Digital camera like Leica M3

<p>I'd like to own a digital camera closest to the M3 I use (because I take mostly photos of my kids and don't print, wife wants to see photos :)</p>

<ul>

<li>could use a SLR, but want a optical finder</li>

<li>want the 0.9 mag. and keep both eyes open</li>

<li>use only 50mm (currently rigid Summicron)</li>

<li>I like the knob focus and wonder why all lenses don't have them</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm picky. The M3 is perfect. I would look at a M9 or M-E, but the smaller magnification on the finder worries me. Is using a magnifier a workable solution?</p>

<p>Hi Karesh,</p>

<p>I am sure you are not alone, but as most also want to use various focal length optics, a 0.9X mag VF is not the most practicable. An M-E (as you don't need the frame lever) with a magnifier would probably be fine, provided that the magnifier does not cut off part of the 50mm projected frameline. The new M262 would probably meet your needs as well, but is considerably more costly and adds only 8 MP extra to the resolution potential. Without printing to large sizes those extra pixels are likely not necessary.</p>

<p>Fuji X100T or X-pro ?</p>

<p>Magnifiers are quite nice to have. I wish Phottix hadn't discontinued their affordable 1.25x one before I realized I want 2 of them (one for each digital). - I am not sure if they are a substitute for an M3 in great shape (my beater here isn't so I can't compare it).</p>

<p>let me know when you find that perfect digicam with rounded finder corners ;)</p>

<p>I am with you.<br>

1.35 or 1.4 magnifier will give you your M3 type viewfinder mag; not necessarily Leica brand, on an M9. Mine has focus / dioptric adjustment. Works fine, only components came unscrewed, so I needed to tape them together. Can't remember the brand.<br>

Will work with 35mm lens at a pinch, but not with 28mm. They unscrew easily when required. The Leica ones have a retaining cord of some kind.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The frame lines in the M240/262 series is optimized for 2 meters, and 1 meter in the M9 series. You will find the 2 meter frame lines much more accurate unless you are photographing close up. I am able to easily nail focus with a 50/1.4 wide open with my M262. I was using my Leica M2-R today and noticed the RF on the 262 is superior. It's a great unit and with good eyes you should have no problems. I also had and M-E and the RF unit in it is just as good as the 262. Leica supposedly put a screw back into the rangefinder 24X series that was not in the M9, which is the basis for Leica's claim the RF units are more robust. </p>

<p>+1 on the Fujis. </p>

<p>Any Fuji X100T, X-E2, A-pro 2 and fuji lenses are Super.</p>

<p>+1 on Fujis. The Fuji lenses are superb and you have choices of optical or electronic viewfinders and auto or manual focus.</p>

<p>I'd hop on the Fuji wagon- the X-Pro is a pretty nice camera [either one]. You'd be surprised at how quickly the perception of the 'perfect camera' can fade away [i have an M2 and believe it to be far superior to the M3, though by no means are either perfect in my opinion].</p>

<p>I for one like the smaller magnification as it allows the use of wider angle lenses [i've never used anything over a 90 on a Leica, it just seems terribly futile, I'd rather use an SLR so the parallax doesn't kill me]. In addition the largest frameline being 50mm on the M3 doesn't allow you to see what's going on outside of the frame- the higher magnification doesn't allow for this [which would be especially useful trying to capture pictures of moving subjects]. This is just for Leicas though, and it's a matter of preference. The M9 does have a magnifier, but it's an extra $300ish dollars, and seems like an awful waste of money.</p>

<p>Most people these days are happy using the live view on their cell phones. I was hiking yesterday at Pinnacles National Park and it was crowded. Everyone out there was taking photos with their cell phone. I had my F100 and I did see a fellow from probably Norway (if I recognized the language properly) and he had a DSLR of some sort. Anyway the live view allows you to see everything around you and what is moving in and out of the picture frame. <br>

<br>

Probably just go pick out a camera that seems good as they are all quite capable and shoot it or use your cell phone which will snag great shots of the kids. I suppose a digital Leica would have the most in common with your M3 if your ok with the huge price. </p>

<p>And when you're quite done with that M3, give me a jingle. ;-)</p>

<p>Olympus is coming out with a new Pen series camera. You might want to review the data on that item. </p>

<p>Some magnifiers are available via the Bay from a Hong Kong company. The one I have was not expensive and works well enough for viewing purposes. The reducing rather than enlarging VF optic they make for Leicas is useless.</p>

A used Leica M9 with a 1.25x finder would probably be less than the M-E.

<p>Thank you for the responses! Seems like there is no real replacement. I used the Fuji X100S in the past and liked it. However, now I'm really used to the M3's 1:1 finder. Why does Leica not offer a choice of viewfinder magnifications, like they did with the M6? The Epson R-D1S also seems like a replacement, but no one made a similar camera later.</p>

<p>I suppose there was insufficient demand for other viewfinder magnification. 135mm is unfashionable, and 35mm is seen for many in the way 50 was back when the M3 was king. 'People' want wider lenses.<br>

Never the less, with magnifiers available, I don't see your problem. I moved from M3 to M9 and now have no problem, but I am a left eye photographer, so never have both eyes open.</p>

<p>No camera can, in my opinion, be same as the M3.<br>

I purchased a M6TTL in 2000, as I believed my M3 on last legs..<br>

Well it nearly outlived me, due to a cardiac moment!<br>

Yes, it is still my main camera.<br>

I HATE the smaller viewfinder and frames of the M6TTL.<br>

I always had a M2, but seldom used.<br>

A DSLR has really lousy screens(made for wrong focus AUTO) ,<br>

compared to a used Pentax ME-super, Canon-Ae-1P or a venerable Nikon F.<br>

I found the Fuji and Olympus nice but still not my camera.<br>

No not better nor worse.<br>

They are different.<br>

Keep the M3, shoot more film..<br>

It takes a heck of a lot of film, to equal cost of digital Leica, or any Digital system.<br>

