The Leica M3 is "Its sex in glass"

arealitystudios · May 13, 2014

thegman said:
I've had a couple of M3 cameras in my time, and certainly it was the finest camera I've owned, even compared to a Leica MP. The feel of it is remarkable, nicer IMHO than a Rollei or a Hasselblad. Only let down by the fact it's a 35mm camera, not medium format.

Leica might make amazing cameras and amazing lenses, but they'll always be held back by using small film, for me, anyway.

I totally agree with this. There is absolutely no doubt that Leica makes beautiful and high quality cameras. I've owned a couple in my life. But nothing will ever change the fact that 35mm is just so tiny. I vastly prefer the drama and depth, the size, and the clarity of medium format and it is entirely possible to shoot in medium format with a small and easily portable camera.

But yeah...the M3 is still a damn sexy camera.

Richard S. (rich815) · May 13, 2014

Not to refute the lovefest for the M2, after all I chose the M2 over the M3 too, but I've heard this and similar when comparing the 2 to the 3:

"If I dare compare the LEICA M3, the LEICA M2 (1957-1967), the "poor mans's LEICA," used a lower-magnification finder with a simpler, cheaper and inferior rangefinder system. It also lacked the automatically-resetting internal frame counter of the M3, and uses a primitive external wheel as a film counter, requiring manual resetting for every roll"

JW PHOTO · May 13, 2014

cliveh said:
I think the M2 is the best of the M series.

cliveh, I agree! I've had M3 single and double strokes plus others M4-2 and M4P, but the M2 was my favorite of them all. It carried a 50mm f2.8 Elmar and was a dream camera. I kinda wish I would have never sold it, but you can't keep'em all. Now all I have is a IIIa with flash sync added and a very nice Leicaflex SL. Most of my 35mm stuff was taken over by a Samsung NX100 and Canon 5D. Those evil digital monsters! JW

Ian Grant · May 13, 2014

I dug out my M3 recently as I'm in the middle of moving, it's such a great camera to use but I'd almost completely stopped shooting 35,, However I bought some colour films for it yesterday. First I need to finish the film in it (probably been in the camera for about 10 years, I'd guess Tmax100.

It certainly doesn't look like a 60 year old camera

Ian

Mustafa Umut Sarac · May 13, 2014

I used Leica I for a short time and its viewfinder was like looking from magic lantern , After 8 leica , I say even a working fed or zorki body does the job with 5cm elmar or fed 5. Difference is great but there is less people to understand the difference or appraciate the look.
I think sterile digital shots makes old leicas , old journals , old national geographics looks strange , this was for color , but for bw ,they are the king.

Pioneer · May 13, 2014

I truly enjoy using my M3 once in awhile.

It is almost as nice as shooting my ZI.

E. von Hoegh · May 16, 2014

"Sex in glass"? Rubbish.
I've had and used M3s, two of them. They're probably the most beautifully made cameras I've ever seen the insides of.

But: I couldn't justify spending money on any other lenses - and this was back in the 80s/90s before the dilettante fanbois drove the prices into the stratosphere. You could get a solid clean M3 back then for $200. With a lens. And a case.
The viewfinder is nice, but I preferred the rangefinder on the Contax II I had concurrently with the Ms. I wear glasses, so in-camera viewfinder gorgeousness is a pretty moot point for me, I can't utilize any Rf viewfinder as it is intended.
I'd like another M3, just because it's so nicely made. But a Contax is nice, too - and a lot cheaper.

blockend · May 16, 2014

Yes, in the 1980s a clean used M3 was around the same price or a little more than an equivalent Nikon F2. And they usually came with a lens.

Mainecoonmaniac · May 16, 2014

In all seriousness. This is a prime example of what culture is. There is someone that declares something deserves to be revered and the rest follow. That's why there are car clubs, churches, cliques and interest groups. One of the most important things for me is always to question the current zeitgeist and change with the times. The danger is fundamentalism when things are seen and defined in black and white and change is viewed as bad. These groups should challenge each other and have an open dialog. I've been a life long Iconoclast and have my middle finger at the ready at self declared experts that take themselves too seriously.

E. von Hoegh · May 16, 2014

Mainecoonmaniac said:
In all seriousness. This is a prime example of what culture is. There is someone that declares something deserves to be revered and the rest follow. That's why there are car clubs, churches, cliques and interest groups. One of the most important things for me is always to question the current zeitgeist and change with the times. The danger is fundamentalism when things are seen and defined in black and white and change is viewed as bad. These groups should challenge each other and have an open dialog. I've been a life long Iconoclast and have my middle finger at the ready at self declared experts that take themselves too seriously.

