If I enjoy the Leica M3 should I just "sell everything" and get a MP?

[GregY]

You guys really pushed this thread off the rails. Lol.

OP- the MP won't make a difference. Better to use the moolah learning about photography. Take a workshop with someone you admire. Then your pictures will be better. In fact using a Leica won't make your pictures any better than using a multitude of other cameras. Don't fall for the b.s.

Did you miss the part where he already had an M3 ?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Did you miss the part where he already had an M3 ?

No I didn't miss it Greg. My point was simply that the camera doesn't matter that much. He's obviously on that "better camera makes better pictures" trek.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

if you have to "sell everything" to replace a working camera you enjoy, don't do it.

If money wasn't a thing and you lust for todays Apo/Asph. lenses on a contemporary (new) M body, ok...

 

[mshchem]

Hi,

if you have to "sell everything" to replace a working camera you enjoy, don't do it.

If money wasn't a thing and you lust for todays Apo/Asph. lenses on a contemporary (new) M body, ok...

Cosina makes beautiful lenses instead of 1 Leica buy 5 or10 Voigtlander etc.

 

[Certain Exposures]

Ask yourself exactly how a new camera is going to improve your photography.

I'd spend the money going somewhere photographically interesting.

I would capture on average 3 - 5 more spontaneous scenes per a roll with a light meter readout in the viewfinder under fast changing or tricky light scenarios. My instincts are quite good. They are not perfect, though.

If I shot slide film then I would definitely consider a metered camera. How much is it now for a roll? I don’t need a built in meter for b/w and carry a Sekonic 308 always but a built in reflective meter comes in handy. Anyway as a former Leice user for 25 years I have never lost money selling any Leica after years of use so try one for a while. Mark up on new Leica is pretty high so buy used. I am down to one M2 and that’s all I need.

What subject matter does the OP shoot? If I didn’t shoot street photography I wouldn’t have a rangefinder at all but that’s another topic.

One roll of E100 costs $22.

I am doing candid, full frame, available light photography out and about. Often on the 'street.'

I know you said you didn't like shoe mounted meters but the MR-4 is the perfect meter for it. Couples to the SS dial and meters heavily to the finder 90mm rectangle.

Yes, I agree. I like that meter although I still find hot shoe meters to be a poor compromise compared to a TTL meter.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a working copy of a MR-4 and they are quite expensive when you consider that any fixed unit still has a questionable shelf life. I wish Leica would re-make them.

He's obviously on that "better camera makes better pictures" trek.

What makes you feel that way?

@Patrick Robert James , nice photos on your site. Do you keep them small to avoid copyright infringement? Are the images all scans of prints?

 

[Certain Exposures]

@ChrisGalway it is great to see you here! Where else are you planning to head to this year?

I have not given up on stereo. I have been taking a long detour related to it, actually. I still have a couple uploads on my agenda and many frames to scan.

 

[ChrisGalway]

@ChrisGalway it is great to see you here! Where else are you planning to head to this year?

I have not given up on stereo. I have been taking a long detour related to it, actually. I still have a couple uploads on my agenda and many frames to scan.

In response to your OP, I have both a Leica IID with the 50mm Summitar and a Retina iic with the 50mm Xenon lens ... and prefer the Retina, just nicer to use and I think the lens is superb. I feel no urge to "upgrade" my Leica, a new one won't take better photos!

As for photo-trips, Rome two weeks ago, Venice in 2 weeks time, then Tallin, Paris and a (secret) Greek island this summer, and typically I take 3 or 4 cameras each time including one of my stereo cameras of course.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I bracket to deal with challenging lighting conditions that are difficult to meter - basically to increase my chances of a usable result.
But I also bracket because different exposures tend to give results that print differently.
For many subjects, changing the exposure changes the priority of the different parts of the scene.
So bracketing gives me choices later - sometimes options that I didn't even think about when I exposed the film.

That';s why I bracket. Additionally, decreasing the exposure on chrome film tends to saturate the colors as well.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I exposed a roll of slide film recently and, judging by the results, my instincts are sufficient. I still value a meter although I do not depend on one anymore. Hot shoe meters are always a compromise in my experience.

So, do you think I am a fool for not selling an arm, a leg, a kidney, and possibly a my first-born to get a Leica MP if I enjoy using the Leica M3 despite some of the frustrating quirks of a rangefinder (I do have a few gripes)? I feel that the relative age and a few design features of the MP could make it worth spending a little more for one used over the M6.

The M7 requires batteries for most of its shutter speeds and the automatic function would be a dangerous siren song for me. I have removed it from consideration.

I suspect that I would not lose much money if I sold a MP in acceptable user condition. That is related to why I made this post here (link).

So you love your M3, but are looking for a version with a built-in meter?
I have been in your shoes. It worked well for me, I used my M6 much more often than my M4.

If your sell your M3 and find a user-grade MP, the differential between them will be amortized (non financially) in few years. I like the look of the MP as it is sleek and less cluttered than the M6.

Also, you are trading a 60 year old camera against one made in 2000s. Yes, that IS a difference, all other things being equal.

 

[RLangham]

Also, you are trading a 60 year old camera against one made in 2000s. Yes, that IS a difference, all other things being equal.

A difference that’s not clear cut. I think it’s well acknowledged that the more recent Leicas aren’t quite the same in terms of materials and fitment. A 60 or 70 year old M3 almost certainly has more wear on it, but all brass gears and chassis and so forth, so if maintained… could be in better working order than a 2000’s Leica, or far worse. It just depends, only way to tell is to have a competent tech CLA it.

But yes balance of probabilities is that the new one will be in at least outwardly better shape.

 

[chuckroast]

A difference that’s not clear cut. I think it’s well acknowledged that the more recent Leicas aren’t quite the same in terms of materials and fitment. A 60 or 70 year old M3 almost certainly has more wear on it, but all brass gears and chassis and so forth, so if maintained… could be in better working order than a 2000’s Leica, or far worse. It just depends, only way to tell is to have a competent tech CLA it.

But yes balance of probabilities is that the new one will be in at least outwardly better shape.

That's a good summary, but I would observe that if you can sometimes get a cosmetically perfect camera, sometimes with a recent CLA, for one third the price of a new film Leica.

I got an M4 that was pretty much flawless and had just been CLAed by Sherry Krauter a couple years ago for under $2000. Patience is all it took - well that, and money

This is all the more likely now that people are falling in love with the M4-2 and M4-P cameras, neither of which I like as much as the original M4.

 

[RLangham]

That's a good summary, but I would observe that if you can sometimes get a cosmetically perfect camera, sometimes with a recent CLA, for one third the price of a new film Leica.

I got an M4 that was pretty much flawless and had just been CLAed by Sherry Krauter a couple years ago for under $2000. Patience is all it took - well that, and money

This is all the more likely now that people are falling in love with the M4-2 and M4-P cameras, neither of which I like as much as the original M4.

Oh certainly, the price difference is mind-boggling. I can understand paying a grand or two for a 70 year old M3. I can’t justify it but then again I couldn’t justify my corvette either and it was still fun while I had it. But on the order of six or seven grand for a camera that is neither old nor mint nor even handmade seems excessive. It feels like Rolex selling watches with off the shelf movements for five figures.

And really, nothing about the M4-P is as impressive in 2026 as the M3 was in 1954. It’s all been done, and it was done before the average new retiree was born.

 

[GregY]

That's a good summary, but I would observe that if you can sometimes get a cosmetically perfect camera, sometimes with a recent CLA, for one third the price of a new film Leica.

I got an M4 that was pretty much flawless and had just been CLAed by Sherry Krauter a couple years ago for under $2000. Patience is all it took - well that, and money

This is all the more likely now that people are falling in love with the M4-2 and M4-P cameras, neither of which I like as much as the original M4.

Brother chuckroast 1/3rd of $7000 USD is shooting fish in a barrel.
My choice over any 4-2 / 4-P or for that matter 6 .... all day long too

 

[GregY]

So you love your M3, but are looking for a version with a built-in meter?
I have been in your shoes. It worked well for me, I used my M6 much more often than my M4.

If your sell your M3 and find a user-grade MP, the differential between them will be amortized (non financially) in few years. I like the look of the MP as it is sleek and less cluttered than the M6.

Also, you are trading a 60 year old camera against one made in 2000s. Yes, that IS a difference, all other things being equal.

mighty expensive light meter.... which is also no guarantee of perfect exposure....

 

[mshchem]

@ChrisGalway it is great to see you here! Where else are you planning to head to this year?

I have not given up on stereo. I have been taking a long detour related to it, actually. I still have a couple uploads on my agenda and many frames to scan.

I have an MP it's exquisite! All the tariff nonsense and the exchange rates have made Japan sellers less attractive. The viewfinder on an MP is much better if you are using wide angle lenses. Much better. Today's market,I would look for a proper seller, ideally find a dealer that would take your M3 on trade, or consignment. I've used every M model except the CL and the M5, MP is as good as it gets. Put in a 3V lithium battery and you have a superb meter. Leica lenses are so freaking expensive I would consider a nice Cosina Voigtlander or Cosina Zeiss lens.
Silver bodies are usually a little bit less expensive.

 

[chuckroast]

I have an MP it's exquisite! All the tariff nonsense and the exchange rates have made Japan sellers less attractive. The viewfinder on an MP is much better if you are using wide angle lenses. Much better. Today's market,I would look for a proper seller, ideally find a dealer that would take your M3 on trade, or consignment. I've used every M model except the CL and the M5, MP is as good as it gets. Put in a 3V lithium battery and you have a superb meter. Leica lenses are so freaking expensive I would consider a nice Cosina Voigtlander or Cosina Zeiss lens.
Silver bodies are usually a little bit less expensive.

But there's the rub - at least for me. I'd rather put my funds into more and better glass and an admittedly lovely new body that mostly doesn't do a lot the M2, M3, M4, or M5 can do for a fraction of the price. YMMV

When I can buy clean MP or M-A for under $2K, I'll consider it

 

[GregY]

But there's the rub - at least for me. I'd rather put my funds into more and better glass and an admittedly lovely new body that mostly doesn't do a lot the M2, M3, M4, or M5 can do for a fraction of the price. YMMV

When I can buy clean MP or M-A for under $2K, I'll consider it

One more vote .....(but lose the multitude of masks in the viewfinder.....*)

 

[chuckroast]

Oh certainly, the price difference is mind-boggling. I can understand paying a grand or two for a 70 year old M3. I can’t justify it but then again I couldn’t justify my corvette either and it was still fun while I had it. But on the order of six or seven grand for a camera that is neither old nor mint nor even handmade seems excessive. It feels like Rolex selling watches with off the shelf movements for five figures.

And really, nothing about the M4-P is as impressive in 2026 as the M3 was in 1954. It’s all been done, and it was done before the average new retiree was born.

My M2 was made in 1961. I got it from a guy a few years ago who had just had DAG overhaul it. I paid $1200 (which I thought was insane at the time but I figure I got the camera for $700 because the overhaul would have been about $500-ish back then.

It's not perfect cosmetically but it views and works like a dream. It's been everywhere with me, most recently Greece. That camera with a 35mm f/2 ASPH Summicron is the definition of the perfect 35mm RF IMHO.

 

[GregY]

My M2 was made in 1961. I got it from a guy a few years ago who had just had DAG overhaul it. I paid $1200 (which I thought was insane at the time but I figure I got the camera for $700 because the overhaul would have been about $500-ish back then.

It's not perfect cosmetically but it views and works like a dream. It's been everywhere with me, most recently Greece. That camera with a 35mm f/2 ASPH Summicron is the definition of the perfect 35mm RF IMHO.

All day long! Like the Nikon F.... you can hammer nails with them...or take photos with a classic M for many many decades.

 

[mshchem]

My M2 was made in 1961. I got it from a guy a few years ago who had just had DAG overhaul it. I paid $1200 (which I thought was insane at the time but I figure I got the camera for $700 because the overhaul would have been about $500-ish back then.

It's not perfect cosmetically but it views and works like a dream. It's been everywhere with me, most recently Greece. That camera with a 35mm f/2 ASPH Summicron is the definition of the perfect 35mm RF IMHO.

M2 is a lovely camera. Not as lovely as an M4.

 

[chuckroast]

M2 is a lovely camera. Not as lovely as an M4.

Oddly, I find the M2 more comfortable to use than the M4, go figure. There is no rational reason for it, it's just an emotional thing, perhaps.

 

[mshchem]

Oddly, I find the M2 more comfortable to use than the M4, go figure. There is no rational reason for it, it's just an emotional thing, perhaps.

25 years ago I bought a perfect chrome M2 with a proper 50mm 1.4 Summilux, probably most beautiful camera I've ever owned. In a momentary lapse of judgment, in what I thought were difficult times I sent it to KEH. Oh brother. It's OK, I've got too many toys again. It's always easier to buy stuff than sell it.

 

[beemermark]

@Certain Exposures , why can't I start a conversation with you?

 

[Manaloge]

Another opinion that could be usefull.

When I got into analog photography, I was attracted to Leica. Not because of all the snobbism and hispterness that goed with the name (in fact, I hate that part about the brand), but because of the idea, the history and simplicity. The one that I really fell in love with were the barnack models, but I followed general opinion I read on the internet, so bought a very nice condition M3 double stroke with an elmar 50mm f2,8 as first camera. But couldn't get a barnack out of my head/heart.

So soon bought a 1950 IIIC with the typical chrome issue that flakes off with a f3,5 5cm elmar attached. Had it CLA'd and I absolutely love it!

Then sold the f2.8 elmar and bought a Summicron f2 5cm Dual Range. Thought I had the perfect kit now. I became more attached to the IIIc then the M3. The C is a featherweight compared the the 1kg+ M3 with the DR attached.
And there was more that annoyed me about the M3: couldn't get used to the double stroke, the patch was not as contrasty as the C, which made it slower to focus. Some parts came loose also. The M3 felt fragile, the DR lens made me feel uncomfortable to hit the streets with such a expensive vintage lens in prestine condition.

Soon I was in search of another M camera and was considering a M6 TTL or a new one which costs a ridiculous amount of money.

Left the idea of buying the M6, because sooner or later, the light meter would fail anyway and I like the concept of a minimalistic basic rangefinder. So went to the store to get look on a new MA and my heart was sold immediately.

It felt so smooth, the view through the rangefinder was amazingly clear with a clear gray patch instead of the yellow patch on the M3. I also got very excited of the idea to buy a brand new unused camera as a blank page to write my photographic history with it for the next 50 years.

So sold the M3 kit and payed the other half on top for the new MA. Did I overpay? Sure I did. Don't believe it costs even half the purchase price for Leica to produce a new rangefinder. You pay for the 'name and fame', I also know it's the only way for Leica to survive as such a niche product, to surround themselves with the 'heavenly leica glow'.

Bottom line is, I believe every piece of machinery has a certain lifespan and the more time goes by, the more copies will fail. Sure a M3 of 70 years old could work perfectly today, but will it for another 50? I believe machines can be restored only that many times, like classic cars. Not endlessly.

With the MA I'm good (hopefully) for the next 50 years and the 50 years after that for someone else to enjoy.

 

[RezaLoghme]

In some countries Leica offer financing. Selling the M3 should provide 1/3rd of the MP price.
Just do it.