Leica M2 or M3

<p>Hi all,<br>

I have a little dilemma about which body to buy. As I will be using almost exclusively a 50mm Summicron, the wide angle frames on the M2 do no make any sense to me. However, neither does the longer framelines on the M3. Also, from what I've heard, the M2 is an inferior camera to the M2. To what extent is this true? Thanks in advance for your help.<br>

Cheers!<br>

Jyh Hern</p>

 

<p>The viewfinder of the M3 is unique in it's high magnification. Many consider it the best M-series viewfinder. The framelines for the 90mm and 135mm lenses will NOT show when a 50mm lens is mounted.<br>

The M2 was the economy model, but the quality of construction is the same as the M3. The finder is basically the same 0.72X one used on M2, M4, M5, M6, and M7. The frame counter is manually reset on the M2.</p>

<p>Qualitywise they are the same. The difference in the frame counter is minor, the big points are that if you wear glasses, the 50 mm frame is much easier to see on an M2 (or M4, etc.) and that finding a 35 mm lens with "spectacles" (supplementary viewfinder) for an M3 will be quite difficult - much bigger choice with an M2.</p>

<p>Economy is a relative term with Leica. The M3 has an automatically resetting frame counter where the M2 you have to set it yourself. The M3's higher mag rangefinder will help you focus your 50mm lens. I used M2s because I wanted the frameline for 35mm and didn't care about 135. I think that's usually why people choose between them, especially this many years after the fact. You should find good prices for both.</p>

<p>At this stage of the game it comes down to condition, price and framelines. If you are planning to buy and use a 35mm lens then it is the M2.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I think this is the best one"<br /> <em><em>(circa 1968) </em>Donald Draper of</em><strong><em> Mad Men </em></strong><em>gifting a new Leica M2 over to a doctor friend. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>As opposed to the "Mad Men" Leica M2 recommendation, the M3 & M4 were in fact the premium models still on dealer shelves.</p>

<p>Also keep in mind that the larger magnification provides more accurate framing and the design<strong> is void</strong> of the occasional 2nd image glare. For exclusive 50mm use, the M3 is by far the best choice.</p>

<p>I had an M3 from 1985 to 2002 and another M3 for two years in the new century. Each had an external finder for 35mm fitted. There's much to be said for the combination.</p>

I use the M3 with the 50 and 90 mm mostly. The magnification is great for focusing wide open with a 50mm 1.4 or 1.1 lens!

 

I have used an external finder when using a 21 or 28mm lens. If you plan on using a 28, 35, and 50mm go with the M2.

 

Ricky

For an M2 that's 35, 50, and 90

 

For anything else you need a clip on viewfinder

The true Leica man has both, an M2 and an M3.

<p>M3 without a doubt. Best viewfinder for a 50mm, can focus a 1.2 lens, can be converted to M4 loading and M6 motordrive.</p>

<p>Here's my M3MOT with the Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens & hood</p>

<p><img src="http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e5/aoresteen/Leica%20Cameras/m3mot2.jpg" alt="" width="493" height="393" /></p>

<p>This is inspiring me to get my M3 going with my Nokton 50/1.1. Anthony, I want to know who did that conversion and how good is it. I would dearly love something like that.</p>

<p>This is inspiring me to get my M3 going with my Nokton 50/1.1. Anthony, I want to know who did that conversion and how good is it. I would dearly love something like that.</p>

<p>Had M3/M2 back and forth; back and forth for more than 45 years. Always return to the M2 with a 35 1:2.8 Summaron. I dunno.</p>

<p>There is nothing "inferior" about an M2! Its .72 finder became the basis for subsequent Leicas, including the M4 and M5, as well as the M6, M7, and MP models with .72 finders.</p>

<p>But if you don't like 35mm lenses (are you sure you never will) then the M3 is right for you.</p>

<p><strong>The true Leica man has both, an M2 and an M3.</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Someone's been reading too much Ken Rockwell. Having had both, I'd take neither because each has rather annoying "features." I hated the loading system of the M3, especially fumbling with three parts (body, film, bottom cover) when I only have two hands. I also hated the cheapo film counter on the M2, which sometimes accidentally gets moved. I've also disliked the self-timer, which falls right in the wrong place on the models up to the M4. That how I've ended up with the M4-P. It's just as smoothly operating as anything else, for those who seem to place a high premium on such things.</p>

<p>I had the M3, a beautiful camera, but I could not abide the fact that it did not have frame lines for the 35mm lens. I kept my M2 and bought a brand new M4-P to go with it.<br>

I still have this set up 27 years later.<br>

If you can endure loading film in the M2, without the quick loading kit, loading the M4-P is easy, but you don't get a Leica M because it's easy to load film.............err...why do you get a Leica?</p>

<p>I used a beat up M2 for 30 years. The frame counter did not work. The frame spacing is uneven but never overlap. Both problems could not be fixed by my local Leica tech. Other than that there were no problems. The shutter speeds were still within spec.<br>

My double stroke M3 is still perfect. I actually prefer the slow film loading spool. Since you are using a manual camera with no metering, what is the hurry?<br>

The M2 fits my hands better than the M3.<br>

Never had a CLA for either.</p>

I'll likely get shot down for this but since I own both ill chip in. I use both but use my 50s more than 35s. I find I can frame

pretty accurately on my M3 using the whole vf for 35. If I had to choose, I'd keep the m3 for the superior brightness and

magnification. The frame lines are only approximate anyway.

<p>I bought the M2 and have no complaints. I'll buy the M3 in a few years. I suggest you get both.</p>

<p>I completely forgot about this thread for about 3 years. Well, long story short, and due in no small part to the responses I received from the wonderful members here, about 2 months after I started the thread I procured a M3. It's perfect for the 50mm lens!<br /> <a data-flickr-embed="true" href=" title="DSC_0128-2"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5714/21380087244_46ee26ee09_c.jpg" width="800" height="530" alt="DSC_0128-2"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script<br>

Edit: I went for the 50mm f2.8 Elmar instead, it's a wonderful lens in itself, and I don't think I'll be needing another 50mm in quite a while.</p>

<p>Glad you are happy. Collapsible lenses make a lot of sense when you are mostly using 50mm lenses. Have you thought about an old collapsible 90mm f4 Elmar? Heavy but similarly compact.</p>