Difference between M2 and M3 and is the M4 much better?

<p>I don't see any difference between the M2 and M3 except the M2 has 35mm brightlines. But then I've heard people say that the M2 is a basic/stripped down version of the M3. How is that? </p>

<p>If the only difference is the 35mm brightline added to the M2 then I would actually prefer the M2 over the M3. Is there something that I'm missing?</p>

<p>Also, one other quick question. For someone that is considering an M2 or M3, how would I benefit by paying a few hundred dollars more for an M4? I believe that changing rolls is made easier. Is there anything else?</p>

<p>It seems to me that the M4 is the best in the M4 line (M4, M4-2, M4-P). It has the self timer (which is a bonus) and it doesn't have the red dot in the front (which is also a good thing in my opinion). What's the benefit of getting an M4-P</p>

<p>My personal preference is the M2. I still have two M2s and an M3, which I also love. I've had an M4 twice, but it never felt the same as the others, so I let the last one go once I had an MP for the 28mm framelines. You'l be perfectly fine with any of them so long as the camera is in good working condition. I had an M4-2 briefly years ago, and it did not feel as solid as the others--maybe as it has a zinc top plate. Aside from that, you're getting a great camera with any of these. I would never, though, pay "a few hundred dollars more" for an M4.</p>

<p>m4-p has 28mm framelines, and is one of the finest leicas ever made -- there are many variations within the m4-p series -- there are also variations on the m4-2 - some people will say the m4-2 is a dog -- but because people raise their nose at them, you can get them cheaper - the m4-2 early models had some issues -some people will bark that it uses inferior production methods during assembly - rubbish - -it's a fine camera -- the m3 has a big beautiful viewfinder and feels different than the m4 series</p>

<p>handle a few of the different models and you'll find your own differences and quirks</p>

<p>From my experience the M3 has the finest rangefinder, bright and flare free showing 92% of the view. If you use no wider than 35mm lens the outside of the frame displays 37mm view or you can use the separate slide on finders of which there are many. IMHO the M3 is the finest M series Leica in my small collection. I have both DS(no PV) and SS models, 1954 and 1959 as well as 1960 M1 which lacks RFDR, ST, and needs no PV as 35 and 50 frames are present at all times but Parallax correction is available.</p>

<p>Asim,</p>

<p>So far no one has mentioned that the M2 requires manual resetting of the film counter indicator to 0 each time you change films. The M3 and M4 have an automatic mechanism for this function.</p>

<p>I've used both and have an M2 currently. Yes, the M3 viewfinder is great, especially for 90 lenses, but you have to find one in good condition. I think the M2 viewfinder is easier to update--I got mine with a .72. I'm not a big fan of the film counter but I can live with it.<br>

Someone mentioned the self-timer, but personally I don't like having it because your right fingers want to grab on for stability but can't. The M6 feels more natural in the had because it lacks the self-timer lever.</p>

<p>Unless a documented CLA occurred within 5 or less years, all will need a CLA. This usually runs around $400 at the recommended repair places in this forum. (Sherry Krauter or D.A.G.).</p>

<p>Rubber dries, lubrication gets gummy or dry, things go out of their precise mechanical adjustment,etc. The $400 will get you a mechanically like new machine, tuned for at least a dozen years of hard use before the next CLA.</p>

<p>Every camera you spoke of is at least 35 years old! And the oldest M3's are 55 years old!</p>

<p>That said, the M4 body is a certainly easier to load. But after a few dozen rolls the M2/M3 style loads just as fast to a reasonably dexterous person. The big difference is the M4's rewind is a joy to use by comparison to either M2 or M3. Like the loading, practice brings proficiency to rewinding the little knobs. The other quirk of note is the SS/DS issues of the M3's. Having to double stroke the advance , like the loading and rewinding get automatic quickly with practice.</p>

<p>The M4-P and M4-2 ar both decent cameras for the money. However the original M4's were the last to have the top engraving. These later cameras all had simple painted lettering, and don't seem of the same build quality of the earlier cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unless a documented CLA occurred within 5 or less years, all will need a CLA. This usually runs around $400 at the recommended repair places in this forum. (Sherry Krauter or D.A.G.).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've owned lots of Leicas, bought from all sorts of people. Some from upstanding folks who took care of their stuff, some from the 'bay from who-knows-who, and even an M4-2 sight unseen off craigslist for less than $400. I've only ever had once camera CLA'd - and that was a screwmount III, from the 30's, that spent a good part of it's life in the hands of a soldier in Germany<br>

Bottom line: try to buy from a reputable guy if you can, and if it's had a recent CLA, great. But if not, and it works, just use the damn thing.<br>

Oh, and a few points. The M3 has the best finder as long as you want to use a 50mm lens or longer. For 35mm, you can't go wrong with an M2 or M4; I like the M4, but many prefer the M2.<br>

Best of luck.</p>

Another difference: Some M2's have a rewind button, instead of the small lever used on other M's. You have to keep pressing the button for the entire rewind, or you'll tear your film. Later M's switched to the lever though.

