Underwhelmed by the M3

[css9450]

Another advantage of the M3 (and the other Leica M's for film) is the extremely short interval between pushing the button and the start of the exposure. No SLR or digital camera comes even close.

Assuming its enough of a difference to make any practical difference in the field... Couldn't the same thing be said for ALL film rangefinders? Canon, Nikon, LTM clones... How about vertical-travel shutters? Leaf-shutter cameras? My unscientific theory suggests they might be even quicker.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

So far I am somewhat in awe of Leica, but there is something about a Zorki 1 that gnaws at the edges of the legend.

Isn't it great that we have so many choices in cameras, and choices within choices!
There have been great pictures taken by every type & size of camera since the very first camera, this discussion just illustrates how geeky photographers can be.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

There is always a time lag as the SLR mirror flips up before exposure. That is why no one has ever taken an iconic photograph with an SLR.

I have Nikon FG-20 SLR which with 50 mm lens allows two eyes framing, focusing. Much advanced camera, but I just can't force myself to use it instead of M3. Especially now with low light season of 1/8 shutter speed while handheld.

 

[Pioneer]

Ah yes, the reflexes of the M! I'm sure many here have a story they can relate to such as this:
A couple of colleagues and I were set to have a confrontational meeting with a mean nasty bully at our workplace. I knew where he had to be to enter the conference room and knew the light. As he entered scowling, I quick lifted the pre-focused M & as the lens cleared the shoulders of the person in front of me, pressed the shutter. He never glared at me or even made a peep; I honestly do not believe he knew he had been photographed. But I got his mug's magnificent meanness right on film, and that image gives us a good laugh to this day.
I doubt that an SLR or digital camera would have gotten that shot.

Pretty sure my K1000 would have gotten the shot but he would have known he'd been photographed the moment the shutter fired. Subtle it isn't!

 

[DominikDUK]

The M3 is an iconic camera but not the camera for everyone. Haptics and feel are extremely important in the choice of tools. If the feeling isn't there after a certain amount of time the tool is not the right choice. Also just because something is iconic doesn't mean it's the best.
Regarding shutter lag an Olympus XA in good condition has certainly less shutter lag than a Leica.

 

[Bingley]

Underwhelming or not, I just bought a late-ish model M3 in Classifieds.

 

[raid]

Good for you, Steve.

 

[jsrockit]

It's mechanically beautiful, the DS winder is butter smooth, the rangefinder is bright and on the money.

and then...

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

Uhm...I think you already answered your question as too why people like it a lot.

 

[hendriphile]

Assuming its enough of a difference to make any practical difference in the field... Couldn't the same thing be said for ALL film rangefinders? Canon, Nikon, LTM clones... How about vertical-travel shutters? Leaf-shutter cameras? My unscientific theory suggests they might be even quicker.

As a long-ago owner of a Vitessa T (leaf shutter, even quieter than the Leica), I must agree!

 

[nukecoke]

Well, romantic ...

Another advantage of the M3 (and the other Leica M's for film) is the extremely short interval between pushing the button and the start of the exposure. No SLR or digital camera comes even close.

Erik.

I bent the release spring slightly outwards under the bottom plate on my Zorki-1 to achieve that. But it was actually quick enough as was.

 

[Rob-F]

The M3 is sort of capable and almost as good as an M2. What horrified me when I held one and looked in the viewfinder is those awful rounded corners of the fabled M3 50mm frame lines. The truth is, the M6 blows both out of the water and might be the best Leica ever. But I do love the M2 50mm frame lines.

The rounded framelines are a little corny, but I wouldn't call them awful.
But the M6 blows the M3 and M2 out of the water? Not with its awful 50mm framelines, it doesn't!

 

[teddy]

The M3 and M2 are supposed to be the simplest, most elegant Leica's. Particularly in their viewfinders.

I have both. I would still love an M6, but I think the M3 and M2 are technically the epitome of Leica. Sometimes I debate within myself whether which of the Leica M3 or the M2 is the quintessential one? ...

Also, back to the topic. I think if one is having trouble finding rapport with one's Leica - then shoot, say; 50- to 100 rolls on it. Then grab your OM1, Nikon, Canon - what ever. Then go back to the Leica and THEN compare.

