Why the M3 mystique?

[bob_peters]

I read down below someone saying the M3 was the only Leica for them -

why is that the case for a lot of people?

 

The M2 seems to have more widely used framelines and other than the

higher magnification of the viewfinder an M2 seems comparable to an M3.

 

If someone can explain why they deem an M3 preferable to an M2, M4x or

M6 I'd be interested to hear the reasoning - seems to me the M6 has

everything you could want while still being fully manual and the 0.85

magnification model is almost the same as an M3 for the viewfinder but

obviously for some folk it lacks something. Just curious as to why the

M3 is the most loved of the fully manual cameras / most loved of the

Leica M's.

[johnmarkpainter]

Bob,

 

It is totally practical....loading Film on an M3 is a bit of a pain. BUT for longer Focal

lengths, the View is the BEST.

 

They were also built quite well. Kind of a pinnacle of engineering and something that just

couldn't be made today. I have an M3 and an M6.

 

jmp

[richie chishty]

Read this:

 

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/leicam3.html

[david j.lee]

because it`s beautiful...?

[cdnguyen]

I don't think M3 is that big a deal. Since I bought the 1.25 magnifier I am able to convert my M6 TTL .72 to an M3 viewfinder in an instant.

[elijah_free]

My M3 turned 45 this year. Just had a birthday shooting for the old gal. Paired her with a 90 asph cron. I plan on posting the birthday pics that we took here soon when I finish scanning them. I find the M3 one of those artful kind of things that either is just right for you or it is not. Mine is silky smooth and the finder is exceptionally bright and clear. The long baseline makes the 90 and 135 a joy to use. I kind of like the old loading system and can use it as fast as my M6. Let's face it. Anyone who uses a leica RF in the first place thinks photography differently anyhow. I have a VC 2 meter on top for metering. And I put on a rewind crank, so it is all souped up. I can't say it is my most loved. I really like my M6 just as well. But there is that certain something, that the M3 has. regards

[ben z]

"Why the M3 mystique? I read down below someone saying the M3 was the only Leica for them - why is that the case for a lot of people?"

 

Bob, I've got a SS M3, >1 million, CLA'd by DAG, with the "X" synch replaced with a standard one, and the Quick Kit for loading. Despite the "upgrades" (I've got the plain spool too but like the Quick Kit better)and the CLA so it functions like new, I use it only occasionally, and only with the chrome rigid 50 Cron. For one thing I use a 35mm lens quite frequently and I do not like the googled type because the googles distort the image in the finder and the lenses are heavier and take up more room in the bag, and a googled Summicron (I like at least f/2)means an 8-element chrome which costs as much as a used ASPH Cron. For another thing the finder prism in mine has signs of the cement coming undone. DAG said it might never happen, but a good knock could do it, and it costs $250 to fix. So the M3 is "out" as part of my travel outfit. It's a great camera, but not one I would want to be my only M body.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Because my used M3's cost me less than folks pay for a CLA today. I think my collapsble Summicron; two M3's; LTM Summarit; and Noct all in combined cost less than a new M6 body with no lens.

[r s]

Out of the 40-or-so rangefinder cameras that I own (Olympus, Mamiya, Canon, etc) - none of them feel as 'right' as the M3 does. <br>I like the look of the older 60's lenses as well so the M3 is my take-it-anywhere camera of choice. <br>Actually brought it with me when I went to dinner last night and shot a roll of Fuji Neopan 1600.

<br>

It's a dream machine for use with a 50mm lens.

[eliot_rosen1]

The M3 is admired by many including me because it is probably the best built M, with a superb finish, both inside and outside, no expense spared, even on the internal parts. The viewfinder is simple, high mag (0.91X), and a pleasure to use. There is no question that with later Ms (particularly the M4-2 and subsequent models), Leica used many cost-saving measures and short cuts.

 

However, as much as I admire it, I find the newer cameras much more functional. I used the M4P for many years and now the M7, the most capable M. Problems with the M3 are the antiquated and slower loading system, the lack of the angled rewind crank that makes rewinding slower, the lack of a built-in meter, the lack of a hot shoe, and the old-style flash connection port.

 

The M3 also lacks framelines for the 28, 35, and 75 mm lenses, which may be an advantage or disadvantage depending upon your point of view. And the early M3s are missing the frame preview selector lever and require two full strokes of the shutter wind-on lever rather than one (something that some people like but others don't).

 

I would have to agree that the M3 is the best built M ever, but it is not the one I would choose as a user. Here there is no comparison, the M7 with its AE and electronically timed shutter is the most functional.

[david_kieltyka]

I prefer my M2 to the M3 I once owned. But this is due only to the latter's lack of 35mm framelines. Both cameras have uncluttered viewfinders--a big plus for me, maybe not so important for other folks--and both were made extremely well and have proven very reliable. The on-board meter of the M6 & up is nice but not essential.

 

-Dave-

[john_boyle3]

There is no mystique. Some folks like the larger viewfinder while others prefer the one from the M2 and later models that will accomodate the 35mm lenses. The build quality of the M3 and M2 was superb and superior to that of later models. There were more M3s built than M2s, but the M2 seems to be the preferred camera due to its 35mm finder.

