Leica M3 - size?

[Pioneer]

...ZM viewfinder makes the M3 viewfinder look squinty and dark in comparison.

Amen!!

And I shoot the M3 but that vaunted viewfinder, and it was quite amazing for 1954, does not compare to the modern Zeiss Ikon viewfinder.

 

[warden]

Amen!!
And I shoot the M3 but that vaunted viewfinder, and it was quite amazing for 1954, does not compare to the modern Zeiss Ikon viewfinder.

Yeah here are mine and I bet you can tell which is which without me telling you. I love that Zeiss and I need to get rid of the Leica. It's a wonderfully solid camera but sits as a backup, rarely used.

 

[Bob Bibab]

I would never pay £1500 for an M3 without a lens. The prices vary considerably, so you need to keep an eye out for 2-3 weeks and something good will pop up. In my experience the best prices for something like the M3 which is relatively popular will be had at well priced "buy it nows" rather than auction. You just have to check quite frequently and pounce when one comes up. There is no way you should be paying more than £800 for one in a reasonable condition, specially if you are planning to have it CLAed.

Are you in a rush to use the camera? If not, I suggest you call up a few good repairers and see what their cost is for a CLA and/or overhaul and what sort of issues problems they deal with and what sort of problems they suggest you stay away from. Usually, with the M3 problems are fixable, and the majority of problems arise from lack of service. Once you have done that, keep an eye out for one in good condition and clear viewfinder (no separation). If one comes up with a slow or sticky shutter at a reasonable price, just buy it and get it overhauled. You should be able to get a super clean M3, completely overhauled, for less than £1000 this way.

 

[John Earley]

I have a number of Nikon bodies including an FE which I really like. I also have an M3 which is a great camera to shoot with. The M3 however doesn't get used as often when I expect to shoot more than one roll as it is somewhat finicky to load as compared to the Nikons.

 

[darkosaric]

Never used ZM, but metal shutter on another cameras that I have was never an equal to my M3. Also no 75mm, 90mm, 135mm frame lines - it does narrow the lens choices.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Yeah here are mine and I bet you can tell which is which without me telling you. I love that Zeiss and I need to get rid of the Leica. It's a wonderfully solid camera but sits as a backup, rarely used.

ZM looks like Cosina build within same universal and cheap chassis, like Bessa R series and FM10 like SLRs. Also I'm not sure if here is any support available for ZM or its just another Hexar RF, which is single use until it breaks camera.
M3 are still serviceable.

 

[Pioneer]

ZM looks like Cosina build within same universal and cheap chassis, like Bessa R series and FM10 like SLRs. Also I'm not sure if here is any support available for ZM or its just another Hexar RF, which is single use until it breaks camera.
M3 are still serviceable.

Sorry Ko Fe, that isn't true.

The Zeiss Ikon may have been built in the Cosina facilities but it is a much better camera in all ways than any of the Bessa models. I have sold almost all of my Bessa models with the exception of a couple of Bessa R models with mechanical problems and a Bessa R2C.

I do adore my Bessa R2C, mostly because it gives me a nice viewfinder and through the lens metering with Zeiss Contax lenses. I will keep it until it dies just because of that.

But the Zeiss Ikon is much, much higher quality.

 

[Huss]

... Also I'm not sure if here is any support available for ZM or its just another Hexar RF, which is single use until it breaks camera.
M3 are still serviceable.

Zeiss Germany still services/repairs the Zeiss Ikon ZM.

 

[warden]

ZM looks like Cosina build within same universal and cheap chassis, like Bessa R series and FM10 like SLRs. Also I'm not sure if here is any support available for ZM or its just another Hexar RF, which is single use until it breaks camera.
M3 are still serviceable.

Wanna buy my M3?

Edit: I'll take some pics of it and put it in the classifieds. It's a good camera, just not for me.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Wanna buy my M3?

Edit: I'll take some pics of it and put it in the classifieds. It's a good camera, just not for me.

I sold one very special to me M3. Just like you couldn’t find use for it. I’m not club fifty and not expensive cameras collector either.

 

[mshchem]

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.