Well, not to bash the M3. But the Leicaphools annoy the hell out of me when they start with their nonsense. I understand well what it takes to construct a fine piece of machinery - and that's exactly what the M3 is. You read all sorts of idiotic hyperbole, without exception written by the unqualified. "Made like a fine watch" is one that always galls me. A Patek-Phillipe minute repeater is made like a fine watch, cameras are not in the same galaxy.

And there are always those ready to swig away at the koolaid of received wisdom to perpetuate the mythology. Frankly, the 50/1.5 Summarit on my M3 and also on my IIIG was nothing to write home about, I liked the uncoated f:2 Sonnar on the Contax better and the 50/2 Nikkor H in F mount is better in all ways. But you won't have much trouble finding plenty of nonsense written about the Summarit. Of course a Summicron is a different matter, the later M mount Summicrons are extraordinarily good lenses.

If you get a chance to use a good M3, do so - they really are something special, a superlatively well made tool in an age where such things are being forgotten. And the Summarit is pretty nice at f:4, I just didn't like the weirdness wide open.
But they're not to be worshipped.

Dinesh · May 16, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
But they're not to be worshipped.

I think you are confused with the Linhof guys!

People who own Leica's make the best images because they are the best cameras.

E. von Hoegh · May 16, 2014

Dinesh said:
I think you are confused with the Linhof guys!

People who own Leica's make the best images because they are the best cameras.

I sold my Leicas, but I kept the Linhof. I foolishly sold the Contax, but recently replaced it. With a Kiev. The Jupiter 8 is a very nice lens, it behaves just like a coated version of the Sonnar that was on the Contax. In fact, it might be better.
And, if you get a screwmount J-8, with the aid of an inexpensive adapter you can put it on your M3

Ian Grant · May 16, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
I sold my Leicas, but I kept the Linhof. I foolishly sold the Contax, but recently replaced it. With a Kiev. The Jupiter 8 is a very nice lens, it behaves just like a coated version of the Sonnar that was on the Contax. In fact, it might be better.
And, if you get a screw mount J-8, with the aid of an inexpensive adapter you can put it on your M3

Interesting I bought a couple of Jupiter 8 lenses both optically mint, one plain aluminium barrel the other late black £5 each for a my FED & Zorki, the bodies were also £5 same seller different occasion.

Many years ago (early 70's) I processed and printed some films for some friends (twins) and was amazed by the quality from their Kiev 4 and its Jupiter 8 lens. That's why I wanted Jupiter 8's on my 2 FSU rangefinders (they've bred and there's now 4 )

However going back to the M3 I think in my case it's the quality of the 50mm f2 Summicron lens and the great rangefinder that's the key to why I loved using it and more importantly always got very consistent results. On two occasions (both weddings) my images were used because the so called Pro hadn't cut the muster (badly under performed). One of them said wow you must have a new camera the results are amazing, hand held Fuji Sueria 200 consumer film, the low light images at f2 1/30th - they look so different -realistic & natural - compared to when flash is used.

I;ve bought my first 35mm films in 6 or 7 years last week so the M3 and one of the FSU rangefinders will get used a lot more, and also a Spotmatic F in coming weeks. I won't to go back to my roots which were once totally 35mm, Thee days 120m in various formats and mostly LF 5x4 and some 10x8 is my norm, has been since 1986.

Ian

Gerald C Koch · May 16, 2014

If one has two Leicas can you mate them?

Sirius Glass · May 16, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
If one has two Leicas can you mate them?

That works with wire coat hangers. Heck you do not have to worry about their sex because when necessary they can be hermaphroditic. Single coat hangers reproduce by cellular division.

The same is not true for film cameras.

Pioneer · May 16, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
That works with wire coat hangers. Heck you do not have to worry about their sex because when necessary they can be hermaphroditic. Single coat hangers reproduce by cellular division.

The same is not true for film cameras.

No, no, no, no...that is NOT what is happening. My coat hangers are running away from home and showing up at your house to party. I know this because mine are all missing.

Though once in awhile I find one that has straightened itself out and left the house for the garage.

pen s · May 16, 2014

I own an M4-2, don't think I've even handled an M3. I don't know the difference in feel from personal experience but mine seems fine to me. One thing I could not understand. When Leica started making the 'superior' M bodies they left off the very valueable diopter adjustment found in the III series bodies. I guess the "improvement" was now Leica could sell you a $20 diopter lens for $100 instead of just building a moveable eyepiece into the body.

