The way I understand it, for DS M3, first wind is to cock the shutter and the second one wind the film, so probably it needs some attention on the winding mechanism.
The myth of smoothness of leicas
-
A
- Thread starter Radost
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Hasselblad HC 150mm 3.2
- Started by bellyface
-
For Sale Metz SCA344 cables for Nikon F3 and Metz 45/60 series.
- Started by Chan Tran
-
For Sale Kodak's 1947 Sensitometric Step Table
- Started by Gaston 012
-
For Sale Photronix Mod 73 Transmission densitometer with instructions
- Started by Gaston 012
-
For Sale Eseco and XRite densitometers
- Started by gmikol
Forum statistics
The way I understand it, for DS M3, first wind is to cock the shutter and the second one wind the film, so probably it needs some attention on the winding mechanism.
OK, but using a 28mm or 40mm lens has nothing to do with winding smoothness. So you do not answer my question (which is not really a question...).
Nice slogan!
Well I guess sure, but I would say there ARE unreliable cameras. Some years ago, for some reason, I was really interested in Rollei SL35E. Got many of them but most of them eventually failed (and no, it was not low battery). Also had problems with Olympus OM2 that started failing out of the sudden (electronics). I would say precision and material quality got a part in making a camera reliable. Rolleiflex, Hasselblad and Leicav (alone with others) shine on that area. No pixie dust involved, just precision and consistent craftmanship.
By the way, I'm on the mind that if all cameras where the same and their differences didn't matter, if just the photographer mattered, we all would be still using Kodak Brownies (which we are not).
Just my 2 cents.
Just my 2 cents.
Literally your question. WHy would you ask a question if it is not a question? Maybe I am too old to understand….
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,278
- Format
- 35mm RF
The smoothest rangefinder I have is a Canon 7. Total butter. It has been completely rebuilt though. I have another Canon 7 that is about the same as my M3. Not super smooth but not bad. The worst camera I have is an Oly Pen FT. Feels like I'm dragging the film through gravel.
With cameras that are going on 60 to 70 years old, not sure how much stock I would put into any one assessment of his/her cameras, some have had little use, others hard use, some are well maintained, others not so much.
I have three Leicas and they've all been the smoothest cameras I've ever used, including a fourth an M3 that I sold.
If your M3 isn't really smooth, then it needs service. M3s can be as old as 70 - they do need to be serviced every 20 or 30 years.
If your M3 isn't really smooth, then it needs service. M3s can be as old as 70 - they do need to be serviced every 20 or 30 years.
Have them CLA'd every 10 years. Why not?
The pressure plate should not pinch the film to the rails. The role of the pressure plate is to sit on the outside rails, allowing the edges of the film to ride in the space between the plate and the inside rails. Because film is not all equal thickness and sometimes curved, but we want there to be as little slop in the positioning of the film as possible, it is likely that the edges of the film will ride on the inner rails and the center of the film will ride against the pressure plate. However, it should move smoothly with very little resistance - the amount of drag should be much less than that caused by bending the film over the rollers, turning resistance of the cassette spool, etc.
The smoothness is dependent on how well the gears mesh -- on a relatively unused camera with recent service where there's little wear on the gears I can see how there might be a bit of rumble or something.
The IIIG I just bought that I strongly suspect has never had more than a hundred or so rolls through it, and which was serviced not that long ago, is very very smooth and even. My M4, which has had years of labor but is also recently serviced -- eh, not so much. But still very very nice to use.
Quit worrying and go take pictures.
The IIIG I just bought that I strongly suspect has never had more than a hundred or so rolls through it, and which was serviced not that long ago, is very very smooth and even. My M4, which has had years of labor but is also recently serviced -- eh, not so much. But still very very nice to use.
Quit worrying and go take pictures.
A very long time ado, a to long time ago actually, I had two M5 and one M3.
The M5's both ware very smooth in doing everything, the M3 was somewhat less 'smooth'.
In the same period I had tree Pentax LX which were, to my very personal opinion, the only cameras who could stand against my Leicas in mechanical precession and even optical quality (yes!).
The Nikon F1 and F2 couldn't stand those two brands, again to my very, very, personal opinion and experience.
But I never bothered about the more or less 'rough' film transport, regardless the brand of cameras nor the film. Actually, it gave me a sense of certainty that there was a film, it transported and the whole thing worked as it should be!
By the feeling and sound, I could somewhat 'knowing' wat was going on inside the camera...
And when the sound and feeling was somewhat different than usual, it was a signal to check the 'thing'.
If you feel the film is transporting, wether hard or not, the be happy it is!
In a way, I could compare what I encountered with my British Leyland Mini I had in the early '80s.
There was always oil dripping out forming a little puddle onder the engine.
After a while it annoyed me and a went to the garage to get looked at it, but there I got a strange conversation with the mechanic:
Mechanic: so, is there oil dripping out?
Me: yes.
Mechanic: then be happy as it shows there is still oil in it!
I went home and never bothered again...
A few weeks later I crossed, newlywed, the at the time very rough and inhospitable Plateau de Larzac via thouse small medieval 'roads' swinging around the sheep flocks!
The Mini withstood the roughness (as wel as my marriage)!
The M5's both ware very smooth in doing everything, the M3 was somewhat less 'smooth'.
In the same period I had tree Pentax LX which were, to my very personal opinion, the only cameras who could stand against my Leicas in mechanical precession and even optical quality (yes!).
The Nikon F1 and F2 couldn't stand those two brands, again to my very, very, personal opinion and experience.
