Why 2 M3s

[love4leica]

Is there any reason why one should have two M3 bodies? One keeper, one user?

Would it not be better to have one M2 and one M3- both users. Back up body?

[ronald_moravec1]

To not change lenses. If you like 50/90, M3 is perfect.

 

If you like 35/90, maybe a M2 and M3 would be better.

[vincenzo_maielli]

I'm agree with Ronald. In my shoulder bag (Tamrac 5608 blue) i carry a Leica MP with Summicron 50 DR, a Leica M5 with Summaron 35/2.8, a Leica CL with CV Apo Lanthar 90/3.5, a Leica M2 with Nikkor LTM 135/3.5 and KMZ turret finder, a Bessa L with CV Wide Heliar Aspherical 15/4.5. At neck i carry MP, M5 and CL.

Ciao.

[Alex_Es]

Do you like your M3s? If so, keep them. If you want an M2, get an M2. There are practical

reasons of course--different lens, different film, a body in reserve. But if they please you

that is reason enough. I have two M3 and three working M2s. Is there a Thou Shalt Not in

relation to Leica ownership?

 

<p></p>

 

<center><a href=" title="L1002514

by Alex Es, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2014/2254691036_991be0abf3.jpg" width="500"

height="331" alt="L1002514" /></a></center>

 

<p></p>

 

<center>My M2s equipped with Abrahamsson Rapidwinders</center>

[astral]

I have two M2s, but I just can't see the point of me having 2 M3s: the M2 (and other 0.72 vf M cameras) is more versatile as a principal camera. AC

[Rob F.]

Afzal, if this question occurs to you, then maybe the M2 and M3 kit would be more useful. Another idea: One M3 and one M4P. The latter has the advantage of having framelines for all focal lengths from 28mm to 135mm. Or, pick up an M6 for nearly the same price. An advantage of M2 over those choices, though, is simplicity of framelines and smoother operation.

[paul_neuthaler]

With respect to the "M" stable: "1 M4 -- who needs more?"

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Afzal--the reason for two M3s is consistency. Both cameras are the same. When

photographing you don't want to have to "think" about your cameras. IF they're both the

same camera then not so much thinking. Just reacting and photographing. I have M's going

back to the M2. They're all .72 viewfinders. Consistency is helpful. Good luck out there.

[mohir_ali]

Just because your tastes change with the seasons doesn't mean your advice is reliable.

 

'With respect to the "M" stable: "1 M4 -- who needs more?"'

[frederick_muller]

Afzal, the issue you have introduced is that of "keeper" vs "user", and that kind of question is hard to answer, because it places you half in the collector camp and half in the shooter camp. The "keeper" won't get you any nice shots sitting on the shelf, so you are really restricting yourself to one machine that leaves the house. So... assuming you can collect any number of machines and leave them home, the crux is that you need to determine what your shooting requirements are and fill those.

[Troll]

"Why 2 M3s?"<P>One for B&W, and one for color.

[john_boyle3]

As Bill said. My M2 is for slide film, the M4 is for b&w or color negative. One set of lenses and filters.

[rogerjporter]

Vincenzo, you are either the best prepared photographer ever when it comes to focal length,

or the most indecisive! I would never catch the decisive moment if i had to pick between 8

different cameras. you are far more agile than i am.

r

[kens]

I think Vincenzo is holding it down to 5 cameras - 3 on his neck and 2 more in the bag - but

still...whew! 3 is about my limit. But he has a serious gap between 15mm and 35mm. I think

he needs a couple more cameras. ;-)

[summitar]

Two M3s? How silly! I much prefer my arsenal of one M2, one M3 and one M6 (classic). I rarely have more than one with me at any given time, however.

[alastair_anderson]

I like to travel with two M cameras. My .72 M6 is the most versatile. My MP is .85 which means that I can't use a 28 lens on it without a finder. I really like the simplicity of the M2 finder and the .95 magnification of the M3.

 

One camera is enough for me though, I can always sort out the lenses/finders to match. The reason for having two is simply to ensure that I'm not caught short. Even Leica's are not immune to mechanical problems. I was in Greece once when my M6 rangefinder went out of alignment, probably as a result of being inadequately cushioned against prolonged vibrations on a hydrofoil. This wasn't a serious problem but it was nice to have another camera available.

[Aoresteen]

I have only one M3 but I could see having two. One to use with my Canon 50mm f/1.2 and another for the 85/90mm f/2. Theater shooting comes to mind.

 

But since I have an M4-P and a Nikon SP w/ the 85mm f/2, the wife would most likely veto the purchase!

[andrew1]

I'd hate to be without an M3, so I keep two- and I do sometimes use them together. Leica

got it right with the M3- the finder is nearly perfect. If never flares, it's bright and

contrasty, and the 50mm, 90mm and even 135mm frame lines are big and full. (IMO, the

M3 is the only M to use with 135mm- try it; it's a revalation!) For 50mm and longer, the

higher magnification is great; for lenses shorter than 35mm, aux finders are easy to use,

and wide DOF generally makes precise focus unneccesary, which makes the aux finders

fast and easy. When scale focus won't cut it, the M3's higher magnification RF is more

precise. When I have time, I use it to check the distance of near and far subjects, then set

my focus using the DOF scales on my lenses, and know I'll get exactly what I want.<p>

Admittedly, the one lens that is not ideal on the M3 is the 35mm, a very popular and

useful length. I have a goggled 35mm for my M3 when I need it. If I added a third body,

it would be an M2, but for two bodies, I'll always keep my M3's.

[alastair_anderson]

I agree with Andrew about everything. I have 1.4 35 with eyes, but far prefer to use the 4th generation 'cron on a .72 body. If you don't need a meter then the ideal combo is probably an M3 and an M2. Two M3's would be great though. I'd love to have an early DS to compliment my SS.