Trade M3 for M4?

[Talus]

View attachment 4859925My M6 0.85 and M4-p both with the old style levers from DAG

The .85 finder is my favorite outside the M3’s. Just so good.

 

[maddoc]

My MP has one of those metal levers but it hits the edge of the shoe. I don’t let the lever recoil but the shoe still whacked a little divot in the lever.

Interestingly, my M-A advance lever just stops short of hitting either the shoe or the shutter-speed dial. I also swapped out my M7 advance lever for the all-metal type and no hitting side-effects either. The M7 all-metal advance lever was specially made to fit the M7 because it houses the ON-OFF switch. Possibly Leica got aware of this problem and slightly changed the length of the levers?

 

[Freakscene]

Interestingly, my M-A advance lever just stops short of hitting either the shoe or the shutter-speed dial. I also swapped out my M7 advance lever for the all-metal type and no hitting side-effects either. The M7 all-metal advance lever was specially made to fit the M7 because it houses the ON-OFF switch. Possibly Leica got aware of this problem and slightly changed the length of the levers?

I did raise it as an issue for longevity. Who knows, maybe they listened.

 

[rfaspen]

Hmmm. I have a couple of older all-metal levers in my Leica parts box. I thought they were both the same, and both just regular M3 levers. Now I'm compelled to dig them out and have a closer look. Sigh....

 

[sojournerphoto]

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. 😉

Funny, I prefer the M4, even though 50 is my main lens. I don’t really like the M3 viewfinder - somehow the round corners and yellow tint make it feel cluttered to me - and I think the styling is too fussy. When people talk about seeing around the framelines I think of that as being able to ‘cut out’ a piece of the world. The MA and 0.85 MP are firm favourites - even plainer styling.

It’s very much personal preference.

 

[Talus]

Funny, I prefer the M4, even though 50 is my main lens. I don’t really like the M3 viewfinder - somehow the round corners and yellow tint make it feel cluttered to me - and I think the styling is too fussy. When people talk about seeing around the framelines I think of that as being able to ‘cut out’ a piece of the world. The MA and 0.85 MP are firm favourites - even plainer styling.

It’s very much personal preference.

I get it. The rounded frame lines on the M3 are definitely different from the rest of the group. It took me some time to get used to.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I get it. The rounded frame lines on the M3 are definitely different from the rest of the group. It took me some time to get used to.

Some folks maintain that the rounded frame lines mimic the contours of a slide mount; remember, at the time of the M3's introduction, color was beginning to make huge inroads into 35mm photography, especially photojournalism. Plausible, like many things, but who knows?

 

[Richard G]

Some folks maintain that the rounded frame lines mimic the contours of a slide mount; remember, at the time of the M3's introduction, color was beginning to make huge inroads into 35mm photography, especially photojournalism. Plausible, like many things, but who knows?

I held an M3 twice and looked through both times. Didn't like those rounded corners. Love the M2. Looked through an MA recently. Wow. So clear.

 

[Coldkennels]

Some folks maintain that the rounded frame lines mimic the contours of a slide mount

The VIOOH and VIDOM finders both have similarly rounded corners at the 35mm setting. I always assumed this was just down to space constraints, but now you've got me thinking.

On a related note, Ensign Selfix folders have a visible circle within their pop-up albada finders. I always wondered what that was for until I realised that it was not uncommon for prints to be mounted into circular frames back in the day. I can only assume they were accommodating that within the viewfinder, so it's not without precedent if that's what Leitz was doing with the rounded corners.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

The VIOOH and VIDOM finders both have similarly rounded corners at the 35mm setting. I always assumed this was just down to space constraints, but now you've got me thinking.

On a related note, Ensign Selfix folders have a visible circle within their pop-up albada finders. I always wondered what that was for until I realised that it was not uncommon for prints to be mounted into circular frames back in the day. I can only assume they were accommodating that within the viewfinder, so it's not without precedent if that's what Leitz was doing with the rounded corners.