No digital camera feels and gives results like a film camera.</p>

<p>Jason makes a good point, quite a lot of film goes into the cost of a digital Leica. That being said, it's all a matter of opinion. Jason prefers the M3, I the M2, and others may prefer digital to film in general. That being said, even if digital doesn't have the feel of film, it's not necessarily worse, just different [unless you're using an ancient system].</p>

<p>I do love and shoot my M 3, but it would be great to use the old lenses on a digital body sometimes. Unfortunately, the options I have seen are all too rich for my photo budget!</p>

<p>Interesting thread. I pondered the same concern while searching for a digital body on which to use my Leica M lenses. For film, I had long ago settled on the M2 body, mainly due to the viewfinder frames configuration being friendlier to me for usage of 35mm focal length lenses. While the M3 viewfinder is certainly great for 50mm lenses, I have another camera which I find has, IMO, an even nicer 50mm RF/VF. While the lens is not interchangeable, the 50mm lens of the Konica IIIA is quite special, and it's RF/VF is a true wonder. If I'm in it for the viewfinder/rangefinder experience while shooting a 50mm lens, it's what I go for every time. Full 1:1 fov with parallax correction as well. Very, very nice, a true classic if there ever was one.<br>

While I have been patiently waiting for the "ideal" (whatever that may be) Leica M digital body to mature, I did want to use M lenses on a digital body in the meantime. But, which body? After considerable rumination as to whether the full frame Sony A7 series or APS-C NEX/A6000 series would suffice, along comes this Ricoh GXR M mount. At first, I dismissed it, telling myself "Don't bother with a Ricoh. Very few photographers ever consider them." Well, that was wrong headed thinking. While it isn't full frame, relying instead on a APS-C sensor, and it isn't AF, and the body has no built-in Leica type rangefinder, and it's "just" 12 mpx, for Leica M lenses including wides, this M mount lensor which is used with the GXR body is really rather exceptional and is capable of delivering the goods! Sadly, Ricoh-Pentax abandoned the concept of separate "lensors" a couple years back, so it's no longer available except for the used market. But, for using Leica M lenses on a digital body at very modest cost while still delivering splendid images, it seems to remain a relatively unknown gem. On mine, I have the optional shoe mounted, tilting EVF for it, too, which makes focusing that much easier for those of us who find it a challenge once our vision begins to deteriorate with the onset of middle age. Especially with the magnifying and "peak" focusing it incorporates. <br>

One more interesting capability of the GXR M mount I'll mention before closing: I can now use many other brands of lenses with various mounts by simply adding an inexpensive adapter(s). My M42 SMC Takumars have once again found new life, not to mention the glorious old Contarex lenses that have been sitting idle for so long. Oh, can't forget about the RE Topcors with Exacta mount, and even the Kodak Retina reflex lenses with Deckel mount. The Konica AR lenses now get used again, and the mighty 1970s era Vivitar Series I lenses, too. The list goes on an on...but this GXR M mount does a very fine job with all of them. I'm never disappointed with it. Okay, my rant is done. Take it for two cents please, and best wishes to you as you decide what will work best for you.<br>

Daryl</p>

 

<p>Daryl, Thanks! <br>

I am off to Ebay! Can you give me the model of the EVF and a bit more info on that? I have several Leica lenses. <br>

Looks like the whole thing can be done comparatively reasonably.<br>

I had a 35mm Ricoh with a Leicavit type film advance years ago, quite good camera I gave to a then girlfriend because I had a Nikon and she needed a camera.<br>

Sandy</p>

<p>I am very dissappointed by most, if not all, digital cameras I have had in my hands. Normally I shoot Leica M6 and I am very happy with it. Though digital has its conveniences, too. So, I finally bought the Fujifilm X-E1. It is quite similar to a analog camera. At least, it looks like, and I got it for a reasonable price. But when grabbing the camera out of the bag, or taking into my hands when the camera is hanging on my neck, often, very often, I touch some of the buttons accidently. Whether it is the compensation knob at the top or one of the bottoms at the rear of the camera, including for focussing the viewer. Then, some kind of icon pops up at the screen, or worse, which oblidges me searching for my glasses (I am 50+) and figuring out what went wrong. And this happens, of course, just at the moment I want to take a photo! Why, oh why, are there so many buttons everywhere on the camera, are they so tiny and easy to press accidently? My first camera 40 years ago, the Olympus OM, was even better and is an example how it should be done: large buttons and each has its own function. Just like the majority, if not all, of the analog cameras.</p>

<p>In addition, why don't I find the button when I need it? Yes, I know, I should study all the buttons and learn all the icons, menu's and submenu's by heart. But I am there for taking photos, not for being bothered with screens, buttons menus and icons. Again, The Fujifilm camera is nice and makes beautifull pictures. If it works. But too often it distracts me from the job I want to do.</p>

<p>These kind of frustations alone already keep me shooting analog, be it a Leica M or whatever.</p>

<p>Gerber you've hit the nail on the head- this is the main reason I don't like digital cameras. If only there were a camera with all manual style controls like an old camera but with a good digital sensor, and none of the fiddly buttons, menus, submenus, and all that assorted fluff that comes along with digital cameras</p>