250swb · May 17, 2014

pen s said:
When Leica started making the 'superior' M bodies they left off the very valueable diopter adjustment found in the III series bodies. I guess the "improvement" was now Leica could sell you a $20 diopter lens for $100 instead of just building a moveable eyepiece into the body.

Ouch! That's cynical.

The truth is the Barnack Leica rangefinder dioptre is nothing to do with adjusting the image for an individuals eyesight. It is necessary because as you focus from near to far the actual image you see changes focus over and above the lens focusing on the film. So the dioptre corrects for this, the side benefit is it can accommodate an individuals eyesight. But the system isn't fast to use, to focus accurately on the subject first you need to adjust the dioptre for a clear view. So I imagine 'speed' was the reason it wasn't carried over into the M system, where one dioptre adjusts clarity for the individual, not a continuously variable method that needs adjusting from cute puppy mode to landscape mode.

Steve

pen s · May 17, 2014

250swb said:
Ouch! That's cynical.

Steve

Cynical?
Well well, lets look at the facts.

On the B&H website I see metal rimmed diopter correction eyepieces by Nikon for the FM series cameras for $22.
The Leica correction diopters for the M system are $109.

Does anyone here actually believe that Leica's manfacturing cost is 5X Nikon's on these accessories? Only Leica could get away with selling a $20 diopter for $109 and that is price gouging, no matter what the reason.

Someonenameddavid · May 17, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
Well, not to bash the M3. But the Leihttp://www.jaeger-lecoultre.com/US/en/content/the-compass-cameraaphools annoy the hell out of me when they start with their nonsense. I understand well what it takes to construct a fine piece of machinery - and that's exactly what the M3 is. You read all sorts of idiotic hyperbole, without exception written by the unqualified. "Made like a fine watch" is one that always galls me. A Patek-Phillipe minute repeater is made like a fine watch, cameras are not in the same galaxy.

And there are always those ready to swig away at the koolaid of received wisdom to perpetuate the mythology. Frankly, the 50/1.5 Summarit on my M3 and also on my IIIG was nothing to write home about, I liked the uncoated f:2 Sonnar on the Contax better and the 50/2 Nikkor H in F mount is better in all ways. But you won't have much trouble finding plenty of nonsense written about the Summarit. Of course a Summicron is a different matter, the later M mount Summicrons are extraordinarily good lenses.

If you get a chance to use a good M3, do so - they really are something special, a superlatively well made tool in an age where such things are being forgotten. And the Summarit is pretty nice at f:4, I just didn't like the weirdness wide open.
But they're not to be worshipped.

Point of order: there is (or was) a camera made like a fine watchhttp://www.jaeger-lecoultre.com/US/en/content/the-compass-camera

Gerald C Koch · May 17, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
That works with wire coat hangers. Heck you do not have to worry about their sex because when necessary they can be hermaphroditic. Single coat hangers reproduce by cellular division.

The same is not true for film cameras.

I once read a humorous article entitle "The Sex Life Of The Common Coathanger." It was suppose to detail a number of experiments conducted in an empty and seldom used closed. Wire coathangers were said to reproduce by parthenogenesis. When a wooden or a wire coathanger was placed with a wooden coathanger only wire coathangers were produced. This was said to prove that the wire form was the dominant.

Pioneer · May 18, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
I once read a humorous article entitle "The Sex Life Of The Common Coathanger." It was suppose to detail a number of experiments conducted in an empty and seldom used closed. Wire coathangers were said to reproduce by parthenogenesis. When a wooden or a wire coathanger was placed with a wooden coathanger only wire coathangers were produced. This was said to prove that the wire form was the dominant.

That was before plastic came along.

TheToadMen · May 18, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
If one has two Leicas can you mate them?

It's rare, but possible. I once had a M5 and M7 in a dark case. When I checked them - for being very still - there was an extra M4-2 .....

But seriously, in the end it's all about the glass, not the black box you stick it on, that will help us make good images. And there is a certain glass for any occasion. The trick is to use the right one at the right time in the right way. For the rest of the process: read Ansel Adams books: "The Negative" and "The Print".

Leica glass is good though. So I bought me a Leica R7 to use my very old Leica R lenses again.
Very, very good lenses and cheaper than the M-cousins. My best two portraits of my daughters I made once with an old Leica SL and Tri-X film ;-)

E. von Hoegh · May 19, 2014

Someonenameddavid said:
Point of order: there is (or was) a camera made like a fine watchhttp://www.jaeger-lecoultre.com/US/en/content/the-compass-camera

Nope. That's a camera made by a company that made (makes?) watches, there's a big difference. It's also a camera I wish I'd snagged an example of back when they were relatively affordable.

The Leica M3 is "Its sex in glass"

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency