jfserejo
Established
In a non practical way, if I have to choose witch camera I would like to left for my son or nephew, definitely it will be an Leica M3.
Which would you keep - Leica M2 or M3 ?
- Thread starter srtiwari
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 53
- Views 3K
jja
Well-known
A little OT, but do you really think they are of equal value, even if it will cost $250 to improve the faint finder in the M3? I would think that an M3 and M2 in exactly the same condition would be less than $100 apart.
Anyway, I wold keep the M2 b/c it's in better condition, no future hassles. It's also my favorite M.
Anyway, I wold keep the M2 b/c it's in better condition, no future hassles. It's also my favorite M.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
BillP said:
Although I don't know which one to keep, since I unfortunately do not own a Leica M myself
- that's simply kubrickesque -
:angel:😀😀😀
BillP
Rangefinder General
Florian1234 said:
M2... A camera odyssey...😀
Regards,
Bill
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
OK, whicever you sell, you will miss it - but based on my experience, you will miss the M2 the most! The 35/M2 combination is a match made in camera heaven and it really has not been surpassed since. Simple, easy to use and one of the most intuitive cameras ever made!
I should know - I have a lot of them, all in use!
I should know - I have a lot of them, all in use!
Uncle Bill
Well-known
- Local time
- 2:33 AM
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,076
Unload the M5, keep the rest
srtiwari
Daktari
Despite all the wisdom and good intentions of the contributors, this thread has led me nowhere. I wasn't looking for enlightenment- I was looking for Easy. Now I am back where I started. Thanks a lot !
terrafirmanada
Well-known
Isn't that how this place is supposed to work?
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Keep the M2 and find a tidy M3 as and when circumstances allow?
srtiwari
Daktari
I hope not ! The whole point of putting these questions is to seek quick answers from others, so that one doesn't have to think too much, is spared the difficult decisions, and has someone to blame later on !
srtiwari
Daktari
I hope not ! The whole point of posing a question here is to avoid having to think, or agonize over difficult decisions, and have someone else to blame later on. I don't know what you are thinking.
Subhash😀
Subhash😀
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
LeicaM3 said:
Hmmm. That's just another absurdism that has no factual value. Better for 50mm and upwards, perhaps. Better mechanics? I doubt it. But alas, of limited practical value for 35mm. As Tom A states, the M2 and 35mm is a marriage made in heaven.
They got it right the first time, but even more right the second time.🙂
Ernst
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
The M3 is far more beautiful than the M2. I've owned both. However, I kept the M2. Looks are for looks; when it comes to what's inside, it's what counts.
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
Gabriel M.A. said:
That's interesting. A clear case of beauty in the eye of the beholder.
I've also owned both (albeit the M3 only briefly) and simply can't stand the gothic looks of the M3. It's the raised window frames that kill any aesthetic qualities that it could otherwise have had. In my opinion.
Regards
Ernst
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
For some reason the raised bevels look like a nice touch, to me, of course. I'm sure they did away with those with the M2 to "lower costs". And by no means by this do I mean to say that the M2 is "ugly". Far from it.ernstk said:
Some people like bigger eyelashes, some don't. But they don't work on everyone (wearer and "looker").
The M3, with the .9 viewfinder, is perfect for most of those who shoot almost exclusively with 50mm. Oddly enough, I found the M3's viewfinder confusing to my previewing brain.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
My M3 mostly stays glued to my Visoflex II-S and I rarely use either one. The M2 bodies get a workout though.
srtiwari
Daktari
"...For some reason the raised bevels look like a nice touch, to me..."
I agree with this. And to my eyes, this gives it a more solid look/feel, but may be purely cosmetic. For now, I do not feel like selling either.
As to the suggestion of selling the M5 ?... " Only out of my cold dead hands ! " (or something like that )
I agree with this. And to my eyes, this gives it a more solid look/feel, but may be purely cosmetic. For now, I do not feel like selling either.
As to the suggestion of selling the M5 ?... " Only out of my cold dead hands ! " (or something like that )
LeicaM3
Well-known
ernstk said:
Ernst,
Among others, these are the most obvious mechanical simplifications going from the M3 to the M2 that you can feel and see: Double brake shutter (for low noise and vibration) to a singular brake shutter, VF, RF.
Both are great cameras, but Leica had to cut cost and they did. This is well documented and undisputed.
Discussed this many years ago with Sammaritino (Leitz Service Genova) and a family member who worked for Leica for numerous decades, starting in '51.
M2 and 35s are good mates, but if I know I will shoot in low light, I put the 35 on the M3 for the better VF and more accurate range finding (and I think I can shoot it at one speed slower, might be subjective just because I know it vibrates less 😛).
In daylight, I use the M2.
No interest in a futile M2/M3 debate.
M3 - a rare example of getting it right the first time.
Good Luck and good exposures.
PS: Another absurdism? 😀
LeicaM3
Well-known
srtiwari said:
Yeah!
😀😀😀:angel::angel::angel:🙂🙂🙂
RFF worked again.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
the M3 is one of the best 35mm RF cameras ever made, period.
everything else seems to be a step down.
everything else seems to be a step down.