Underwhelmed by the M3

[Erik van Straten]

Leica M3: In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister.

Goethe.

 

[Timmyjoe]

It's mechanically beautiful, the DS winder is butter smooth, the rangefinder is bright and on the money. Yet it's also heavy, and for all the mechanical goodness of it all, it's harder to load film, harder to set shutter speeds and the lovely viewfinder really isn't hundreds of dollars more lovely than the Bessa R2 or my Olympus OM-1n.

Not having used a Bessa R2 or an Olympus OM-1n, I can't compare it to an M3. But everything you find good about the M3, buttery smooth winder, bright, contrasty, super accurate viewfinder, superbly well made; I also find good about the M3. And I've never found it to be unnecessarily heavy, hard to load, or hard to set the shutter speeds. Maybe your M3 needs service.

Also, it could be a case of "personal taste", what some of us find delightful, others find old school and clunky.

Best,
-Tim

 

[pesphoto]

i tend to agree, bessa R2/A is the best rangefinder, i found the bottom loading of the leica too fidgety...Also use an Olympus OM 2n....these 2 cameras cover it all.

 

[froyd]

I really clicked with my first RF, and R2a. I like it right out of the gate as a welcome departure from my beloved F4s, which was too heavy and "too much camera" for everyday use.

I figure, if I love the R2a, I will like the ZI even better. I picked one up and gave it a 6 month try, but it just did not resonate with me, probably because I expected it to be more than it was given the hype. So, I perfectly understand where you are coming from, only I wonder if you gave yourself enough time to get use to the M3. I can see how one could make an argument that you should not go out of your way to get used to something if your first impression is negative, so YMMV, but by giving it 6 month, I now know that the ZI (and the ZM lenses) is never something I'll want to go back to.

Interestingly, when I later picked up an M4 for not too much money locally, I did not like it. The R2a had a brighter viewfinder, less weight, a film window, and no obnoxious self-timer lever to dig into my curled middle finger. Yet, after 3 months, something clicked (mostly the absence of meter and VF uncluttered by LEDs). My hands got used to gripping it without releasing the lens from its mount (!!!) and it's since become a mainstay in my camera rotation. I also feel that my photography has improved significantly though my use of it, which has not happened with any other camera for me other than the Rolleiflex.

 

[Keith]

Cameras that come with expectations can let you down and though I didn't really feel that way when I got an M3 I subsequently sold it and moved on. One camera that also came with expectations was my OM1 and that was the opposite experience, I loved the thing the moment I laid eyes on it and using it confirmed my feelings. 🙂

 

[Jack Conrad]

I've had several M3's over the years and I've come to realize it's
the black paint that makes the camera. 😀

 

[giganova]

You should of purchased a M4 more modern feature's and all.

I agree. To me, the M4 is the ultimate M: pure mechanical perfection, but with a better film loading mechanism and with a much cleaner design (e.g., no metal edges around the rangefinder windows).

 

[Huss]

The difference is that with the M3 you can set the self timer, throw the camera up in the air, and by the time it comes down (and you catch it..) it will have taken an incredible decisive moment pulitzer price worthy photo.
Try this with any other camera, and the best you'd get is a cat picture.

 

[Pfreddee]

Talk about opening up a can of worms....😱

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I just don't understand all the "M3 is the best camera in the world" hype. What am I missing?

I'm kind of the same way. One reason I haven't sold mine is actually because of all the hype, I honestly think maybe I just don't get it, but I will completely understand the attraction if I just keep trying. It's a nice camera, but there are lots of nice cameras. It's as a "thing" that I seem to appreciate it a little more; a pretty nice camera, but an exceptional "thing".
I do enjoy using it, but I can say that about every camera I own, pretty much in equal measure.

 

[Rob-F]

Well, I feel the same way. I know Eisie photographed Marilyn Monroe and Albert Einstein with an M3, but I've had two of them and have never really bonded with the M3. The lack of a 35mm frameline and hard to see 50mm frameline are the deal-breakers for me.

