websterforrest Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Hi everyone, I have a question about the viewfinder in an M3. I will soon be the owner of an M3 and would like to use a 35mm lens with it. I am aware that the M3 does not have framelines for the 35mm lens. My question is: is it possible to see the field of view of a 35mm lens in the M3 viewfinder nevertheless? I'm not sure whether the 50mm lines are very near the edge of what you can see through the viewfinder. In other words, I wonder whether the viewfinder's own field of view might possibly be wide enough to see what the 35mm will photograph, but without the benefit of framelines. To prevent a few answers: I don't want to use the accessory 'glasses' or 'eyes' that can be had with some 35mm lenses made for the M3 - I'd like to use a modern summicron. Many thanks for your responses. Webster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 The M3 viewfinder doesn't work for 35mm lenses -- not even approximatelyh. You'll need either a seperate finder or a bug-eye lens. Why did you buy a M3 if you knew you were going to use a 35mm lens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shriver Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 You're either going to have to use an external viewfinder in the accessory shoe, use a goggled lens (the did make 35mm Summicrons with them, not that insanely rare), or trade your camera in for an M2, or M4 or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Get the Leica 35mm bright line viewfinder. It's wonderful. Don't worry about the separate windows bit, the external finder will become second nature. Manly men prefer M3 (and Barnacks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watts Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Get the Voigtlander 35mm metal viewfinder. Nice little accessory that is much cheaper (and better made) than the modern Leica equivalent (which is no longer available). In fact, if you go down this route give me a shout because I have a boxed mint one of these I no longer have any use for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steakandale Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Some M3 owners opt to replace the finder with a newer type. There was such an M3 on <a href="http://www.sherrykrauter.com/productsPage.php?category=mCameras" >Sherry Krauter's site</a> for sale with that mod. I don't know how much $$$ that is to have done though, search on it. : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 It won't be cheap. Best idea is to use the aux finder in the shoe, or get an M2 or M4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_marshall1 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Why would you buy an M3 if your primary lens is a 35? Or has this camera fallen into your lap as an inheritance or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terence_mahoney Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 That would be my question too. It's rather like hearing "I've just bought myself an MGB, but since I enjoy camping can it sleep four?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_morris4 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I don't understand why so many people insist on pointing out that the M3 is not the best match for a 35mm lens, and that Webster is doing something wrong by even wanting to ask this question. Nowhere does he say that the M3 is his only M camera, or that 35mm will be his primary lens. He may be getting an M3 to use with a 50 and 90 -- clearly that will work great, so there's no reason to ask "can I use a 50mm lens with my new M3?" I have an M3 and a 35mm lens. There are times when I am using the M3 -- with a 50mm lens -- and realize that I would like to use a 35mm for some pictures with that camera. Of course it's easier with an the M2, but I might not have the M2 with me. Or it might have the wrong film it in. So it's nice to know ahead of time whether I can get by without a separate finder. The answer turns out to be yes, but it's not very satisfying. An M2 or an external finder is much better. You can't really see through the finder all that the 35mm lens will put on film, and you certainly can't see it all at once like you can with an appropriate finder. But it's better than no finder at all. If you plan on using a 35mm lens a lot with an M3, you might decide to get an external finder, as suggested by others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael j hoffman Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 "I don't understand why so many people insist on pointing out that the M3 is not the best match for a 35mm lens, and that Webster is doing something wrong by even wanting to ask this question. Nowhere does he say that the M3 is his only M camera, or that 35mm will be his primary lens." Well, Webster did list it as a "Newbie Question" and said he would "like to use a modern Summicron" which, presumably, he does not already have. Please note that I have not responded to this thread until now. That said, I also feel the M3 is a poor match for a 35mm lens and that Webster would be better served by an M4 et al. Michael J Hoffman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Borrow or buy a FSU turret finder and use it for learning the field of view of the lenses you use. Compose the image in your mind around a central object of point in space before mounting the camera. Use the camera's VF as and aiming and ranging aid and make the exposure. Let the composition determine the bounds of the image and allow cropping space -- don't become a slave to the 2x3 format, there is nothing magic about it, just some absurd notions left over from the SLR mystique. Adding auxiliary VF just interferes with the ergonomics of the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Much as I loved my M3, I used mine with the MR meter which I liked very much, so using it with a 35mm lens was a pain - this is one of the reasons I ultimately sold it. If you use a hand held meter then you have the accessory shoe free to put a 35mm finder in it. If you use a small clip on meter then you could use one of the VC double shoes so you could have both a clip on meter and the extra vf on the camera together. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom leoni Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Dear Webster, I am an eager newbie too - I have owned my M3 for only a few months, and I have been quite diligent in learning and listening to those more experienced than me as well as shooting as much as I can. I have solved this problem by acquiring a vintage Soviet KMZ Universal viewfinder. This is an economical ($89) but still qualitative copy of the omonymous Zeiss accessory that has 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm finders. Most advantageously, this finder gives you actual magnification for powers over 50mm, as opposed to merely cropping the image as the Leica finders such as the VIOOH do, making it easier to use for composition - especially for us who are in the learning stages. Also, the picture you get through the finder still allows you to see what's going on outside the frame, which is a big plus, and it has parallax compensation (although I haven't tested how accurate it actually is at very close distances). BTW, I bought it through www.fedka.com, and I have been thoroughly satisfied with the quality. Another alternative would be to get a dedicated 35mm viewfinder - you can choose between several brands, including a new Voigtlander. As someone else mentioned, the only drawback of these is if you use a shoe-mounted light meter - since the finder will occupy that real estate. I use an old hand-held Gossen Sixtomat, so this does not bother me one bit. Bottom line: I have used a 35mm lens to my heart's content with my M3 (and now also with a IIIa and IIIf) and I haven't found my outfit wanting at all. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skip_williams Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Another option is to spend a little and get one of the great Russain 35mm finders like in this auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/Russian-Finder-35mm-black-35mm-black_W0QQitemZ7580998005QQcategoryZ93780QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem. I've had one for many years and I only paid about $40. It's superb for the money. Not as good as a brighline Leitz or Voigtlander, but it's darn good for the money. Skip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_franklin Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Please - why the exaggeration? The total viewfinder area of the M3 (ie, including outside the frame) is a reasonable approximation for the 35mm view (and yes, I have just checked this, using my M4 to compare), so contrary to opinions above, the M3 is useable with a 35mm lens. I've done so with no problems at all. I would agree that its a bit less convenient than an M2/4/5/6/7/P, so if the OP wishes to use a 35mm as their primary lens a different body might be advised, but if duties are to be shared on a more equal basis with a 50mm or longer, and the higher magnification is desired, why worry unduly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
websterforrest Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Many thanks to all of you for your honest replies. The consensus seems to be it's not a match made in heaven but in a pinch it's not going to be a complete disaster either. I have one of the 35mm viewfinders (a nice old Canon one that's very well made) that I've used on my screw-mount Leica and was hoping to take advantage of the M's single viewfinder /rangefinder window. At the end of the day, if I want to know exactly what is or isn't in the frame I suppose I can always use my Nikon F3! Best wishes, Webster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bart feliciano Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I REALLY liked my goggled 35 summicron,<br> but it was stolen a few years back. I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand.<br> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/22/25125053_9cc4d47f55.jpg" width="500" height="344" alt="." /></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now