I agree. Leica was the 800 lb. Gorilla of professional 35mm. Nikon bet everything on the F, it worked out well for Nikon. It's interesting to see how Nikon, being late to mirrorless digital cameras are struggling to stay afloat.
I have a mint M6ttl 0.85x finder, like a M2 it offers a 35mm lens finder line. The rangefinder of a Leica is amazing, I've never seen anything like it in a medium format rangefinder. I've never handled a vintage Contax or Nikon.

 

[film_man]

Bit late to the party but...

I would consider the M3 (or any other Leica) additionally to the your Nikon.

On the Leicas, I have an M4 and wear glasses. I bought a rubber eye thing to put on the metal eyecup to protect my glasses so that's not an issue. With glasses you can't see the 50 lines on the M3. With the M4 it is just right. The 35mm lines on the M4 are just about visible with glasses, maybe not depending how you use the camera.

Other things to consider. The M3 will focus down to 1m vs the M4 will do 0.7m. That is a big difference. Also, the M4 has the quick load (an oxymoron!) system for loading film which is not that bad once you figure out where to put the film. The M3 may or may not have but think about whether you want to deal with that extra step of removing the spool to load film.

Vs the FE2, well I really do like my M4 and it is my main camera. It is quiet, fast to operate and once you understand that you are always shooting a bit loose (ie don't worry that much about exact framing) you're good to go. On the other hand using anything longer than 50mm is a stretch, using anything under 28mm needs an external finder. That is not that much of an issue actually as you quickly learn what you'd be seeing. I have a ZM 21/4.5 which I love shooting, hyperfocal and off you go and the results are better than anything wide I've ever used in SLR land.

The FE2 has lensees that let you focus down to 0.5m, I love using something like the 50/1.2 at close range. You can have long lenses without a problem, macro, etc.

Basically what I'm saying, use a Leica for the 50 and the wides which are just excellent. Use the SLR for 50mm upwards and when you want to get close.

And btw, Leicas are heavy in comparison, the lenses are tiny and light which is where the difference comes. I'd still rather have just the M4 than an SLR if it had to be like that but luckily I don't have to! Also, anything you buy for a Leica is 5x more, even the cheap stuff.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

In the old days you bought a M-Leica, not because you wanted the camera so much, but you wanted to use the Leica glass; today there are more options and you can use the M-mount lenses on camera's of different makes. The M-Leica's are great tools (once they are correctly serviced) - but keep in mind that the M3, M2, M4 and some of the M6 and M7 are quite heavy compared to your Nikon FE2, since these Leica's had brass tops and bottoms and a lot of brass internals - which stands for their quality.

Further I always liked the rangefinder of the M6 and later models better than the earlier models since it is a bit more clear.
And if you are used to using an internal meter, than I would go for a classic M6 (there are different models of the M6). Apart from the M5 I had them all and kept only one M6.

...and yes the ZM-Zeisses are great tools too....

...once I had a Hexar, but I had the idea that my Leica lenses didn't match the camera that well, so after a short while sold it...
.
.what really is a totally different camera and great fun to use, albeit not for M-glass, but only LTM, is the old Epson R-D - pity they never upgraded it with modern sensors (it has a 6.1 megapix CCD).

 

[RedSwede]

Well, to update this: I bought an M3 and an M4.

The long story is: bought a cheapish M3 (a lot, lot less than £1500) which only needed vulcanite/film door replacement to be pretty smart. However, it arrived with separated prism - after Alan at Cameraworks assessed it as repairable and otherwise very sound, I got a further discount from the seller to cover the work. With cosmetic refurb, overhaul and resilvered/rebuilt rangefinder I’m still way way under £1500. To fidgety to wait a year to get on with trying an M camera, I bought another not-so-cheap M4 - seemingly in very nice condition. Fully assessing it when it arrived, the shutter topped out at about 1/300-1/400 at either 1/500 and 1/1000 - so that is away somewhere faster for a thorough CLA.

I bought a Zeiss 50/1.5 as my first lens - as per the OP - I “see” at about 50mm and I absolutely loved the “look” of this lens in photos I have seen taken with it. Plus it is tiny.

To the core of the matter - how big is it? I’d say it feels 2/3rds of the way from my Olympus 35RD to the Nikon FE2 (with 50/1.4). The 35RD is still the one that can squeeze in the last gap in my hand luggage on a business trip (not that that is happening any time soon), but in a shoulder bag the Leica is much more comfortable than the Nikon. Plus, I do much prefer the handling vs the Nikon.

