Leica M3 for backpacking/landscapes?

DREW WILEY · Jul 11, 2014

You'll either like a rangefinder or you won't. Several potential problems. It's difficult to do closeups of natural subject due to parallax issues. And
as you've already surmised, you cannot directly view the effects of filters over the lens. You also forego the use of long (telephoto) lenses.
But whatever you choose, you want to be comfortable and experienced, so you can shoot spontaneously in conditions where lighting and
weather can potentially change quickly. I see a few med format rangefinders in use for landscape, rarely 35mm ones. I mostly shoot view cameras myself.

PKM-25 · Jul 11, 2014

NDKodak said:
If you want to save $2000-3000 on a Leica and lens, go buy a used Nikon FM/FM2 and use the Nikkor lens you probably already own. Or if have $$$$ burning a hole in your pocket try a Hasselblad Xpan with a 40mm you will get yourself a rangefinder and a panoramic camera. Good Luck!

+1, I use my FM3A with a couple of small primes or my Xpan over my M3 for landscape work if I am not serious about the work I am doing. The reason I say serious is that I hike, climb and and shoot for a living and the way it works is I either use one of my two DSLR's along with a 6x6 Agfa Super Isolette folder or just flat out go Hasselblad or my Chamonix 4x5. On Monday I took my 6x6 folder and a Fuji X100S to the summit of a 13,000 foot peak, no issues.

Don't get me wrong, the M3 is one of my all time favorite daily carries, but an FM2N with a 50mm 1.8 AIS will actually be better to use and lighter to boot for landscapes.

Theo Sulphate · Jul 11, 2014

For hiking, the M3 could be a good choice for you; it's certainly capable of great photos and is solidly built. One advantage of the M3 is the small size and light weight. I've carried one in a small pouch on my belt.

Coming from an F5 and F6, you might find using a rangefinder camera is not to your liking - or you may fall in love with it. A previous poster's suggestion of trying an inexpensive Canon rangefinder first is a good idea. Also, since you have Nikon lenses, an FM, FM2, or FM3a would make sense as a smaller camera for hiking.

With the M3, along with being 100% mechanical with no meter, you'll also have to get used to the bottom-loading of film, so that's a bit slower and less convenient than other rangefinders or SLR's.

However, they are a joy to use. One of my best photos ever was taken with an M3 and a 50/2 lens on a hiking trail.

jphendren · Jul 11, 2014

Lot of great opinions here, all have merit and make a lot of sense. I realize that a Leica RF is not the best for landscapes, my Nikon D3, F5 and F6 are all better suited to it, but I just want one LOL. It seems that a decent DS body runs about $600-$1000? That is quite steep considering the M3 is a 50+ year old camera that uses film. I was thinking that a 50mm screw mount lens with an M adapter would be a good start as well. Before I can do this, I need to sell a Canon EOS 1V, Nikon F5, and a Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM. KEH didn't offer much for the items, so I'll have to sell them on ebay I guess. I hate to sell my stuff, but I haven't used any of those items in years.

Jared

trythis · Jul 11, 2014

It seems like you just want to do some trading for a leica after all...

If I were to suggest a nikon for someone that really wanted to lighten their load, it would be a nikon FG with an e series prime or two. Its a very light weight camera with a couple of minor disadvantages. The worst being no ae-lock. However, I think a M3 is short that one too. [emoji57]

I would still try a RF of some sort on the cheap first as previously suggested.

Mark Fisher · Jul 11, 2014

The leica is a fine camera for what you want to do. I use to say that you can spend less money by getting an Canon screwmount camera or a 70's Japanese rangefinder, but I can tell you that I spent money that direction and never got it back. I have a Leica M2 that has gained value while I've had it and is insanely pleasant to use. For what you are describing, an M2 would be a great option perhaps with a 50mm Summicron (rigid or DR without the goggles.....great bargain that way!) and a Voightlander 35mm f2.5 lens. If you get it from KEH or similar place, you get a guarantee.

rubyfalls · Jul 13, 2014

It isn't fancy, but I love my leicaflex SL. I usually shoot med format, but that 50mm f/2 summicron is quite lovely.

