A new M3?

[vahe_sahakian]

Just dreaming, its cloudy and cold out there.

I have 6 rangefinder Leicas, two of them are M3's, all were purchased

used, will I ever buy a new Leica?

Yes, but not the rumored digital M, it will have to be an all new M3,

all manual with no meter, the 1950's technology at its best.

 

Thanks,

Vahe

[john_collier2]

Then why not buy a M6J?

 

http://www.cameraquest.com/leicam6j.htm

 

There are rumors of yet another special edition that will either be a replica of

the M3 or an M7 tarted up to look like one. However this is just one of many

rumors floating about.

[vahe_sahakian]

I just checked that URL on M6J, it is a beauty, but it has a meter.

I would go for any new M camera, be it a re-intoduced M3, M6, M7 or M-whatever, but it needs be all manual with NO METER.

 

Thanks,

Vahe

[steve_unsworth1]

Take out the batteries. No meter

[stefano_ferrando1]

Don't do it with an M7... It means no camera...

Sorry to be cinical,

Stefano.

[travis1]

Steve, I think what Vahe wants is a Leica with no battery compartments.

[iván]

I can easily understand that. I also own two M3s: a SS and a DS but I'd go to extremes to buy a NEW M3 if a real one were available. I don't mean a similar one without batteries, but a real one.

 

Well, dreaming continues to be by free . . .

 

-Iván

[jerry_pfile1]

vahe,

 

Every once in awhile you can find a NIB M3 offered for sale. In 12 years belonging to the LHSA I've seen 4 or 5 offered in their quarterly catalog, with box, IB, warranty card, import certificate (they had them in the M3 days), etc.

 

After all, they made almost a quarter of a million of them and there were collectors then as now who simply bought one and put it away. The same is true for almost all but the very earliest models that Leitz made.

 

If your heart is truly set on a "new" M3, this is the only way you will get one. They simply don't make cameras now with the same craftmanship (or craftsmen) they did then. Be prepared to part with some serious money however.

 

This is not to imply that they don't still make the best 35mm RF mass (semi-mass at least) produced today; they do. But dollar for dollar, there isn't probably a person, or at most only a few, on this forum who would choose a NIB M7 (circa 2002)over a NIB M3 (circa 1966). And I'm not speaking of them selecting the M3 and then putting it up immediately on e-bay, but to use for the purpose intended.

 

Leica will doubtless put something out for the 50th anniversary of the M3, that will resemble it if not look identical to one. It to will be expensive. However, any long term M3 user will be able to tell the difference blindfolded.

 

If you want the best of 50's technology, then get one made in the 50's.

 

Best,

 

Jerry

[iván]

It hurts but is true . . .

 

-Iván

[al_kaplan1]

Why buy a newly manufactured one? There are still plenty of old ones out there, immaculate condition, hardly used, turning up in estate sales from time to time. Genuine 1950's craftsmanship at it's finest! Even at the inflated prices they bring at auction, I doubt that they could be produced today with that standard of workmanship and sell any cheaper.

[vahe_sahakian]

Continuing the dream, and on the subject of M3,s, I have two single stroke models, a mint one dating from 1959 (977xxx), and a near mint dating from 1965 (1128xxx) and yes I agree with some of you who have suggested that even if Leica decides to re-introduce this baby, it will probably be of slightly lesser quality.

To the gent. who suggested that I consider an M7 and leave the batteries out, thanks, but no thanks.

I personally consider cameras with built in electronics not all that desirable, particularly if ones photography style/needs do not require one, just look at some Leica R models, R3's, R4 and R4S, superb cameras but are rumored to have electrical problems and because of that they are not worth much.

Oh well, I will keep my eyes open.

 

Thanks,

Vahe

[bill_carson]

Many of the M-3s features are included on the comemorative "DRAGON 2000" which has the film-wind lever, rewind knob, brass top plate along with a magnificent black paint job and TTL abilities (if wanted). Plus the potential for appreciation as only 500 specially serially numbered of these cameras were manufactured. Regards, Bill

[jason]

mine is not "used" but as they say in the States, "Pre-Owned".

I am running it in for my daughter.Last count passed the 6000 rolls through it.Should be in almost mint condition,if the worn away chrome,showing the gold..oops the brass.Most of the vulcanite skin there.A few small dents,some dings and railroad tracks from putting on and later removing the meter.

Silliness aside, Leica cannot produce an M3 as it was.

Far too labour intensive.Too many fussy adjustments.

Thats right,there have been cost cutting measures to make a M6,M7.

So what! I own both and use the M6 more and more.Each day.

[todd_phillips1]

Vahe,Please make mine an M2...I'm partial to the 35mm lens!OTOH, this would make a GREAT entry level Leica to compete with CV! Would it be hand built...NO. But make the top cover out of brass (black paint, anyone?) Engrave it (M2-2....well, maybe not) with no meter and no motor connection and I think Leica has a winner!

[jsbc]

Why would a meter-less Leica appeal to converts and beat C/V products?

 

Esp. if it costs more? To show that one is more macho by guessing exposures? I just don't get it.

 

Why would a M6 whose electrical system is out unusable vahe? M7 yes, but M6 is A MECHANICAL camera. By the way, is anyone championing the introduction of 35mm NON_ASPH lens again?

 

After reading these posts, I realize why Leica thought there would be a market for Leica "0". After all, it iha even more Leica heritage than the M's which in someway copies feature fo the Contax. Let's just hope Leica and its dealers and distributors do not lose out a lot of money to appeal to some enthusaists.

 

As a Leicaphile, I'm just happy with my III's. Even a M-camera seems a dilution of the original barnack concept. But the business analyst side of me just cannot help but object.

 

Johnson

[vahe_sahakian]

"Why would a meter-less Leica appeal to converts and beat C/V products? Esp. if it costs more? To show that one is more macho by guessing exposures? I just don't get it."

 

This all has to do how one uses the camera, I use my Leicas for high resolution color and b&w photography, I use Tech Pan exclusively for b&w and the slowest slide film that I can obtain, I understand where you are coming from, but in my case I am almost always tripod mounted and are shoothig in f/8 to f/16 range, with careful processing and printing I can produce b&w prints of 11x14 that are nearly identical to the results obtained from my 4x5 Linhof Technica, now if the separate light meter make me more macho, that is just fine, never thought it that way

 

"Why would a M6 whose electrical system is out unusable vahe? M7 yes, but M6 is A MECHANICAL camera. By the way, is anyone championing the introduction of 35mm NON_ASPH lens again?"

 

Ok,the dream is over,now seriously, if leica ever decides to re-introduce the M3, there is absolutely no way that they can produce the original M3, that is impossible if and when you factor in the economic realities. As for ASPH lens design, my position is that with M3 and the susequent variations based on M3, Leica created a camera system that simply could not be further improved, lenses are different story, there is room for improvement and they are doing it, and this is also happening in the large format field, just look at the Schneider/Rodenstock offerings, so, I am not championing the introduction of non ASPH lenses.

 

 

"As a Leicaphile, I'm just happy with my III's. Even a M-camera seems a dilution of the original barnack concept. But the business analyst side of me just cannot help but object."

 

Just to get the matters straight, and as much as I admire my M3's, my all time favourite pet is my Leica IIIg, this is one thing that I just can not rationally defend, if I have to give up all my cameras the IIIg will be the last to go.

 

Thaks,

Vahe

[red dawn]

Hi

 

vahe, don't you think using your Leica Ms or IIIs on a tripod is a dilution of the original Barnack concept? ;)

[jsbc]

vahe:

 

Why would a meter-less Leica appeal to converts and beat C/V products? Esp. if it costs more? To show that one is more macho by guessing exposures? I just don't get it."

 

"This all has to do how one uses the camera,...." Vahe's response...

 

Actually, Vahe, I don't doubt that you would like a brand new M3. I suppose others do, and I appreciate the beauty of a M3. Point is, and I should have made clearer, is how it will appeal to NEW converts, ie people who have been using SLRs or digital cameras where everything is executable in the program mode.

 

Point is, for a successful entry level camera, several features are necessary:

1) attractive price-point

2) upgrade path

3) ease of use.

 

Even the CL in its time have the above characteristics.

 

A Bessa-2 is a much better entrylevel machine than an M3 which is not significantly cheaper than a M7.

 

Johnson

[jsbc]

Vahe:

 

I think I understand how you use an M, but I wonder what a M3 can do which a M6 can't.

 

Btw, for those who says you cannot produce a M3 economically nowadays, maybe we have got the argument wrong... someone has remarked that a M3 + lens is 1/12 the price of a Porsche 356 in the 50's.

 

For 1/12 of the price of a Porsche 911, nowadays you get the M-system with several lenses as well.

 

johnson

[vahe_sahakian]

"I think I understand how you use an M, but I wonder what a M3 can do which a M6 can't."

 

I simply do not remember ever saying that what I can do with M3 can not be done with a M6.

 

"Btw, for those who says you cannot produce a M3 economically nowadays, maybe we have got the argument wrong... someone has remarked that a M3 + lens is 1/12 the price of a Porsche 356 in the 50's. For 1/12 of the price of a Porsche 911, nowadays you get the M-system with several lenses as well."

 

Ok, this time you are really losing me, M3 of 50 years ago is a lot closer, similar and even superior to a M6 when stacked up against your example of P356/P911, we do have a 911 in our family and a friend has a restored P356, classical charms aside the P911 is several light years ahead of the older one, I know because I have driven both, no contest here. How about replacing the M3 with a IIIf and set it up next to a M6, now, that combination would, in my opinion be a little closer to your Porsche example.

 

Thanks,

Vahe

[vahe_sahakian]

"vahe, don't you think using your Leica Ms or IIIs on a tripod is a dilution of the original Barnack concept? ;)"

 

Let me see if I can come up with a sensible reply to your above comment.

First and formost Leicas are ideal cameras for low light hand held photography, and I do in fact use mine in that fashion a lot, primarily chasing my two granddaughters, 2 and 4, with the M3+90 Summicron, but I also do a lot of hi-res landscape photography, and in all fairness I do expect a thank you note from Barnack one of these days for pushing his glass to the upper limits of their resolution, don't you think that someone should do that?

 

Thanks,

Vahe