Another thought: Leica gave as much weight to aesthetics as they did to mechanical performance. The M3 represented a high point in industrial design that has seldom been equaled, and I don't doubt that Leica gave the utmost attention to every detail of the M3. Could the rounded corners on the framelines have been an echo of the rounded contours of the Leica body? All conjecture of course...

 

[CMur12]

I get it. The rounded frame lines on the M3 are definitely different from the rest of the group. It took me some time to get used to.

I've had several compact, fixed-lens RFs, and I think all of them had at least some of the frame-line corners rounded. I never thought anything of it, as we all know the frame lines aren't that accurate anyway, regardless of such minor details.

- Murray

 

[Richard G]

Another thought: Leica gave as much weight to aesthetics as they did to mechanical performance. The M3 represented a high point in industrial design that has seldom been equaled, and I don't doubt that Leica gave the utmost attention to every detail of the M3. Could the rounded corners on the framelines have been an echo of the rounded contours of the Leica body? All conjecture of course...

I sometimes I look at my clean lines M2, made two years before I was born, and silently ask when were you really born? Why do you look so perfectly serious, all the time. Maybe that fussy M3 is more fun than you after all. I now realize the raised band along the front of the M3’s top cover is one that reaches full brutalist expression in the chrome M5. Long live the round cornered frame lines after all.

 

[Horatio]

With cameras, as all things, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Evergreen States]

I would prefer squared frame line corners in my M3 viewfinder but the rounded corners would not be a dealbreaker. As Murray said, the framing is only an approximation of what ends up on the negative.

 

[38Deardorff]

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?

Who knows why.... maybe it's your technique...the length of the leader? It's never caused me any trouble and i always found it more convenient than loading the much-beloved M2 (why did i ever sell that original black one ????).

 

[38Deardorff]

I would prefer squared frame line corners in my M3 viewfinder but the rounded corners would not be a dealbreaker. As Murray said, the framing is only an approximation of what ends up on the negative.

....i guess it depends how loosely you frame? I've always found framing 35mm less precise than a view camera....no matter whether a rangefinder or an SLR (even a Nikon w 100% finder)

 

[raid]

The M6 with the .85 finder is almost as good as the M3, and has 35mm frame lines.
But that would cost a whole bunch more than the M4...
Joe

I own an M3 and an M6 0.85. I also use a IIIf.

 

[Talus]

Some folks maintain that the rounded frame lines mimic the contours of a slide mount; remember, at the time of the M3's introduction, color was beginning to make huge inroads into 35mm photography, especially photojournalism. Plausible, like many things, but who knows?

Regardless, it’s a quirk that doesn’t detract from my experience with the camera. Each body seems to have its own.

 

[steveyork]

For me it really comes down to whether you're a 50 or 35/28 shooter, and possibly whether you wear glasses. If you shoot mainly 50's, than an M3, but maybe if you wear glasses you'd prefer the reduced magnification of the M4 ect. Never had a problem with focusing accuracy with an M4/M2 even with faster 50's. The last time I had an M3 in the house, I didn't feel there was much difference in terms of ease of focusing between its' increased mag and the viewfinders in my M2's. More of a theoretical difference versus than a practical one. And if you're concerned about the difference, just take a step closer. People do have their favorites though ... but think that has more to do with their style, lenses they use and practical experience. I do prefer the loading system on the M2/M3 versus M4 -- once timed a flawless load on an M2 and it was about 30 seconds and that included rewinding!!

 

[peterm1]

Stick with the M3 - there has been no better M camera! Period! I had an M3 and an M4P. The M3 was better built, had a better viewfinder and was an all-round better camera. Of course, I am not fussed by the need to use an accessory finder with wider lenses on an M3 (and if it fusses you then get an M2 for its ability to use 35mm lenses) but seriously it really is a better camera built, better performing all-round.