 

[drewbarb]

My first Leica was a barely used M3 I inherited from my great uncle. I was well used to the Nikons, Hasselblads and large format cameras I'd been using for years, and didn't think I'd care about the Leica mythos- but the camera sure was pretty. I put a roll of film through it and was simply blown away by the results- but I struggled with the slow loading and fiddly rangefinder focusing. But the beautifully sharp, almost 3-D looking images made me keep using the thing- and the photographer friends who raved about Leicas made me curious. After a year or two I noticed I would pick up the M3 more and more, and my other 35mm gear wasn't being used. I inherited a 50mm DR, 35mm goggled 'cron, a 135 f4 Elmar, and a visoflex housing and 400mm Telyt along with the M3 (my great uncle didn't do anything half assed...) and I added a 90mm lens and couple of the then new Voigtlander wide angles to my kit and kept using the thing when I wanted to shoot 35mm because the results looked so nice. Eventually I got used to the rangefinder focusing, and learned how different it was to use quickly and effectively (no small thing, coming from SLR focusing, which is an order of magnitude in difference). At first I was putting up with the weirdnesses and difficulty and weight of the camera for the results, but after a few years of organically gravitating to it I came to love the Leica, and wanted to add another body. I bought an M4-2, then an M6- but I found them a pale drink of water compared to the M3. The finders in those cameras were small and dim and the RF patch flared out on me all the time. I was spoiled by the big, almost life-size magnification of the M3 and the rock solid dependable RF patch. I sold the others and bought another M3. I've looked through a few M2's, and would love to shoot a 35mm lens without the bulky goggles, but I find the lower magnification and flare of the finders unacceptable after the M3.

It's 20 years now since my great uncle gave me his M3 (and seven years since he went to his reward) and I'm still shooting with that pair of M3's for 95% of my 35mm film shooting. At this point I'm unfazed by the slightly slow loading (now I can do it in the dark, and I always get 39 frames from a 36 exposure roll); I have come to prefer a camera without a built in meter, and I can correctly focus my M3's faster than any other camera I own. I can still remember when I used the camera despite it's shortcomings, but at this point familiarity and affection have erased the impression of those shortcomings to the extent that I no longer really know what they were.

But I know one thing for sure about cameras and people at this point: to each his own.

 

[pepeguitarra]

My first film Leica was an M3 couple of years ago!

My first film Leica was an M3 couple of years ago!

Then, I got the M2, then the M5, and later the M6. I do not need all of them, but I cannot part with anyone of them. I certainly like the construction of the M3, the camera will go nowhere in the next 100 years. It is sturdy. I do get much better focussing with the 50mm lenses on the M3. I certainly love the M5 the most, big and heavy, perfect for my heavy lenses. When I want to be discreet, I take the M6, another jewel. I have tried to consider selling one or two of them, but I cannot do it.
To complicate things eve more, I found a perfect canon P, which is definitely a really good camera.

Camera Chief by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

 

[Wenge]

this is not the dp review forum, come on, man.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Well, romantic ...

Another advantage of the M3 (and the other Leica M's for film) is the extremely short interval between pushing the button and the start of the exposure. No SLR or digital camera comes even close.

Erik.

The Canon EOS-1N RS and RT weren't exactly slow. As I recall Canon quoted a shutter delay of 6 and 8 milliseconds respectively in the appropriate shooting modes. Granted they both have pellicle mirrors but are, nevertheless, SLRs.
Cheers
Brett

 

[Erik van Straten]

The Canon EOS-1N RS and RT weren't exactly slow. As I recall Canon quoted a shutter delay of 6 and 8 milliseconds respectively in the appropriate shooting modes. Granted they both have pellicle mirrors but are, nevertheless, SLRs.
Cheers
Brett

That is fast! The first curtain of the Leica-M shutter enters the film aperture approximately 12 milliseconds after the release of the shutter.

Erik.

 

[Pioneer]

The Canon cameras using the pellicle mirror technology, and lately the Sonys, are quick, but there are problems which meant they never really caught on.

The viewfinders are typically dimmer then an SLR with a normal mirror (less light directed to the viewfinder).

When the mirrors accumulated dust (which they all do) that dust impacts the image quality similar to dust on your digital camera sensor. With a normal SLR mirror the mirror flips out of the way so any dust or spots don't record on the film. Cleaning a pellicle mirror isn't easy and usually required the services of a camera service shop. I only owned one for a short while (bought it for macros since they are supposed to be the best slr macro cameras out there) but never really gelled with it. Having never cleaned the lens I'm not sure whether the newer tools intended for digital sensors would have been useful or not.

But, those Canons were certainly very quick, and there was no mirror vibration as the mirror doesn't move. Nice idea. I may have to try out one of the Sony A55s since they use the same technology on digital.

 

[creenus]

I am besotted with my chrome M2, especially with an M2 Tom Abrahamsson RapidWinder attached and a Version III 50 Cron. Feels perfect to me, but I have nothing against the M3. I'm sure it's a great camera, and I'd like to get one eventually.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The M3 - and his brother the M2 - in top condition is an instrument that is an invitation to photograph, just as a Stradivarius is an invitation for a violonist to play. The camera can always be brought back in top condition.

Leica M3, Summicron-M 50mm f/2 v4, 400-2TMY, Perceptol.

Erik.