 

Also, starting with later M2's, Leica removed the finger guard around the lens release.

<p>The M2 was introduced so PJ's could use 35mm lenses without the goggles that had to go with 35's on the M3. Yes, it was supposedly stripped down a bit, and did away with a couple of features, like the nice raised frames on the top plate surrounding the viewfinder glass, it had a manual reset film counter, and so on. But the chassis was still very, very rugged ... the M2 is a brick. It wasn't long before PJs who liked the 35mm were completely sold on the M2.</p>

<p>The M4 tried to combine the features of the M2 and the M3 because it was introduced in a period of increasing competition from Japanese SLRs. Leica didn't want to have two models out when it could build and sell one. So the M4 combined the framelines of the M2 nd M3 with the M2's magnification. Personally, I like the simplicity of the M2's 35/50/90 finder. But the M4 is probably the last of the "Classic" Leica M's with hand-built quality. Just check the hand-engraved top plate that vanished with the later M4-2, M4-P and M6. </p>

<p>You can't go wrong with any of them, but if you like using 35mm lenses, I would say the M3 is not for you. If you like 50's and 75's, the M3 has the more accurate rangefinder.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see any difference between the M2 and M3 except the M2 has 35mm brightlines. But then I've heard people say that the M2 is a basic/stripped down version of the M3. How is that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, this is essentially how Leica marketed the M2 when in was introduced in the late 1950s. Others have already substantially noted the differences. </p>

<p>Other than film loading, there is no significant difference between an M2 (with a self timer) and an M4. All Leica M cameras have the same basic innards through the M4. It was from the M4-2 onwards, Leica began looking for ways to cut production costs.</p>

<p>I bought my M4 new in 1967 and my M2 used in 1972. Both are excellent cameras but my M2 has the edge over my M4 (emphasis on my examples). The M4 developed prism separation and the viewfinder was replaced with an M2 finder with the M4 frames. Never had any problem whatsoever with the M2. Both have had CLAs by Gerry Smith at Kindermann. <br>

My M2 is the early button rewind (1958) and I DO NOT have to keep the button depressed during rewind. Not sure why other examples differ in this regard.<br>

We all have our own opinions about these cameras and I feel that the M2 has a slightly better build quality than the M4. If I could keep only one it would be the M2. I have never used the M3. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I own and use M4's and M2's, but I also prefer the M2 for its cleaner frameline choices and its old fashioned spool loading. Yes, I prefer the old-fashioned way because it seems more positive to me. I can't imagine mis-loading an M2. I have added MP rewind cranks to both my M2s to speed up the process. </p>

<p>You may have missed the progression. The M3 came out first, then the M2. Go figure. If you shoot the lenses that the M3 has in it's frame lines it has the best viewfinder to me. Certainly the biggest.</p>

<p>The M4 was the last M to use a brass gear train for cocking the shutter. M4-2 and M4-P use steel to accommodate power winders. Many feel the brass gives a smoother feel. YMMV.</p>

<p>The Leica M4 have a slightly more fast film introduction system, whit a fixed spool, thought i prefer the M3/M2 removable spool, because i find this system more simple. The frame system, in the VF/RF of the M4, allow the use of 35, 50, 90 and 135 mm lenses, while the frame system, in the VF/RF of the M2, allow the use of 35, 50 and 90 mm lenses; instead, the frame system of the M3 allow the use of 50, 90 and 135 mm. To use the 35 mm with the M3, you need particular goggled Summaron and Summicron 35 (or an external finder with a normal 35 mm lenses). The magnification of the VF/RF of the Leica M2 and M4 are 0.72x while in the VF/RF of the Leica M3 is 0.91x. I own the M3, M2 and M4. The construction quality is at the same level in all these cameras. The Leica M3, in my opinion, have the best VF/RF and work very well with goggled 35 mm, Summaron or Summicron. Between M2 and M4, in order to VF/RF, i prefer the M2.<br>

Ciao.</p>

<p>Put the 35mm 1:1.4 Summilux asph. on your M2 -- photo heaven!!</p>