Undoubtedly, a Leica M is delightful and I think will be the perfect travel/everyday camera for me. But it certainly doesn’t make the little 35RD, or a compact SLR redundant. They still have a place in a practical set of cameras - the 35RD for its size, the Nikon for just the huge breadth of capabilities a metered SLR can bring in trickier circumstances.

 

[darkosaric]

I bought an M3 and an M4.

Congrats! Enjoy .

 

[mshchem]

Well done. Consider a Zeiss ZM 35mm f 2.8 Biogon. The lens is tiny and is sharp as can be. I have a newer 6 bit 50mm Summicron and that little Zeiss is half the size and weight of the Summicron 50. Last year around Christmas these little gems were discounted. Currently in USA without taxes they are about $1000.

M4 should have frame lines for 35mm lens and a nice rewind crank

 

[logan2z]

I have a newer 6 bit 50mm Summicron and that little Zeiss is half the size and weight of the Summicron 50.

Congrats to the OP on his new Leicas. They're great cameras, I'm sure you're going to love them.

Not to take this thread off topic, but I'm in the market for a 50mm lens for my M-A/M4 and am seriously considering the v5 Summicron. I keep hearing that the lens is prone to flare and wondered if you've experienced that.

 

[warden]

Well, to update this: I bought an M3 and an M4.

The long story is: bought a cheapish M3 (a lot, lot less than £1500) which only needed vulcanite/film door replacement to be pretty smart. However, it arrived with separated prism - after Alan at Cameraworks assessed it as repairable and otherwise very sound, I got a further discount from the seller to cover the work. With cosmetic refurb, overhaul and resilvered/rebuilt rangefinder I’m still way way under £1500. To fidgety to wait a year to get on with trying an M camera, I bought another not-so-cheap M4 - seemingly in very nice condition. Fully assessing it when it arrived, the shutter topped out at about 1/300-1/400 at either 1/500 and 1/1000 - so that is away somewhere faster for a thorough CLA.

I bought a Zeiss 50/1.5 as my first lens - as per the OP - I “see” at about 50mm and I absolutely loved the “look” of this lens in photos I have seen taken with it. Plus it is tiny.

To the core of the matter - how big is it? I’d say it feels 2/3rds of the way from my Olympus 35RD to the Nikon FE2 (with 50/1.4). The 35RD is still the one that can squeeze in the last gap in my hand luggage on a business trip (not that that is happening any time soon), but in a shoulder bag the Leica is much more comfortable than the Nikon. Plus, I do much prefer the handling vs the Nikon.

Undoubtedly, a Leica M is delightful and I think will be the perfect travel/everyday camera for me. But it certainly doesn’t make the little 35RD, or a compact SLR redundant. They still have a place in a practical set of cameras - the 35RD for its size, the Nikon for just the huge breadth of capabilities a metered SLR can bring in trickier circumstances.

Congratulations! Both great cameras.

 

[John Will]

http://fotofransen.nl/contents/media/epson r-d1.jpg[/IMG]

The Epson R-D1 series is Leica M mount, you can only use LTM lenses fitted with an M adapter.

 

[mshchem]

Congrats to the OP on his new Leicas. They're great cameras, I'm sure you're going to love them.

Not to take this thread off topic, but I'm in the market for a 50mm lens for my M-A/M4 and am seriously considering the v5 Summicron. I keep hearing that the lens is prone to flare and wondered if you've experienced that.

I don't think I've really had a problem. BUT it has a handy, but rather skimpy built in lens hood. I purchased a straight Heliopan metal lens hood for another lens. I am considering one for the Summicron, these hoods are machined in Germany, absolutely beautiful, the hood is threaded! So in theory you could screw 2 together . Makes it super handy for putting a standard squeeze together lens cap on the lens of the hood.
I have a UV filter on the Summicron, for obvious reasons, that sticks out far enough that the factory built in just wouldn't cut it in bright sunshine. It's a great lens. Leica glass has become a hand made luxury item. I long for a nice new 35mm Summicron as I have the .85 finder on my M6ttl but I can't bring myself to drop that kind of cash.
I recently bought a Fuji X Pro 3, so there's the 400 vs 4000 factor for digital.

