In all Leica production models, the M-3 seems to be one of the most appreciated, if not the most. I would like to have technical and historical considerations why this model is so popular and why the M-2 is not well known, even if the 35-50-90 focal length choice seems to be more rationnal. Is the 135 MM focal was or is very popular for Leica amateurs ? Thanks. Jean-Pierre Auger, Montréal, Canada.

-- Jean-Pierre Auger (paphoto@videotron.ca), January 16, 2002

Answers

Hello Jean-Pierre

I recently acquired a M3 because I was interested in the .91x viewfinder. I use it exclusively with my 90mm Elmarit. The larger magnification of the finder makes it easier to focus my 90mm. The rangefinder patch seems less prone to flare as well. In terms of over- all fit an finish, I can't see any significant difference between the M3 and my silver M6TTL. As far as the 135mm goes, I would personally go to an slr. The area mapped-out by the framelines for the 135mm is just too small for me even with the M3. You could always buy the new magnifier though to boost the magnification. Hope this helps.

-- Richard Fulco (calcinc@mn.rr.com), January 16, 2002.

Sometimes I think the "historical" is the tail wagging the "technical" dog. The M3 has a higher-magnification finder, which until the 1.25x magnifier came along might have made sense to me to use with the 90 and 135 lenses. Otherwise, I think the M3 was a landmark camera, beautifully made, and has held up well both mechanically and value-wise. But I have not nor will I ever choose to own or use one. I chose the M2 for its more universally- applicable viewfinder, then was happy to have the faster loading/unloading of the M4 and finally the meter in the M6 classic.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 16, 2002.

Like Jay, I would not own an M3 as my preferred focal length is 35mm. The M3 was of course the first M and beautifully built, it's viewfinder is the best M finder ever if 50 and 90 are your favourite focal lengths - just have a look through a nice clear example - you will be astounded!

The M2 was introduced originally as a "cut-price" M, lacking the self- timer and fitted with a (slightly) simplified rangefinder assembly and a manual external resettable film counter. Over time the self- timer was re-instated.

As it had the (popular) 35mm frame fitted from the outset it became very sucessful and formed the basis for the collectors favourite - the MP.

Like others here I adore the M2, the external frame counter is wonderfully industrial looking and the un-cluttered viewfinder a joy to use, together with the smooth as silk operation it is my favourite of the "old" M's.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 16, 2002.

I know I'm going against the tide here, but I prefer the M3 to the M2 & not just because I happen to like the 50-90-135 range of focal lengths & the 0.91 magnification (I would assume that the 135mm focal length was more popular before the advent of SLRs). I also like the M3's big, fat permanent 50mm frame line & the fact that there's enough space around the frame to approximate the 35mm field of view, even if you're an eyeglass wearer like myself. In contrast, I can barely see all of the M2's 35mm frame line & practically nothing outside of it. I think this is mostly because the eyepiece opening is physically smaller on the M2 than the M3. I'm sure there's an engineering reason for this, but I've yet to hear or read anywhere an explanation of why the opening is smaller just because the magnification is lower (it's been awhile since I handled an M6, so I can't remember whether this problem was eventually fixed).

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@cris.com), January 16, 2002.

Nostalgia. And the mistaken notion that the old ways were the best ways. The M3 was and is a beautiful camera. But it's an old camera, with all the performance and maintenance problems that entails(e.g., when the viewfinder/rangefinder goes, it's gone; the only replacement is the mechanism from the M6J -- not cheap by a long shot). I think that if you've got $1000 or more to throw at a Leica body, the best USER Leica around, for many reasons, is a used M6/M6TTL. If your budget is tighter than that, look for an M4-P, M4-2 or well-used (not abused) M2. A really clean M3 does make splendid photo neck jewelry, no question, f that's what you're after.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), January 16, 2002.

Robert, I see your point, but I don't know why any non-collector would pay $1000 or more just to get a cosmetically nice M3. There are plenty of user M3s out there on eBay, etc. that go for < $750 (after all, there were more than 200,000 made), & that sounds (to me) to be quite a reasonable price range for someone who wants a stripped-down M camera (assuming you don't care for the 35mm focal length).

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@cris.com), January 16, 2002.

