Wisdom of Buying a Leica M3

[chuckroast]

Peter Goldfield in "The Goldfinger Craftbook for Creatuve Photography" noted that the Agfa America datasheet for Rodinal dilutions and development times was quite different to Agfa Germany fon non Agfa films (late 70s/early 80s),. At the time Peter was the sole importer of Agfa B&W materials in the UK, as Agfa had pulled out of the market. Peter had spent time in the US with Minor White, and assisted Paul Caponigro.

Ian

I have a copy of the Goldfinger book archived here:

https://photoarchive.tundraware.com/Film-Paper-Chemistry/Goldfinger.zip

The larger photographic archives is here:

https://photoarchive.tundraware.com

 

[ph]

I used to like Agfa Portriga papers, but nowdays i have succumbed to commercial developers and have long given up using silver iodide products for normal snaps. Some rolls of XP and fuji films still live in my fridge, but my enlarger remains stored in the basement. The only use I see for the Ilford rolls is when it is exceedingly wet or if going under water where the Nikonos must be fed.

p.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I rolled the dice. Every argument has its points for what M to purchase. I shoot with a M5 and would continue to recommend it as a buy because they are typically in excellent condition. The viewfinder and overhanging shutter dial the cats meow. If the meter is not working you have a non metered M and use an incident meter. Concerning a repaint if done right you get great visuals, a recovered body, the internal parts wrung out, and in this case a 6 month guarantee. Concerning resale, condition and price are everything.

How is it going with your new toy?

 

[Richard Jepsen]

In reply to the question…..how is it going with the M3. If you read my posts I fully discuss the pre purchase considerations and the outcome. I give recommendations if residing in North America to purchase on this side of the pond. My bottom line is I wanted the experience of owning a M3. I like the .91 magnification. I wish the finder was as crisp as the M5. I am using the camera exclusively over the M5 partly because it’s new to me but also because of the .91 finder and the fact I have a half case for portability and prefer the M3 size over the M5. Everything is a compromise. For example the M5 overhanging shutter speed control is the best ever!

So would I do it again. Yes, however I would conduct the purchase differently. In the best case you need to inspect the camera to reduce risk. The finder contrast is important. But the reality is most of us need to buy online.

By starting a conversation on the issues of a M3 purchase I hope to help others.

There are many reasons to buy an M. Hopefully shooting film is high on the list. All reasons to purchase are valid…to include justifications tilted to admiring the design hand feel. When a camera tool feels right, you tend to use it more often.

I’m a shooter and a weekly DR worker. A Minolta X-700 would work just as well to make my negatives. But it would not be as fun or as emotionally satisfying.

 

[RezaLoghme]

In reply to the question…..how is it going with the M3. If you read my posts I fully discuss the pre purchase considerations and the outcome. I give recommendations if residing in North America to purchase on this side of the pond. My bottom line is I wanted the experience of owning a M3.

I don't know what you mean by "if you read my posts", but after your M3 purchase has now been completed, I guess that you are happily using your new camera (that is what they are made for) and want to share some pics and first-hands experience of how it is like to work with her?

 

[ph]

You might add that the M3 finder enables you to easily keeep both eyes open and see the frame "suspendet in mid-air" wile observing all that goes on around (and is due to enter the frame). A capacity that I preferred over the finder of my later M6.

p.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Thank you

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I intended to end further posts. Thought I said all that needed to be said. However….I‘m shooting frequently with the M3. Since its purchase I‘m aware I am more comfortable framing with the .91 magnification. The experience is a blend of SLR and rangefinder. I sense a bit of the tunnel vision experienced with a SLR with the benefit of a tiny space around the 50 frame.

A typical SLR has a .87 viewfinder. So the .91 viewing experience rhymes with my Minolta SRT finder.

I photographed with a Leica .72 finder since 2001. I just accepted the .72 experience and retired my SRT 101. Now I find the .91 finder aids my composition. When I have a camera in hand my eyes always search for a picture. The .91 finder matches what I see FOV wise in near 1:1 proportion. That fact helps me compose. Add to this is the M3 big finder comes in a body and lens set much smaller than my SLR outfit.

I understand why Leitz produced the M2 and they filled a need. But they compromised the perfect, standard finder. When I am in a tight space needing a wider lens the entire M3 finder is adequate framing my 40/2. If needed, I step back for a 35 FOV. Thats the beauty of the tweener 40/2.

Other options to M3 restrictions are an aux finder like HCB.

 

[GregY]

Richard, I'm glad the M3 is a natural for you. For some of us, perfection was finding the M2/35mm combination. The 35mm is my "normal" world view. I work a lot with the 21mm and 28mm as well. The 40 feels a little constricting and the 50mm is a telephoto.
Leica has managed to tailor fit us all.

 

[RezaLoghme]

"The 35mm is my "normal" world view." - interesting thought, maybe I should try it too.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

If my most used lens was 35mm I would use a .72 finder pre M6. Lets face it, you need two bodies.

Greg Y, thats a nice lens, hood and aux finder. I agree the 50 can feel like a tele. But if making small prints it helps to fill the frame.

 

[cliveh]

For me the M2 with a 50mm is the perfect camera.

 

[Axelwik]

Unless you know that you'll use the 135mm frame lines on an M3 (few people do), it might be more practical to get an M2 with its 35, 50, and 90mm frame lines.

 

[Radost]

Unless you know that you'll use the 135mm frame lines on an M3 (few people do), it might be more practical to get an M2 with its 35, 50, and 90mm frame lines.

