Leica M3 - size?

[RedSwede]

Hi - new to the forum, and appreciate that a version of this question has been asked a thousand times - but opinions welcomed.

Right now I shoot mainly with 2 cameras - a Nikon FE2 with a handful of lenses (but primarily 50/1.4, secondarily 85/1.8, occasionally 24/2.8) and an Olympus 35RD.

I love the Olympus and use it twice as much as the Nikon. I love the rangefinder focussing, I love the size, just so discrete without the mirror/shutter thunk. But it doesn’t have the most indestructible build quality.

The Nikon has such a quality feel in comparison, huge clear finder (I fitted a brand new FM3a screen) and 50mm lens - not 40mm of the Olympus which I find a touch too wide and often end up loose framing or getting a perspective I didn’t quite want.

I had started to think that an M3 + 50mm would be the perfect answer. But looking at dimensions, if you say the Nikon mirror box protrusion is part of the “lens” then the M3 and FE2 are very similar sized. The lens is half the size though.

Does an M3 have a small, discrete feel by FE2 standards? I do appreciate that half the desire is to try a Leica, but I don’t want to feel I have *just* bought it for the trinket value.

 

[4season]

Does an M3 have a small, discrete feel by FE2 standards?

Kinda sorta depending on your personality: Some people get freaked out about Leica ownership and feel they need to cover it with gaffer's tape in order to disguise their precious jewel (doesn't work, I can immediately spot those!) whereas I don't really care, because to my way of thinking, lots of people have stuff which costs a lot more, like automobiles. Main advantage is that it doesn't look like an SLR, because many people don't recognize non-SLR cameras as being "serious".

 

[David Reynolds]

Welcome to Phorio
I have no idea as to the dimensions of a Nikon FE2 for comparison but the dimensions of a Leica M3 are 5 1/2" wide by 3" high by 1 1/4" deep (without Lens)
The depth with a 50mm lens varies as you can attach a number of different lenses (collapsible lens or a rigid lens with various f numbers.) that would make at least 4 or 5 different 50mm lenses all with different dimensions. From experience would would think a Leica M3 is smaller than your Nikon and probably weighs less.

 

[RedSwede]

Yeah, the core body dimensions are equal, body weights are close enough (M3 a little heavier). The FE2 chassis was used for the FE/FM(1 and 2), FM3a, maybe FA, FG, not sure.

I’d probably go for either a Summicron (rigid) or cheap out on a new Voigtlander 50/1.5. All about half the effective size of the Nikon 50/1.4 but the same weight. Of course a collapsible Summicron may be ideal if I can find a nice unscratched one (so far looks tricky).

I think it comes down to how they handle in the real world and the opinion of people who may have used both. A good point that it does not look as conspicuous though. I’m really not going to worry about taping up an old camera - I’m sure lots of people have more expensive DSLRs.

I probably can’t loose too much getting one to try, just seeking opinions first.

 

[logan2z]

I don't have an FE, but I have an FM and a Leica M4 (and M-A). I've owned the Leicas for quite a bit longer than the FM and haven't used the FM that much but I prefer the way the Leica feels/handles - and that has nothing to do with the cost of the camera. The Leicas just feel like 'quality' to me and I very much enjoy using them. I also prefer rangefinders to SLRs. That all said, I think the FM is a very nice camera and I plan to use it more when shooting with longer focal lengths.

Try the M3. As you said, you don't really have much to lose as you could always sell the camera for what you paid (or more) down the road.

 

[jimjm]

I've got all the FE/FM-series bodies, and a Leica M2, which is more or less the same size & weight as the M3. They all get used a lot.
The Leicas have a more solid "dense" quality feel, but overall size and weight are close to the Nikons, so this shouldn't be much of a consideration. Keep in mind you'll need a handheld or shoe-mount meter with the Leica M3, M2 or M4 bodies, if you want metering.
If you already know that you prefer shooting with a rangefinder, using an M-series is basically as good as it gets. Extremely quiet and smooth and no distractions in the VF other than your focusing patch.
If you shoot mostly with a 50 or longer, go with the M3. The M2, M4 and later models are preferable if you commonly use wider lenses. My normal lens is a 35mm, so the M2 is perfect for me. Wide lenses on the M3 will require goggles or an external VF.