Hi Jean-Pierre

I do not know much about the historical reasons why many prefer M3, but for me the M3 with its .91 finder is the right body to go with the 50 Summicron (or the 90 Elmarit). M2 has the added 35mm frame line and as the results, its finder may appear too wide for those who prefer their M with 50 or 90mm. It's really a matter of personal preference. I travel with M6+21,35,50.90, but on occasions when I'd like to take only one lens, it would be the M3 with the 50 cron. At times I get better results that way. Maybe it's because the M3 finder has less frame lines and no meter (no LEDs), thus my attention is more on the subject(s) rather than worrying about the technical aspects of the camera. BTW, unlike my M6 TTL, my M3 finder never flares. Maybe that's another reason why I like to use my M3 with 50 Summicron.

-- Gerald (hsus@netzero.net), January 16, 2002.

H.M. ER II 60th Birthday stamp

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 16, 2002.

"But it's an old camera, with all the performance and maintenance problems that entails . . ."

A CLA or overhaul for an M3 doesn't really cost any more than for M4 or M6. True, loading can be a little slower (unless you have a quick-load spool), but I've never had a misload. Rewind is also marginally slower. On the other hand, I don't consider a less-accurate, cluttered viewfinder that's prone to flare to be a performance advantage.

"(e.g., when the viewfinder/rangefinder goes, it's gone; the only replacement is the mechanism from the M6J -- not cheap by a long shot)"

Or you can send it to DAG, and he'll clean it, recement the prism, and restore it to great shape for about $250.

Robert, if an M6 suits your needs better than an M3, you're quite welcome to use one. But please spare me the snide attitude because an M3 suits my needs better . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 16, 2002.

Mike, what is that light source on the left? Is all of the light on her face coming from it?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 16, 2002.

Hi, Jean-Pierre:

I own two M3s. I had previously owned some 8 different SLR and 3 RF bodies of assorted brands and then my first M3 came to me. Honestly I bought it because of the many favorable comments I had read about it as one of the most sought after Leica bodies ever. And once I began making pictures with it I felt so well connected with this simple, demanding camera body that I bought the second one as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

For the first time it has really made me think about the way I do things. My previous experiences were kind of spontaneous approaches to making images. Now that I don't see what goes through the camera body onto the film I do think what I want printed on paper and what to do in order to actually get it. And most the time it works if I do things the right way. Now my images really are mine. Most of the times they used to be my camera's.

In summary: simple, basic, tough, technically demanding, fast to handle, small, discrete, great aesthetics, best viewfinder I have experienced. A camera for photographers who enjoy photography because of it.

Too enthusiastic? I honestly think that the M3 deserves it.

Cheers, Jean-Pierre.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), January 16, 2002.

bob: that is the light from a mirror in a sunshade of a car. i tried such a picture once, but it didn't came out.(pre-leica era)

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), January 16, 2002.

The primary light source is the pair of lights by the vanity mirror on my car's sun visor. There was street lamp outside (note the out-of-focus reflection of the A-pillar of the car parked next to us), but it didn't contribute much light to her face.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 16, 2002.

Things I like about the M3 from a user standpoint:

You can keep both eyes open when viewing with the M3 without getting a headache.

It is very easy to focus lenses accurately at their maximum F stop with the high magnification.

I too am a 50mm user, and no M camera is as friendly to use with a 50 as the M3.

No finder flare, and a very uncluttered finder.

I also like the look and feel of the camera. It feels smaller and smoother in operation than the current M cameras.

I paid $125 to have a full CLA on my M3, including an extensive cleaning of the finder. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, especially since it will probably outlast 35mm film at this point.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 16, 2002.

M3; for me it is a better designed camera than the M6. Simple well designed, uncluttered finder. I use the 35 mm asph most. Works well using the whole finder.

Is there any truth to the fact that the M7 will have 7 frame lines and all will be visible all of the time. It would be the obvious evolution in thinking at Leica. ;o).

The M6 works well; I just don't like it as well and that is merely a personal preference.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), January 16, 2002.

Well, I was fixing to do a pro M3 rant, until I came to Andrew's post.

He's already done it for me. That more accurate focus-with-both-eyes is a big plus IMHO. I've also got an M4, and it doesn't quite cut it in terms of viewfinder use. A matter of opinion, no doubt!

I'd only add that using a 35 is no problem for me on the M3. Just use the entire viewfinder, and you're pretty close. I much prefer this method to using an auxiliary finder, or gaaaak an older lens with "eyes".

As for the 135 question, I find that I hardly use my 135mm f/2.8 elmarit, while my 90 Summicron is often chosen. The Summicron's extra speed is a plus, and it works very well for people. The 135 is a bit longer, but somehow not long enough.