And have inferior viewfinder for 50mm? No thanks.
I can see an argument for getting m2 with 28/35/50 frame lines. I have considered it many times.
But I have m3 for 50mm 90mm and 135. And minolta CLE for 28mm. I use Leica CL with 40mm and 50mm often

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Unless you know that you'll use the 135mm frame lines on an M3 (few people do), it might be more practical to get an M2 with its 35, 50, and 90mm frame lines.

Using a 135 w goggles defeats the advantage of using the small, light M system.

You can’t appreciate the difference of using a high mag finder until you actually use one. Consider this….a M3 .91 finder is a higher magnification than 99% of SLR finders. If you use a 35mm optic as a normal lens than the .72 finder is prefered.

One can argue you need two M bodies. That way you have a backup and no compromises on which finder to use with a 50/90 or 35/28.

Note the .72 finders of the M2/4/5 lack a 28 frame. The M bodies with a 28 frame have shrunk frame-lines for the 35/50 giving you more of the subject on film.

 

[chuckroast]

Using a 135 w goggles defeats the advantage of using the small, light M system.

You can’t appreciate the difference of using a high mag finder until you actually use one. Consider this….a M3 .91 finder is a higher magnification than 99% of SLR finders. If you use a 35mm optic as a normal lens than the .72 finder is prefered.

One can argue you need two M bodies. That way you have a backup and no compromises on which finder to use with a 50/90 or 35/28.

Note the .72 finders of the M2/4/5 lack a 28 frame. The M bodies with a 28 frame have shrunk frame-lines for the 35/50 giving you more of the subject on film.

I have an M2 and an M5. I do not find the 50mm framelines objectionable or hard to work with. For ultrawide, I use a 21mm with an auxiliary finder. This is an approximation of what will be on film ... but that's true of the onboard framelines as well ... it's a rangefinder. Again, I do not find this error objectionable.

 

[Axelwik]

Using a 135 w goggles defeats the advantage of using the small, light M system.

You can’t appreciate the difference of using a high mag finder until you actually use one. Consider this….a M3 .91 finder is a higher magnification than 99% of SLR finders. If you use a 35mm optic as a normal lens than the .72 finder is prefered.

One can argue you need two M bodies. That way you have a backup and no compromises on which finder to use with a 50/90 or 35/28.

Note the .72 finders of the M2/4/5 lack a 28 frame. The M bodies with a 28 frame have shrunk frame-lines for the 35/50 giving you more of the subject on film.

My favorite two lenses with my M2 are 35 and 50. I find that the 50mm frame line on the M2 is a plus when you consider that you can see what's outside the frame lines - more situational awareness for framing.

Also, very few people use a 135mm lens on their M cameras, so why even bother - I'd rather have the 35, 50, and 90mm frames. I would never consider using goggles on an M camera - might as well use an SLR.

I owned an M3 for years, but finally ditched it for the superior useability of the M2 (and later cameras).

 

[Axelwik]

And have inferior viewfinder for 50mm? No thanks.
I can see an argument for getting m2 with 28/35/50 frame lines. I have considered it many times.
But I have m3 for 50mm 90mm and 135. And minolta CLE for 28mm. I use Leica CL with 40mm and 50mm often

The M2 does not have 28mm frame lines, it has 35, 50, and 90mm.

I prefer the 50mm frame lines on the M2 because there's more space and I can see what's happening outside the frame. Something real photographers might see as advantage.

There might be a very small quality difference between the viewfinders, but I haven't noticed (had an M3 for years). I'm a photographer, not a viewfinder peeper. Pretty sure a fingerprint or smudge would make a bigger difference.

 

[Arthurwg]

If you want wisdom, read the Bible. If you want a camera, buy an M3.

 

[Axelwik]

If you want wisdom, read the Bible. If you want a camera, buy an M3.

If you want wisdom, study science, history, and art. If you want a camera, get whatever meets your needs.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you want wisdom, study science, history, and art. If you want a camera, get whatever meets your needs.

Agreed - if I need to drive a jewelers screw, I'm not going to buy a 6# sledgehammer. If I need to drive nails, I'm not getting a power drill. If I need to photograph sparrows in flight, I'm not getting a Leica rangefinder.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I, an amateur, have no idea what M2/M3 are good for, but I like them a lot. I would die when having to decide whether to put a chrome or black lense (incl. 3rd party like Voghtlunder) on them.

 

[chuckroast]

I, an amateur, have no idea what M2/M3 are good for, but I like them a lot. I would die when having to decide whether to put a chrome or black lense (incl. 3rd party like Voghtlunder) on them.

I'll tell you one thing they're NOT good for: Your wallet

 

[cliveh]

The M2 does not have 28mm frame lines, it has 35, 50, and 90mm.

I prefer the 50mm frame lines on the M2 because there's more space and I can see what's happening outside the frame. Something real photographers might see as advantage.

There might be a very small quality difference between the viewfinders, but I haven't noticed (had an M3 for years). I'm a photographer, not a viewfinder peeper. Pretty sure a fingerprint or smudge would make a bigger difference.

Exactly.

 

[Jim Jones]

I'll tell you one thing they're NOT good for: Your wallet

I bought my M4 in maybe 1970 and retired it in favor of digital gear about 10 years ago. It has never been repaired or even serviced in all that time, and still appears to be in good working condition. The cost of film it exposed is many, many times the cost of the camera.