Handling-wise, I prefer the Leicas. They feel quicker and more intuitive, although there's nothing wrong with the Nikons, which are actually more flexible and adaptable to extreme focal lengths and situations.
The M2/M3 bodies are probably the least expensive M-mount bodies now. The Cosina Voigtlanders are also good cameras and cheaper, but don't feel the same as the Leicas at all.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

"Discreet" is kind of self illusion
Main reason for M cameras to be more compact is in absence of big lens mount, mirror box and small lenses. Here is no collapsible 50mm lens for SLR. But Elmar 50 3.5 is even more smaller than Summicron 50.
I have EM, F2 and Nikkormat. As long as they have prime of them they are all discreet enough for me.
I had M3 with 50 1.5 VM and with Summarit 50 1.5. I sold them all, because it wasn't much difference in focusing from Nikon FG-20, which I also sold . I have SBOOI VF on LTM Leica and it gives true 1:1 view, while M3 VF is not 1:1.
I suggest to check on Nikon RF cameras, they are less expensive, more robust and have good lenses, some are with 1:1 VF.
And any LTM Leica is smaller than M, less expensive, including lenses. Leica IIIG is another less expensive alternative to M3. Where are good 50 f2 Leitz lenses made before Summicron. I have tried them.
Jupiter3, 8 lenses are also good.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Does an M3 have a small, discrete feel by FE2 standards? I do appreciate that half the desire is to try a Leica, but I don’t want to feel I have *just* bought it for the trinket value.

I think they are very similar in size and weight but lenses stick out more on the Nikon. I had an M4 that I thought felt better made than my FM2 but not better made than my F3. Nikons were much easier to use than the Leica as they had built in meter and normal film loading. Do bear in mind that the Leica will need a separate light meter so if discrete means carrying less weight and bulk you will need to carry another bit of kit with the Leica. If you're interested in size and weight then your Olympus RD is perfect, if you're interested in being discrete in public then I think it's more about body language than the camera in your hand.

 

[darkosaric]

Welcome to APUG .
By feel and handling - nothing comes close to M3, Not a Nikon, or other M - M3 is perfect. Second to M3 are LTM Leicas. But we are splitting hair here - those are very very small tactile differences.
You probably have seen this review from Mr. Rockwell - it says all you need to know about M3: https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/m3.htm

 

[RedSwede]

This is really great input, thanks. It sounds like there isn’t a world of difference, but I’d probably find an M3 handles a bit smaller and nicer.

If it weren’t for the fixed 40mm lens, and that I’ve had it in bits at least 3 times (although that does mean it is working perfectly now), the 35RD does hit the spot. Plus I wanted to try the legendary Leica smoothness.

Very interesting to look more at a iiic/f/g. Checking out pictures they really do look more compact. The early Ms have the quality/smoothness reputation - do the iiis have that as well?

(Meter is not an issue. I normally can guess to 1ev or better, and for b&w that is usually ok - plus I find my iPhone lightmeter app is bang on if I want to be sure)

Also - agree on discrete. Probably psychological but I feel more pretentious with a “chunky” SLR. Although I’m sure you could argue that a Leica reaches a new level of pretentiousness..!

 

[awty]

You could try a nikon e 50mm f1.8 lens, they are very light and compact.

 

[logan2z]

Although I’m sure you could argue that a Leica reaches a new level of pretentiousness..!

I think people make way too much of this. 99.999999% of the people who see your Leica won't have a clue what it is.