But I never bothered about the more or less 'rough' film transport, regardless the brand of cameras nor the film. Actually, it gave me a sense of certainty that there was a film, it transported and the whole thing worked as it should be!
By the feeling and sound, I could somewhat 'knowing' wat was going on inside the camera...
And when the sound and feeling was somewhat different than usual, it was a signal to check the 'thing'.
If you feel the film is transporting, wether hard or not, the be happy it is!
In a way, I could compare what I encountered with my British Leyland Mini I had in the early '80s.
There was always oil dripping out forming a little puddle onder the engine.
After a while it annoyed me and a went to the garage to get looked at it, but there I got a strange conversation with the mechanic:
Mechanic: so, is there oil dripping out?
Me: yes.
Mechanic: then be happy as it shows there is still oil in it!
I went home and never bothered again...
A few weeks later I crossed, newlywed, the at the time very rough and inhospitable Plateau de Larzac via thouse small medieval 'roads' swinging around the sheep flocks!
The Mini withstood the roughness (as wel as my marriage)!
Last edited:
My experience is limited to only a few cameras, but winding film on my M6 takes appreciably more effort than on my previous Nikon FE, even though the geometry of the spools is similar. With no film in the camera, the Leica mechanism is equally light and easy. So I attributed this difference to the back of the Leica being more rigid, and the pressure plate being more strongly sprung. In all honesty I can’t say for sure that it does a better job, but overall I do get crisper negatives since I made the switch (when I haven’t messed up in other respects
).Perhaps the word 'pressure' is being misunderstood. A pressure plate is not meant to squeeze the film flat, it is just meant to stop it bowing. Otherwise how would you load an LTM Leica if the pressure plate was strongly sprung against the film gate?
Equally smooth gearing in the film advance mechanism does not differentiate whether it is high or low geared which will have an effect on the perceived force needed to advance one frame. So the ease of advancing a Nikon F3 may be explained by the gear ratios which mask any materials and design features used to make a very hard wearing mechanism. So I think you are all confusing 'smooth' with ease of film advance. And while all cameras need tolerances to enable smoothness and ease a Leica M's film advance lever from any era does not flop up and down nearly as much as a Nikon camera, which perhaps is indicative of why a Nikon can feel smooth but at the same time is operating 'roughly' in terms of gearing, materials, and tolerances.
As for the OP's M3, many mechanical devices work at their smoothest just before they are about to fail, so if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Equally smooth gearing in the film advance mechanism does not differentiate whether it is high or low geared which will have an effect on the perceived force needed to advance one frame. So the ease of advancing a Nikon F3 may be explained by the gear ratios which mask any materials and design features used to make a very hard wearing mechanism. So I think you are all confusing 'smooth' with ease of film advance. And while all cameras need tolerances to enable smoothness and ease a Leica M's film advance lever from any era does not flop up and down nearly as much as a Nikon camera, which perhaps is indicative of why a Nikon can feel smooth but at the same time is operating 'roughly' in terms of gearing, materials, and tolerances.
As for the OP's M3, many mechanical devices work at their smoothest just before they are about to fail, so if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I think you have it backwards. The M3 viewfinder is not the best (Ikon ZM easily beats it) but the winding should feel great and is an excellent design. Your camera just needs some work, and it’s worth it.
I have never looked through a zeiss Ikon ZM. Now I am curious.
The brightness of a rangefinder camera's viewfinder is not the only thing that matters.
Leica's might not be the best in all (or any) of the properties that make a good rangefinder (accuracy, brightness, patch contrast, flare, how easy does it go out of alignment, how important the eye position is...), but they have an all around nicely designed rangefinder system.
Some people happen to like M3's magnification and think that because they like its magnification then the M3's rangefinder must be "the best". Good luck telling them they are "wrong"...
The brightness of a rangefinder camera's viewfinder is not the only thing that matters.
Leica's might not be the best in all (or any) of the properties that make a good rangefinder (accuracy, brightness, patch contrast, flare, how easy does it go out of alignment, how important the eye position is...), but they have an all around nicely designed rangefinder system.
Some people happen to like M3's magnification and think that because they like its magnification then the M3's rangefinder must be "the best". Good luck telling them they are "wrong"...
Hold on!! The magnification is the number one reason and what I love the most. Looks like life. I can see closer and a lot clearer. Can shoot with both eyes open.Supper precise focus.
Agree about Ikon ZM viewfinder. Handled one once and viewfinder is quite bright, clear and "crispy" if I may describe it as that.
Hold on! Your preferences are not the same as every(any?)body elses.
BTW, if you rely on having both eyes open for super precise focus, you are most probably "doing it wrong(tm)"...
And again, as brbo
Exactly, it depends on a lot of things. For example, I enjoy a clearer viewfinder due to my bad eyes, rangefinder patch brightness being my second concern and magnification is probably the least of my concerns.
By the way, I sold the M3 because I feel the viewfinder and focus patch where dimmer that the other cameras.
Horses for courses, I guess?
By the way, Radost may be using a Kontur?
Exactly, it depends on a lot of things. For example, I enjoy a clearer viewfinder due to my bad eyes, rangefinder patch brightness being my second concern and magnification is probably the least of my concerns.
By the way, I sold the M3 because I feel the viewfinder and focus patch where dimmer that the other cameras.
Horses for courses, I guess?
By the way, Radost may be using a Kontur?
You assume my workflow and make a conclusion. It is a know fact that leica changed the viewfinder to save money. Maybe it is me but when things get further away from me in the viewfinder it makes it hard.
Not at all, I haven't spent a millisecond assuming what your workflow might be.
And yet you say might be doing it wrong.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |