begona
Goran Begoña
why leica m3 does not have frame lines for 35mm lens?!
this is not a question, it is only my desire...
once I had summaron with goggles but I trade it with Vick because it was to heavy...he gave me summicron dr but it was heavy too..so now I am using elmar with my m3 but I wish I have summaron again.
I had minolta cle, m2, m4-2, tried m6 but non of these leicas is not like a m3...only minus is that 35mm frameline...
also trying p&s cameras like xa series and contax tvs iii and that were great ameras but not even close to m3...
now I am writing this post and hoping that someone will see my ad and wish to trade contax for summaron
thanks for listening
this is not a question, it is only my desire...
once I had summaron with goggles but I trade it with Vick because it was to heavy...he gave me summicron dr but it was heavy too..so now I am using elmar with my m3 but I wish I have summaron again.
I had minolta cle, m2, m4-2, tried m6 but non of these leicas is not like a m3...only minus is that 35mm frameline...
also trying p&s cameras like xa series and contax tvs iii and that were great ameras but not even close to m3...
now I am writing this post and hoping that someone will see my ad and wish to trade contax for summaron
thanks for listening
NeeZee
Well-known
uhm, if you didn't like the M2, you probably just don't want an M3 with 35mm frame lines, because that's what an M2 basically is...
Travis L.
Registered Userino
PatrickCheung
Well-known
My preferred focal length is 35mm, and I used an M3 for a while... you kinda just... know what you're going to get with a 35 after shooting a roll or two. It helps that the x0.95 lets you shoot with both eyes open so you can see what's outside the frames with your other eye.
If worse comes to worse, treat the left/right-most frame lines as the "third" lines in the rule of thirds.
If worse comes to worse, treat the left/right-most frame lines as the "third" lines in the rule of thirds.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Mostly, I think, because when the M3 was designed (in the early 50s), 35mm was regarded as a much more specialist focal length than today. Look at any book from the 1950s and before and you'll find surprisingly few WA shots. Those who wanted to use 'specialist' lenses were presumed to be well enough served by a separate finder.
Also, of course, the longer the effective base length, the easier it is to focus with an RF.. They presumably reckoned that most would prefer focusing accuracy (with longer lenses) to convenience (with a wide-angle finder with less magnification). Bear in mind that in those days, 135mm was much more widely used on RFs than today, because most reflexes were so awful.
Cheers,
R.
Also, of course, the longer the effective base length, the easier it is to focus with an RF.. They presumably reckoned that most would prefer focusing accuracy (with longer lenses) to convenience (with a wide-angle finder with less magnification). Bear in mind that in those days, 135mm was much more widely used on RFs than today, because most reflexes were so awful.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You can learn to do that with an M2 too. It takes a while, but most (not all) find it possible with practice.
Cheers,
R.