Leica M2 or M3 vs Nikon M

As per my previous thread I recently stumbled into a Nikon M unsynched in very good cosmetic condition , the rangefinder needs adjusting and it needs new curtains. My question is how would this compare with an M2 or M3. I currently have a IIIF and find myself using a 50mm or a 35 mm most of the time. If I keep the M then I plan using the 50mm that it has and not buying a 35mm.

Are Nikon M's rare enought not to use them as shooters?

Thanks in advance.

Joaquin

No pn M

I certainly would not use a Nikon M as an everyday shooter. A Leica M2 or 3 would be a lot cheaper.

I'd go with the Leica. Lenses and other stuff for a Leica might be pricey but easier to find than the Nikon goodies.

I already have the Nikon, the question is whether to sell it or fix it and shoot it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How can we answer that question for you? You have the camera. What do you want to do with it?

My concern is that by fixing the camera it will actually depreciate. I am used to dealing with collectible firearms where any modification from the original condition will actually detract from the value even if it's in operable

Unless its value is based on how famous a previous owner is or if there were never more than 5 of them, cameras go down in value if they don't work.

drgoose said:

My concern is that by fixing the camera it will actually depreciate. I am used to dealing with collectible firearms where any modification from the original condition will actually detract from the value even if it's in operable

Click to expand...

I know what you mean there, that was my hobby as well for the last 12 years until I got into photography, fortunately I believe cameras are the exact opposite.

drgoose said:

My concern is that by fixing the camera it will actually depreciate. I am used to dealing with collectible firearms where any modification from the original condition will actually detract from the value even if it's in operable

Click to expand...

camera collectors are concerned with condition and whether it works.

If it's condition is already rough, and it can be made usable without altering its appearance or original equipment (except the shutter material if that is what it needs) and you have a repairperson you trust, and you want to use it, I'd say go ahead.

Your repair costs will add to the value of the camera, since any camera that does not work has servicing cost deducted from its value by any buyer. In addition, you will get to use a vintage camera, and cameras are tools that like to be used.

The only exception to this rule is cameras that are really, really, honestly, no kidding now, don't pull my leg on this one, mint, and I mean M*I*N*T.

Those, after sitting around for 40 years, probably don't work anyway, and aren't meant to. They are safe deposit box fodder, jewelry for billionaires.

Replacing the shutter materials does not detract from the value of the camera because shutter curtains are replacement items, meant to be swapped out of they break or wear out. It's not the same as "fixing" a vintage rifle by replacing the barrel.

I have a 1931 Leica I (C) that had a rotten shutter curtain when I bought it for $200 30 years ago, and needed a new one. I had a new shutter curtain installed, now I have a working Leica I (C) that just had another overhaul (every 30 years need it or not) and is probably worth a pretty penny. Not that I care, I take pictures with it.

If it's ever sold the buyer won't care how new the curtain is, only that it works.

I own a Nikon M as well as a Leica M3. The viewfinder of the Leica is absolutely superior to that of the Nikon. The Leica is big, bright, has projected viewfinder frames, as well an excellent rangefinder. The viewfinder of the Nikon is small and squinty and a pain to use in the field. If I want to take pics, I grab the Leica. If I want to feel nostalgic, I grab the Nikon.

Jim B.

I'm utterly baffled by the idea of not fixing the Nikon because it would devalue it, but whether it is worth it compared to buying a Leica is another less absurd question.

I would imagine for the same price as a full overhaul you could buy an M2 (the better of the two Leica choices), plus even a lens. Then you are away, a vast number of old and new lenses to choose from, no worries about the value of a Nikon M when using it, and a better camera anyway. I can't see what choice there is, surely it's obvious?

Steve

Steve, it is probably an obvious choice for you because you have more information than I do. I have never used an M3 or an M2. and my Nikon is currently inoperable so i don't have anough info to make the comparison.

And as far as fixing the camera and decreasing its value I would use as an example if the leatherette in the Nikon was not perfect and I decided to replace it with a new vinyl letherette, it would probably look to be in better condition but I'm certain that the a collector would be less attracted to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi

A collector wont worry about an original shutter problem, nor will he replace the shutter fabric necessarily. Stick it on your shelf.

If you want a fast handling low light camera get a beaten up M3 and Cosina Voightlander lenses... make sure the viewfinder of ok before you buy cause a new or refurbed finder >>expensive.

replacing the leatherette on the camera would reduce its attraction to a purist of a collector -- frankly, I like a camera that looks beat-up. A collector likes original look, just working. Restoring the cosmetics of such a camera would not add to its value and, as you note, perhaps reduce it.

having the camera repaired will cost you, if the shutter needs to be replaced, less than $400.

However, as others have noted, if you really want a GOOD user, a Leica M is the way to go -- vastly better range/view finder, vastly wider/cheaper array of lenses, and so on.

I have an Exakta 66, pre-war, that badly needs servicing and, probably, a shutter replacement. If I really wanted to use it, I know the cost of repair (can that even be found these days?) would just add to its value, but I let it sit and use my Rolleiflex instead.

drgoose said:

As per my previous thread I recently stumbled into a Nikon M unsynched in very good cosmetic condition , the rangefinder needs adjusting and it needs new curtains. My question is how would this compare with an M2 or M3. I currently have a IIIF and find myself using a 50mm or a 35 mm most of the time. If I keep the M then I plan using the 50mm that it has and not buying a 35mm.

Are Nikon M's rare enought not to use them as shooters?

Thanks in advance.

Joaquin

Click to expand...

I prefer the Nikkor lenses over Zeiss.they may have less resolution but more contrast,which I likefor apparent sharpness.