masked photographer
Though not a true wide angle lens, I've gotten good results with my 40mm Voigtlander. The outer VF frame matches the focal length pretty well for framing.
chuckroast
Well-known
I have an M2, M4, and M5. I bought each of them because they were (relatively) good buys at the time. I bought them to use, but also as sort of longer term investments.
All of them work pretty much the same way, except for the M5 and its fabulous metering and shutter speed setup.
As I noted above, I am not a huge fan of the M3 because anything shorter than a 50 on that camera is a pain and I shoot mostly with a 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH.
And that would be the only compelling argument for moving to the M4 in your case - do you want to shoot 35mm focal length a lot. If not, spend your money on a quality CLA for your M3 (if it needs it).
I bought a very clean, in the box, just-CLAed M4 a year or so ago for under $2100 all in with tax and shipping. $1500 for a decent M4 is reasonable, but expect to spend another $600-700 on a CLA.
chuckroast
Well-known
One other point about the M4 - I hate, hate, hate the quick load takeup spool on that camera. For some reason, I struggle to get it to grip the film. Both the removable reel on the M2 and the quick load on the M5 are leagues better.
Is it just me?
Is it just me?
Horatio
Masked photographer
I think $1500 is a very good price. That's about what they were going for when I was looking back in '21. I'm seeing M3s in the $1300 range. If money were no object I'd buy the M4 outright.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
...but you gain massively improved 135mm focusing capability. Per @splitimageview's rangefinder accuracy chart, there's no rangefinder lens an M3 can't focus accurately:
Meanwhile, a typical 0.72x film M starts hitting the usability limit with a 75/1.2, 85/1.5, and 135/4, and cannot really be relied upon for 100/2 and 135/3.5 lenses.
For perspective, a "lowly" IIIf can handle all of those easily; as someone whose typical lens kit is a 50mm, 135mm, and either a 21mm or a 28mm, I see no reason to move from LTM to any (film) M other than an M3. The M2 and M4's only benefits are the 35mm framelines. That's it.
(And before anyone says it: I wear glasses and can't see the 28mm framelines in any 0.72x M, so I'd be using external finders for that, too.)
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
If you're anything like me that's an "upgrade" you'll regret. The M4 is a camera I just never warmed up to. For my money the M3 is a far better shooter (but I admit that's all emotion with nothing rational behind it). If you want the M4 for its faster film loading, Don Goldberg ("DAG") can upgrade your M3 to M4 type loading for around $500. In your case, that's how I'd spend my money!
But that's just me.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
My understanding is that the M3 only focuses down to about 1.0m while the M4 focuses down to 0.7m. Is this correct?
chuckroast
Well-known
That's a great resource. I'd love to better understand the methodology for that assessment.
In any case, I shoot everything at 90mm or less, so my M2/4/5 and IIIf are just swell
shawn
Veteran
Shoot with both eyes open on the M3 and you see more too.
chuckroast
Well-known
As originally built, yes. But it is often possible to adjust the M3 to get down to 0.7meter. In involves some kind of fiddling with the focusing cam system - i.e. a tech has to do it. My understanding is that not all M3s can be thus adjusted.