Here's something that I would consider. I had a 0.72 M6ttl with a 50mm Summicron, pre 6 bit. It to had a built in hood. I am not sure but it may have been a V4. I paid 1300 USD for the camera and lens, it was perfect in the Leica box. Pre digital, Leica was still churning out a lot of stuff. The original owner paid 2200 for the kit.

OK I apologize for going off on a tangent.

 

[RedSwede]

I think when I get my M3 back - probably best part of a year away - I’ll just keep one. But the tricky thing is - which one?

The caveat here is that I have never used an M3 - and my M3, with all old optical cement replaced, resilvered, CLAd and a couple of upgrades, will be about the best there is when it returns. However, the M4 seems to have a great finder. In fact, left eyed and with deep set eye sockets, the 50mm frameline on the M4 might be more comfortable than the M3.

I absolutely agree too, with the poster that said leave telephoto lenses to an SLR.

Both the Zeiss 35mm/2.8 and 28mm/2.8 are interesting. The 35mm would make the M4 the obvious choice, but it’s still at a focal length that I struggle with. 28 and wider you can start to play with foreground vs background emphasis. But then it’s an external finder for either...

(As an aside, it’s interesting that the M2 is recommended 10x more than an M4. I don’t see any advantage to an M2, in fact, I wonder if the M4 is the sweet spot for classic Leica. All the speed/convenience features, the flare free finder (supposedly the M3 is better again), the classic looks - and no stupid manual framecounter that looks like a liability. M4 prices are all over the place admittedly - from just over £1k to best part of £2k for very similar cameras. But then the whole Leica market seems all over the place to me.)

 

[Bikerider]

The M3 will be discrete compared to virtually any SLR, but the downside for me would be the necessity to have a separate hand held meter. The MR3 meters that fit on the hotshoe do work but getting a good, accurate, working one could be difficult. Also using a separate meter destroys the 'discrete' aspect I think that to get the convenience of a meter you have to look at something like a M6 with TTL meter.
Keeping the cost down there are the 'clones' such as the Voigtlander versions with a meter and the Leitz bayonet or M39 screw lens. I have used one but soon went back to my SLR.

Surprisingly, much cheaper are the Canon rangefinder models that take M39 screw thread lenses. You can get good ones for not a lot of money and the build quality, whilst not up to the standards of Leica are pretty damn good.

 

[RedSwede]

Tthe downside for me would be the necessity to have a separate hand held meter.

Yes, metering is an issue I will have to get to grips with. I do have a non-metered SLR, which I used ~25 years ago, and occasionally since, so it's not unfamiliar territory. Back then, I used it with a handheld needle lightmeter, and being inexperienced and nervous, metered up for every shot and did as it said. Now, I think it is far more flexible - plus I want to slow down a bit.

First, there is a combination of "sunny 16", guessing, or using a light meter phone app every so often during the day and relating it back to other shots. I think I can be within a couple of stops absolute max, probably +/-<1 90% of the time - and for B+W film, that works OK. If the moment is truly fleeting - I just take the shot with whatever the last settings were - it might be OK it might not. But for sure it will be a bad photograph if you don't take it.

Second, a clip on meter has it's place. The new "Keks" one looks great - but does add a little bulk and time.

If speed and accuracy are important in changing light, that is what the FE2 with shutter set to "A" is for. We are still within the bounds of MF, and I'm no sports or wildlife photographer.

If it has all gone wrong, I don't have a clue, no meter, only the Leica, I did experiment with just some rough guess exposure, and using stand development - which seemed to be absolutely remarkable. Yes, there was some weird glow around highlights in some cases - but every photo had shadow and highlight detail.

 

[flavio81]

Right now I shoot mainly with 2 cameras - a Nikon FE2(...) The Nikon has such a quality feel in comparison, huge clear finder

Wait until you try a Nikon F2 or a Nikkormat EL/EL2. It makes the FE2 seems cheap in build quality. And the viewfinder is better on the F2, particularly if you fit a later screen or adapt a F3 screen.

 

[flavio81]

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.

You should take a look at the Pentax MX. The dimensions are similar to an M3, and some lenses (like the 40/2.8) are really tiny. It's a great camera as well, mechanically it's smoother than a FE2, and has a better viewfinder; although it doesn't have the amazing 1/250 sync speed of the FE2, nor any automatic mode.