 

[John Koehrer]

Ko.FE mentioned the Elmar. The 50mm/3.5 is a collapsible lens that only adds ~1/4-5/6" to the thickness when
not extended. If you want longer than 40mm then a 50 is what's left and the length is what it is.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Smoothiness is very dependable on how recently and by whom Leica RF was CLA'd. And by how it was made, I guess.
My M4-2 has most smooth shutter speed dial. It is like this since I have it. M3 and M4-P I had where next to crude for shutter speed dial.
I also had IIf and honestly it was made just as good as any M, if not better. But again particular IIf. Last time I have seen it around it was in our local camera store and founder of it told me how he let go all of others LTM and only keeping my ex IIf. He was ex-Midland technician and serviced, rebuild LTM and M.
I have now IIIc which is after CLA from another ex-Leica technician and it is smooth, but doesn't have this particular feel of my ex IIf.

 

[johnha]

I bought a bashed about M4 as I wanted to try a Leica, comparing it to Pentax mechanical SLRs (MX, KX) it just feels better (KX is closest). I bought it with the Voigtlander 40/1.4 (I prefer 40 over 50). It brings up the 50mm frame lines, I just frame tight for those knowing there's a bit of a margin around them. I wear glasses and think an M3 finder would be a problem (like my MX), I can barely see the 35mm frame lines in the M4.

Size wise, the body & lens are about the same as an MX and 40/2.8 pancake (my preferred lens). I don't think most people would know the difference between an old rangefinder or SLR, neither look like DSLRs and that's the most obvious difference.

 

[RedSwede]

Really good input. Not sure there is one consensus out of it, but that would have been unlikely!
I'm getting that:
M3 + smallish 50mm will feel a bit nicer to handle, but not a huge size reduction.
IIIc/f + collapsible will be definitely smaller. Actually quite taken by this, but I wonder if it just adds 1 or 2 too many steps to taking a picture.
Also looking at Nikon rangefinders, they are about the size of an M3, so maybe I was too fast to discount them.

And - interesting about the 35mm framelines in the M4. I am left-eye dominant, so although I don't wear glasses, I cannot get too close to the finder as my nose gets in the way. So maybe I would struggle with an M3 an M2/4 would be better anyway.

Not doing anything right now. Coronavirus restrictions are in full force here, shops are closed and camera stock seems minimal (I found 3 or 4 M3s across Europe that I might be interested in, and felt rather expensive at £1500+ for very nice but non-mint examples)

 

[guangong]

Any of the Ms are excellent choices. The appearance of the Leica M3 was so exceptional that Nikon, Zeiss, and others could no longer compete . In a way, by default Leica Ms initiated the SLR revolution. Nikon and Zeiss viewfinders are quite squinty compared with M3.
Shooting with rf camera allows quicker response because less attention needs to be devoted to perfect focus. Indeed, at bottom edge of finder is a small notch which tells user that if discrepancy of superimposed rangefinder images is less than notch at f5.6, image will be in focus. This feature was removed from later Ms.
On the other hand, I would find a way to actually handle any unfamiliar camera before buying. Choice of camera is very personal.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

M have metal VF frame. Not good for glasses. M3, as it was mentioned 50mm framelines, are close to edges. Not good for glasses either. M2 and after have much smaller 50mm framelines, they are visible with glasses.
IIIc has metal VF frame, but plastic replacement is available. IIIf comes with original plastic VF/RF frame and it needs to be examined closely for cracks. If it fails, lenses for RF, VF also fails and here is no replacement anymore.
LTM Leica has separate VF and RF windows. Takes extra time. Also shutter speed dial needs to be lifted after shutter is tensioned.
With M you could rotate shutter dial in any time.
Still LTM with SBOOI VF (true 1:1 50mm VF) would me my choice for 50mm RF lens. Elmar, Summars, Summitars and even Summicrons are available in LTM. Elmar 50 3.5 is not only small and collapsible, plus not very overpriced, it is nice rendering lens.