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), January 16, 2002.

I am left-eye dominant (I look through the viewfinder with my left eye), and the M3 is about the only camera I can use with my other (right) eye, and have both eyes open thus giving that 'floating' frame effect that many M3 users swear by. This might not be a big deal to right-eye dominant M3 users, but trust me, if you're lefty eyed it's a major pain. Tried using my right eye to frame and focus with my M2, and it just gives me a major headache. I should've kept that old M3...

-- Badris (badris@mac.com), January 16, 2002.

Mike Dixon wrote: "Robert, if an M6 suits your needs better than an M3, you're quite welcome to use one. But please spare me the snide attitude because an M3 suits my needs better . . . "

Don't bust a gut. I was expressing an opinion, not intentionally issuing a personal affront. If you choose to be insulted, so be it. But you could spare me the condescension .

Let's try it this way: "Mike, if an M3 suits your needs better than an M6, you're quite welcome to use one. But please spare me the snide attitude because an M6 suits my needs better . . ."

Still smells bad, doesn't it?

Anyway, I'm sorry if you think I insulted your favorite camera. I didn't say that 40-year-old (or older) M3's don't work, can't work, or won't work for many applications. At root all of these machines are just light-tight boxes that hold film and mount Leica M lenses. But in my view, the increased "precision" of the M3 rangefinder is academic as the focusing accuracy of the .72 rangefinder of all subsequent Leica M's is overkill for the vast majority of lenses. (And for those who want to nitpick, both the Noctilux and the 75 Summilux were introduced during a time when .72 rangefinders were current, not the .91 of the M3.) Viewfinder "clutter" exists only for the easily confused or those who don't use their cameras very often (ditto the "distraction" caused by metering LED's). I simply don't see the framelines I'm not using and I don't see the LED's unless I'm looking for them.

I think the M4-era film loading and rewind mechanisms are vastly superior to the those of the M2/M3. I don't have misloads. And I don't believe that anyone who uses an M4, etc., regularly has misloads, either. I ruefully concede the point about rangefinder flare. But the lack thereof is not unique to the M3. Rangefinder flare was offered as standard equipment beginning with the M4-P and if anything it was enhanced on the M6. It is disgraceful, particularly since Leica cannot/will not correct it. I use 3M Durapore adhesive tape to decrease the flare on my cameras; a pathetic(though effective) way to fix a problem on a $2000 camera.

I think the M3 is a perfectly lovely camera. But it is an old camera. With old cameras parts wear out and are sometimes hard to replace; viewfinders and rangefinders yellow and separate (and cost anywhere from $150 to $600 to fix/replace); vulcanite dries out, cracks and peels off. All that said, I would be happy to own an M3, just as I would love to own a nice M4 (my favorite M). But that's largely because I think they're cool tools. I suspect that I would still reach for and use an M6 more often than anything else.

Ultimately I don't need brass, engraved script, big red dots, self-timers or any of the other cosmetics that appeal so much to the connoisseurs. And I absolutely stand by my original statement that dollar-for-dollar the best USER Leica available is clean, used M6 or M6TTL.

I presume that you (and a number of others, I'm sure) will disagree. That's fine. I'm not going to get all huffy and take it personally if you do.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), January 16, 2002.

Robert,

If you're not trying to issue a personal affront, perhaps you should avoid language in your posts which refers to the users of other kinds of camera in negative terms. (Examples: A really clean M3 does make splendid photo neck jewelry, no question, f that's what you're after. and Viewfinder "clutter" exists only for the easily confused or those who don't use their cameras very often (ditto the "distraction" caused by metering LED's).)

Others limited the discussion to features of the cameras and their personal preferences.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 17, 2002.

Jean-Pierre,

90% of the Leica experience is about feelings, which should be clear from this thread. We try to justify our emotional choices with what appear to be rational arguments, but...
The 35-50-90 framelines are indeed more rational, if that is the way you feel.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), January 17, 2002.

well, at least something positive came out of this thread, and that was Mike's pix. can we move on?

-- Paul Nelson (clrfarm@westnet.net.au), January 17, 2002.

Mike, it's only a personal affront if you choose to take it that way.

I find it tedious to pepper my posts with IMO's. But that's all I posted: an opinion. The man asked why the M3 was so popular. I offered my view: Nostalgia. Maybe that's a simplistic answer, but *I* believe that nostalgia is a BIG FACTOR. Look at all the posts here and on other lists that talk about elegance, hiqh-quality engraving, silky smoothness, jewel-like quality -- none of this stuff has anything to do with making photographs!

If you find the M6 viewfinder cluttered, fine. If you don't believe that anyone purchases old or new Leicas as neck jewelry, fine. If you or anyone else believes that Leica should have closed its R&D department in 1966, fine. I believe otherwise, but of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, aren't they? I am not trying to convince you or anyone else to abandon their M3. The M3 was the most popular Leica M model produced before the era of the M6. It was and is a well-loved camera. But in 2002, *I* believe that MOST of the enthusiasm for cameras like the M2/M3 and the screwmount Leicas is nostalgia. Practical nostalgia in that these machines still work well, but nostalgia just the same, as designs, materials and convenience features have advanced.

I have had my share of annoying problems with the M6 and, as I said in another thread, I believe that the M6/M6TTL is the worst camera Leica has ever built. But as I said in the same sentence, I also believe that the M6TTL is the BEST camera Leica has ever made. Kind of the culmination of design advances in mechanical rangefinder cameras.

Do I have to say FOR ME, IMO, YMMV for you to not take it personally?

Snipe at me off this list. Save your etiquette lectures for private e-mail. Let's leave these nice people alone.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), January 17, 2002.

Ok guys, time out....

Use what you want to use. If you shoot better with the M3 then use the M3. No one will dispute the effectiveness of the M3 in the hands of Mr. Dixon. I use the M6 TTLs myself but not because I think the M3 is a piece of junk. Its just what I've chosen to use and am TRYING to use alot better in the future.

Its the photographer who takes the picture, not the camera. Case in point... I thought I'd never see the day when I would plunk down some deneros for a digital snapshooter. Now my Canon S110 Digital permanently resides on my belt and I'm finding it indispensible for training my eye to evaluate different angles and perspectives whenever I find some situation potentially "photo worthy". That and I only have to buy the 96 MB smart media card once. I can shoot away happily knowing that I'm getting a free lesson in perspective.

Is it a Leica? NO... Is the Canon zoom lens on this P&S comparable to a Leica prime? NO. SO WHAT? It gets the job of training my eye and photo intuition done.

I think this argument over whether the old Ms or newer Ms are better or worse is nonsequitur.

If you want to debate something then debate the pros and cons of a Speed Graphic vs Leica M for SF.

Sorry for ranting,

Respectfully, John.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 17, 2002.

I went and tried to switch from an M3 to an M6TTL. I couldn't. I don't want to take anything away from M6 users, but learning on an M3 spoils you (in all ways except film loading).

Even the major advance between the two cameras - the light meter - ended up being a minus when I compared the two. I didn't like the readout, and it served to remind me how well the Leica M is designed for looking down at the camera to choose your settings, then raising it to your eye to expose.

When it came down to making the decision, I could only think of two reasons to go with the M6TTL: it came in black and it had the quickload spool -- which weren't enough for me to shell out $1700.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), January 17, 2002.

Maybe the mysterious new Cosina Voigtlander camera will be more like the M3. It has been reported that Cosina is reluctant to sell a camera that competes directly with a current Leica camera's feature set (notice I didn't say construction quality) -- hence the Bessa R with a nice finder but no M mount, and the Bessa T with an M mount but no finder at all.

They could keep this practice up by introducing a Bessa M3, with life- size finder and M mount, and built in meter. I also really love being able to keep both eyes open with the frame lines seeming to just float in space around the scene.

-- John Morris (jtmorris@slb.com), January 17, 2002.

Just a thought, but for those who love the life-size finder of the M3, why not just use the new 1.25x magnifier on a standard M4-M6 0.72 finder? You'll get the same 0.9x viewer magnification and you won't have to muck about with spindle loading...

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), January 17, 2002.

"you won't have to muck about with spindle loading..."

I cannot resist... So instead of mucking about with the M3 spindle loading, you would rather muck about with the 1.25x magnifier? Peace.

-- Gerald (hsus@netzero.net), January 17, 2002.

If you are comfortable with the both eyes "floating frame" of the M3 then this is an unbeatable feature. It really elavates the M3 over the other Ms in my opinion. I just find it tricky sometimes to focus with both eyes open so I end up focusing with the left eye closed and then composing with both open...

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), January 18, 2002.