 

[jordan.dickinson]

I certainly understand the M3 experience by the OP. Don't get me wrong, I really do like my M3, but something isn't quite as good as an M4 for me. It might be the quick load/rewind, it might be the frame lines, and it might be something intangible that is just off for my tastes. With that in mind, I have since ended up with 3 M4's and after selling my M3, I bought another about a year ago. At this point, I feel like my M3+50mm rigid Summicron is my "must have/keep" camera, and my M4's + all other lenses are my "must shoot" cameras.

 

[TaoPhoto]

Not having used a Bessa R2 or an Olympus OM-1n, I can't compare it to an M3. But everything you find good about the M3, buttery smooth winder, bright, contrasty, super accurate viewfinder, superbly well made; I also find good about the M3. And I've never found it to be unnecessarily heavy, hard to load, or hard to set the shutter speeds. Maybe your M3 needs service.

Also, it could be a case of "personal taste", what some of us find delightful, others find old school and clunky.

Best,
-Tim

There's nothing wrong with the shutter speed setting, just the placement of the control and it being rather small for my fingers.

You are right, it is a matter of personal taste.

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Most of my photo-heroes are Leica shooters, and I longed, oh, how I longed, to be able to see the world through the viewfinder of a Leica as they did. I struggled with this for more than 40 years.

My first Leica was a IIIc with an f2 Summitar that I bought for $40 at the Bird Road Drive-In flea market in Miami in 1969. I owned many Leicas over the intervening years, but always wound up selling them. As hard as I tried, and I did try very hard, I simply could not attain real proficiency with rangefinder cameras. I made a few good pictures with them, but ultimately, they just did not work for me. I sadly sold my last Leica, an M3, to Ornate Wrasse on this forum in 2010. I think she still has it. Leicas (and rangefinders in general) are wonderful, but they're not for everyone.

In my heart I’m a globe-trotting, black&white film, Leica-shooting photojournalist in the mold of Elliott Erwitt, Henri Cartier-Bresson, or Josef Koudelka. But the bitter truth is that I am an autofocus, SLR, zoom lens, color photographer. That’s what I am, and I just have to deal with it.

 

[jeffrypittman]

It was ground breaking when released. I appreciate mine and use it from time to time but usually opt for the MP when shooting film.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I will admit this. When fondling my M3 for one of the first times, installing the meter, taking it off, marveling at how it tried to make picture taking as 'automatic' as possible, I realized that for @1955 technology it was a tremendous camera. Comparing it to my D7k or now my A7ii, I can see why it caused such a storm in the camera world. I like the 'mechanicalness' of it tremendously as I'm a tried and true 'gearhead' at heart. I can appreciate the fine machine work considering what was state of the art in machines back then too.

 

[Pioneer]

My ZI is what the M3 should ultimately have evolved to...

but it didn't...

so it was up to Zeiss and Cosina to do it...

Thank goodness someone did it.

The M3 is a wonderful and important part of history and everyone should buy one so they can CLA it and keep them alive. But a lot of water (and cameras) have passed under the bridge since 1954. Even Eisenstadt and Bresson would have moved on by now.

 

[Huss]

My ZI is what the M3 should ultimately have evolved to...

but it didn't...

so it was up to Zeiss and Cosina to do it...

Thank goodness someone did it.

Yes, thank you Minolta for the wonderful CLE.

😀

 

[Erik van Straten]

Most people use cameras to "search" a picture by looking through the viewfinder. However, the Leica M3 is a camera that "takes" the picture once you've found it by looking through your eyes.

Erik.

 

[maddoc]

For me Leica is all about the lenses, especially the ones designed by Dr. Mandler at ELC. Therefore I always focused on the lenses and used the most versatile and affordable Leica M cameras out there, the M4-2 and M4-P. I sold them off last year to buy a BP M4, which lacks some of the features of the newer M4-2/-P (hot-shoe, ability to use a winder) but to me the M4 is the best compromise between old-school Leica design and easy handling (35mm frame lines, angled rewind, film loading). I had a couple of M3s but found the camera to limited, especially due to the high magnification VF that does not allow to use 35mm lenses.