[frank granovski]

My pristine CL does it for me. It is both mysterious and marvelousness, even though the CL was made in Japan and not Canada or Germany. However, I believe I would like to get my hands on something better, whether made in Canada or Germany. ;*)

[kai_griffin]

Richie Chishty earlier provided this link:

<a href="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/leicam3.html">http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/leicam3.html</a>

<p>Where can be found this little gem:<p>

<i>"The M3 does not interrupt the stream of consciousness in the mind when experiencing and visualizing the focus of interest..."</i><p>

All I can say to that is: "like wow, man, where can I score some of that stuff??" That is <b>seriously</b> magical mystical stuff right there, mon.

[canfred]

I have both and use the M6 most but with the 50 and 90 the M3 is unsurpassed. My M6 has the flare problem in the finder all of the early ones have it something I had to get used to. The finder in my M3 is crisp clear and a joy to use the camera was original DS I had it changed to single never looked back now the chrome is worn where my hands hold it everything else is fine. FIFTY YEARS IN SERVICE

[albert_smith]

<I>The M2 seems to have more widely used framelines and other than the higher magnification of the viewfinder an M2 seems comparable to an M3.</I><P>

 

Put me down in the list of people that went to the M2 (and later cameras) over the M3. I owned two M3s as my first M cameras because of the many articles and reports (pre-internet days) that suggested this as the M to get. I learned the ins and outs of the Leica M on these two M3s, but as a user of the 35mm focal length, my eye went to the M2 after years of playing with bug-eye lenses and other work-arounds for this moderate lens that was ot supported in the M3's finder.<P>

 

I lucked into a pristine "R" version of the M2, and besides the finder that I wanted, I discovered that while I had learned to tolerate the spool loading of the M3, the faster load of the M2R was a dream come true. Following the M2 was a M4 and then the .72 M6. The two M3s were sold years ago, for more than I paid for them, and while I can understand the lore (it was the first M), use of wider than 50mm lenses make the later bodies more practical. <P>

 

Now as to hand-held metering vesus those diodes in the M6... As a shooter, the M6 was really a leap forward again.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I have never really wanted or cared for a meter with a M3; and use it alot with a Noct.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With a my Bessa R; the LED meter diodes are WAY too bright for low light work; and are a real distraction. I cannot imagine wanting added clutter and lights in M viewfinder; which adds confusion. Some of us want a simple tool; with no meter; and consider a metered body to be just fluff; and a hinderance.

[stephen_w.]

A Bessa R is not the correct tool for low-light work (short RF baselength), either is any M, other than my M6 and M7 (I'm familiar with their metering characteristics: semi-spot) for me, as I cannot any longer see the small numbers in my handheld meters, nor are they very accurate at low-light levels. I can guess fairly good, but prefer not to waste frames, so selectively measure light with my metered cameras, and compensate from experience, if necessary.

[david_morein]

Actually, the M2 and the M3 are both great cameras,

and in fact there is not a single M that does not have

its virulent adherents.

 

I have an M3, and it is a royal pain to use with

my tri-elmar, but I fall in love with it again when

I look through the finder. You could put a magnifier

on an M6 or M7, but you would lose your LED's and

then you're going to have to meter somehow. With

the M3 you don't have any LED's to lose, and you've

probably solved the metering problem somehow. (or

you're using the printed exposure guide that came

with your roll of film).

 

The key with Leica M's is that they are all

different, and each model has its unique set

of strong and weak points.

[frank granovski]

an m3 owner can always hang a light meter around the neck or keep it in his or her t-shirt pocket. once again and in small caps my short list now consists of the m3, the newer m2, the m4, the m5 and the more newer m4-2. i assume all these cameras are bricks except for the tank-like m5. These models are good, according to the many experts frolicking about this forum; and that's what it's all about---ascertaining the perfect leica m. i don't mind if a leica was made in japan, canada or even germany, but I do mind if it was made in portugal because of the elevated cost and lowered expectations---not to slam the quality in today's plastic world. i figure that checking junk stores is a good place to start along with regular pokes into the buy & sell. hell, i may yet unearth a pristine yesteryear specimen, which seems to be the first step into elysium.

[h._p.]

I owned a M2 many years ago and its viewfinder nearly put me off Leica for life. Then I tried a M3 and I became a convert. I've looked through the finders of other M series cameras and none suit me as much as that of the M3. Perhaps other people just feel the same way....<div></div>

[frank granovski]

Okay, I'm taking the M2 off my list.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>With a my Bessa R; the LED meter diodes are WAY too bright for low light work; and are a real distraction.</em></p><p>Simple (and simply reversible) solution: remove the battery.</p>

[jason]

My M-3 is simply my favorite camera body. The M-6 has the built in meter(wow!) and my M-2 is really never used(absolutely pristine).

Why the simple preference? I use the so called bug-eyes 35mm-Summaron

f2.8 plus the collapsible 50mm-Summicronf2.0 plus every now and then a 135mm.The last lens is a Hektorf4.5(way less than pristine) 3 scratches on an internal lens element or the way sharper 135mm Tele-Elmar. Now I normally prefer the Hektor, lighter and easier to focus.

The M-3 fits my eye, hands and brain better! I am used to the film loading,easier than my drop-in-start-again-easy-M-6. Its sure and fast.

Rewinding is an absolute pain! What was Leica thinking with the MP?Sell a dinky "rewind-crank" for $200.!

When I use the M-3 photos seem to float out to me. There are many that one would swear were done by SLR! I "see"" so different with it..

If I am in a hurry, the first camera I always grab is my M-3!

A photographer friend once said that sort of choice should make it "your always camera".

The M-6 has too many frames, it feels "rougher" and the viewfinder flare is simply unaccceptable in a camera of both this price and so called sophistication.

I dread my finder going black!