 

[Huss]

I bought plastic eyeglass protectors from DAG which pretty much is just a circular plastic trim strip that pops over the metal VF surround on the Leicas that need it.
As KoFe mentioned, LTM Leicas are more fiddly/slower to use which I find gets in the way of my pic taking process. There ia a reason Leica moved on from them - as lovely as those cameras are.
I have a bunch of M cameras, as well as Nikon SLRs. I just find the Leicas more pleasurable to shoot. Yesterday I shot a roll of film in 30 mins just walking around my neighbourhood using an M.
I've have a Nikon F2 loaded for a few weeks now, and also take that for walks but yet have to shoot more than 10 images. Just isn't as pleasurable for me. Same with my FE2 and FMs. But they are super cameras.
I also have a Nikon S2 which is really really nice but still not quite as nice as a Leica. Leica Ms have really good defined focusing patches which make them very quick to use. Nikon RFs have a soft focusing blob in comparison, which works fine but just is not as quick or easy to use.
I do still recommend an S2 - really nice VF and they can be had for great prices. But make sure to check the RF patch. On the S2/3/SP they can get dull and hard to see.

 

[Huss]

Any of the Ms are excellent choices. The appearance of the Leica M3 was so exceptional that Nikon, Zeiss, and others could no longer compete . In a way, by default Leica Ms initiated the SLR revolution. Nikon and Zeiss viewfinders are quite squinty compared with M3..

Nikon RFs (S2, S3) and Zeiss Ikon ZM are not at all squinty compared to Leica Ms.
Weird thing to say.

 

[RedSwede]

As KoFe mentioned, LTM Leicas are more fiddly/slower to use which I find gets in the way of my pic taking process.

Agreed. I read the IIIf manual just before. Too much faff on, lifting the shutter knob, only after wind on, interlocks on the slow speed, etc...

And decent as I’m sure a Nikon S is (“new” 2000 reissues with lens seem to be less than a Leica body), I just don’t think it’s right.

Probably an M3 is right to try. As I say, everything is a bit restricted now to really go about getting one - limited supply, etc. Plus, I’m not going anywhere and doing much photography anyway.

As I said - seemed like the cameras in nice condition were priced at/near the £1500 mark - does that seem right? I’d want to have a full CLA as well (guessing £250-300), and I’d like to pay at a price where I wouldn’t loose half of what I spent if it wasn’t for me.

Hadn’t realised how cheap collapsible Elmars are - maybe one of those for when I want to squeeze it in my work bag and a faster lens for when I’ve got more space, could be perfect and get a lot closer to my 35RD size wise.

 

[johnha]

I bought my M4 from the Leica store Manchester: https://www.leicastoremanchester.com/ and definitely recommend them. I asked about a CLA and was told "don't worry doesn't need it", given it came with a year warranty, I didn't worry. No problems since.

 

[John Koehrer]

I have to disagree with guangdong about the M3 being the reason the others dropped rangefinders. The other makers
decided RF wasn't the path to the future and gave the RF market to Leitz.
Remember, Leica didn't have an SLR until the 68* and has never had a full system camera like Canon,
Nikon and Pentax. Minolta too I guess if you consider the XK.(never seen anything but body + head)
*Wiki says '64, Leica historical says '68.

RE size: from wikipedia:
lllf...........148 X 97 X 57mm
M3............138 X 77 X 38mm
lllG.............138 X 65 X 39mm

 

[Huss]

I have to disagree with guangdong about the M3 being the reason the others dropped rangefinders. The other makers
decided RF wasn't the path to the future and gave the RF market to Leitz.

Leica owned it, so I don't think the others gave them anything. No-one made anything that matched up to Leica. All I've got to do is use my Nikon and compare it's indistinct RF blob to a Leica's sharp and contrasty RF patch..
They decided - correctly for them - to pursue SLRs.

 

[warden]

Nikon RFs (S2, S3) and Zeiss Ikon ZM are not at all squinty compared to Leica Ms.
Weird thing to say.

I imagine he's referring to vintage Zeiss? You're right though, ZM viewfinder makes the M3 viewfinder look squinty and dark in comparison.