Zedwardson · Jul 13, 2014

I guess I am at another budget point, but with the cost of Leica's, I would pick something less expensive for hiking. But that is just me (I am frugal.)

Pioneer · Jul 13, 2014

It will work but no 35mm is the best solution for landscape work. Even though it isn't perfect (no wide angle) folding cameras are a better solution than 35mm. An interchangeable lens medium format is a great option and usually lighter than large format.

Of course, to be honest, it really sounds like you are interested in trying a Leica. If that is where you are headed, buy an M6. That way you do have the option of a meter though the camera will still work if the batteries die. If it doesn't work out you can almost resell for close to what you paid originally. The same holds true for Leica lenses although it is not uncommon for them to actually go up in value over time.

McFortner · Jul 14, 2014

I have a Leica CL that I like and can be had for a lot less than the other M cameras. It can use M39 lenses with an adapter, so that opens the field on lenses some. They tend to have the same meter problems the M5 does, but a separate light meter works just fine. Some of the 35mm lenses will go too far into the camera to comfortably use with the CL and M5.

Another option is the Canon P. It's a M39 lens camera, is very affordable, and built quite well. I have one of these too and I like it. No light meter in this one, but that's not a big problem.

And finally there are the Soviet Leica-derived rangefinders. Very cheap and with a little CLA by somebody who knows what they are doing quite reliable. The FED-2 is the smallest of the group and my personal favorite (I have two). They are also Leica screw mount, and the Soviet lenses are quite good for 40s and 50 designs.

So there are some choices out there in rangefinders, with the Leica CL a good choice for a starter Leica. I hope this helps.

Michael

RattyMouse · Jul 15, 2014

Fujifilm GA645Wi......Has this camera, and blazing sharp lens, been considered? It doesnt get much easier to carry around than this camera.

hugopoon · Jul 16, 2014

An M3 would be wonderful for pretty much any photography that doesn't involve lenses longer than 135mm.

The M2 and M3 are, IMO, the best Ms made (in terms of materials). I don't know how to put it, but they just feel right — my M2 certainly feels better than my M6. I think the M3's nicer than the M2, especially because the framelines are thick and round and wonderful, but I prefer the M2 for the 35mm lines.

You could, for much cheaper, get a Nikon FM or similar, but they're just not the same in the hand.

The Canon P is an equally good choice, and it may even be better than the M3 if you don't want to worry about the sun burning a pinhole in the shutter curtains.

Ko.Fe. · Jul 16, 2014

I use M4-2 for it. Easy to deal with 35mm lens, which I use for landscapes often. M3 is 50mm lens camera, and this focal length isn't wide enough for landscapes and hiking for me often.
And once it starts to rain, it goes to backpack and I switch to Oly XA

jphendren · Jul 16, 2014

"M3 is 50mm lens camera"

Can't the M3 be used with a 35mm lens with the "goggles?" I don't mind using goggles, it doesn't seem to add much size to the camera. Quite a few people have recommended the M2, but I've read that the M3 is a better/nicer camera, is this true?

Does anyone make an Arca plate for the M3?

Jared

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 16, 2014

jphendren said:
Quite a few people have recommended the M2, but I've read that the M3 is a better/nicer camera, is this true?

Jared

There's a couple of minor differences and it's been discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere, google "m2 vs m3" for hours of reading if you want. Or someone with time will outline it for you here likely...

Ko.Fe. · Jul 16, 2014

Can't tell you, I opted both of them for M4-2, as easy to load and kind of newer, black Leica. Black is nice for me
But M2 was my second choice, because it also has 35 and 50 frames and also doesn't cost a fortune, which is adequate for me to use it for hiking and tossing it in and out of backpack.

jscott · Jul 16, 2014

I have well over $1K into my M3, adding up purchase prices plus CLA of camera and lens by Mr Ye. Regrettably, the film counter does not work. I returned it to Mr Ye to repair and he said that he could not do anything about it, and that it is a common problem with (early) M3's. So I have an expensive camera that takes great photos, but you don't know where you are in the roll. If you go for an M3, look for a later model for this reason.
I love Leica and have a bunch of them, but for backpacking I've carried a Rollei 35 with good results.

Leica M3 for backpacking/landscapes?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency