Wisdom of Buying a Leica M3

[Hassasin]

I completely disagree with “get a CLA just because it is old”. I say more, if camera works as designed, DO NOT waste money on getting it serviced, irrespective of its birth date. And I say this because of the ill advised decision to send my Rolleiflex 3.5 f to Harry Fleenor when I bought it 25 years ago.

When I bough it, she was some 40 years old and everything worked perfectly. Camera itself was as new, not a mark on it anywhere. The only thing that was "not as new" were failing stitches on leather case. Case itself had some tiny scuffs that would get there even without any actual use.

So as the friendly people on the internet who know more than everything advised, first thing to do is get it serviced. So I figured $400 price paid + one over to get it CLA'd by THE man of the Rolleiflex service world is not a bad idea. That CLA price of 25 years ago included Maxwell Screen installation. I envisioned using it regularly, so what the hell.

When I got it back it worked perfectly, except no more perfectly than before it got serviced. Screen being the only difference in handling.

Move to today, in the 25 years I sadly only put maybe 5 rolls of film through it, so it did not get much use. Just picked it up few days ago and shutter is sticky as hell, some dials too. Sure, normal from lack of use, my fault right? Can only blame myself for not giving it a regular spin?

Problem is I don't know of one mechanical camera, from most any brand (and I have tons of them with varying degree of use and mostly complete lack of use, that fails in lubrication to this degree after mere 25 years from production (or as in this case a CLA).

Did Mr. Fleenor NOT actually do any CLA, or did he use lubricants of worse aging quality than Rollei back in the day? The 40 years from production and clearly no use caused no mechanical problems, 25 years after the best CLA one could ask for it did?

 

[grain elevator]

This isn't that complicated. If you buy one that isn't overpriced now, you'll have the best chances of recouping the investment or most of it. The criteria that determine relative pricing of different M3s won't change drastically. Or if they will, no-one can predict that reliably. If anyone could, they'd probably be buying up all those M3s themselves.

 

[brbo]

Because if you buy an M2 today, that has not been maintained, you're talking about a machine nearing 70 years in existence. It's guaranteed to need a CLA for best behavior.

Guaranteed by what? You have no idea how it's been maintained, it's perfect at every speed, smooth as a butter, rangefinder is clean and perfectly aligned to all your lenses. What do you want to clean, lubricate or adjust in such a camera?

I can tell you I'm more anal about adjustments than any repair service any of my cameras have ever been to (what they regard as "as good as it gets" is not my definition of perfect so I've had to make some small adjustments after getting the cameras back from service more often that I would've liked). Maybe Sherry and Don (I've read a few horror stories about YYE) are way better than most of the official or semi-official repair services here in Europe, still even they do not recommend doing work on cameras that obviously don't need it, afaik.

If you don't know what you want from camera and can't asses whether it's working as it was supposed to work, send it for a check-up (maybe people mean "have the camera checked by a person that knows things about a camera and only then have it repaired it there are obvious problems found" when they say CLA) if you really need to spend additional money.

 

[guangong]

Another reason to use ethical people to service cameras: after fire in my study I sent all my rangefinder Leicas, ltm and M models to YY for service. He removed smoke damage from surface of cameras and returned cameras, saying that none needed any service. No charge. Cameras were in a gun safe but fire was not hot enough to activate door seals so corrosive smoke was able to seep in.

 

[guangong]

Not necessary but more convenient is to acquire a 35mm lens with goggles For M3. I use external finder if carrying several lenses, but a 35mm Summicron with goggles if intending to shoot only with 35. The goggled 35mm lenses were made with several Leitz 35mm lenses, but all are excellent.

 

[warden]

I'd personally go for something in the 2/2a category of the SS variety - ideally something with a serial # over 1 000 000. And I'd buy from a reputable source of such cameras such as Leica Store Miami
(no affiliation, just a happy customer). Many of their cameras have been CLAd by DAG or overhauled by Wetzlar Germany. That means you'll pay a premium but you'll get something worry-free.

An aside - I just checked mine and the serial is above 1,000,000 but I don’t know what that means. Why is that a good thing?

 

[logan2z]

An aside - I just checked mine and the serial is above 1,000,000 but I don’t know what that means. Why is that a good thing?

As far as I understand, it just means that your camera has all the latest 'advancements' that were made available in the M3 by Leica, including the single stroke advance, metal pressure plate, modern shutter speeds, latest braking system, etc.

 

[chuckroast]

Guaranteed by what? You have no idea how it's been maintained, it's perfect at every speed, smooth as a butter, rangefinder is clean and perfectly aligned to all your lenses. What do you want to clean, lubricate or adjust in such a camera?

I can tell you I'm more anal about adjustments than any repair service any of my cameras have ever been to (what they regard as "as good as it gets" is not my definition of perfect so I've had to make some small adjustments after getting the cameras back from service more often that I would've liked). Maybe Sherry and Don (I've read a few horror stories about YYE) are way better than most of the official or semi-official repair services here in Europe, still even they do not recommend doing work on cameras that obviously don't need it, afaik.

If you don't know what you want from camera and can't asses whether it's working as it was supposed to work, send it for a check-up (maybe people mean "have the camera checked by a person that knows things about a camera and only then have it repaired it there are obvious problems found" when they say CLA) if you really need to spend additional money.

It's guaranteed by the fact that a machine built 65-70 years ago and has never been touched will have dried out lubricants and packed grease in it. Sure, it will work, but not optimally.

Oh, and without opening the camera, you cannot assess the state of said lubricants, moving surfaces, gears, and so on.

What you're saying is analogous to saying you don't need to change the oil in your car because the engine hasn't seized.

FWIW, I have heard nothing but good things about YYE, and my own interactions with them have been pretty much flawless.

 

[Hassasin]

It's guaranteed by the fact that a machine built 65-70 years ago and has never been touched will have dried out lubricants and packed grease in it. Sure, it will work, but not optimally.

Oh, and without opening the camera, you cannot assess the state of said lubricants, moving surfaces, gears, and so on.

What you're saying is analogous to saying you don't need to change the oil in your car because the engine hasn't seized.

FWIW, I have heard nothing but good things about YYE, and my own interactions with them have been pretty much flawless.

I don't agree with car oil comparison. Camera, no matter how complicated, does not run hot during any of its running hours. LIbricants inside do not just die off suddenly either, and may types have proven still fine 80 years later. I have a new Yashica A from 1957 that has never been used. When I bought it some 10 years ago, it was still smelling fresh leather in its original box, to this day it fires and all levers work as new.

As I have stated in my little story, there are no guarantees fresh CLA is going to give much of free long life to an old camera. What was the point of me sending a perfectly working camera for an expensive CLA, only to discover problems the original at a much older life point had displayed none?

If camera runs fine as is, it does not require a CLA, why would it? Preventively can do one any time, reason or not, it's not a point I was trying to make. It's the idea that somehow getting an otherwise unwarranted CLA is the only prudent way to go.

Anyone can go a spend on CLA every year if they wish, some claim a Hasselblad in regular use "require" yearly CLA (which I don't think is remotely true, especially if it is in a regular use, it simply has inherent problems that make it go to CLA more than any other brand).

 

[Saganich]

As far as I understand, it just means that your camera has all the latest 'advancements' that were made available in the M3 by Leica, including the single stroke advance, metal pressure plate, modern shutter speeds, latest braking system, etc.

Some would suggest that the "after 1957 the M3 was systematically redesigned to retrofit parts with the lower priced M2;" a pejorative statement for sure but correct. It was certainly a sensible move on Leica's part. Design changes reflecting advancements in materials and manufacturing are inevitable and likely important factors to the overall reliability and longevity of the product not to mention, as Youxin stated, the ease of service, which is an important factor and certainly a benefit 67 years later.

I have 3 examples 1957 DS, 1959 M2, and 1962 M3. My first was the M2 and I was impressed, the second was the 1962 M3, and that feels like a small cut above the M2, the 3rd was the '57 DS M3 and that is clearly beyond the later SS M3, very impressive. There is a list of differences somewhere.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Reasons to send a seemingly working M to a known tech are:

1. The finder is cleaned of dust and haze. Just this one aspect makes it worthwhile for me.
2. Old lubricants are replaced and the camera should be good another 20 years.
3. The shutter and rangefinder speeds adjusted to be accurate.
4.. Eyes on any issues. The best known techs have parts to repair.
5. A service from a known tech should help resale. Few owners take their Leica to the grave.

 

[chuckroast]

I don't agree with car oil comparison. Camera, no matter how complicated, does not run hot during any of its running hours. LIbricants inside do not just die off suddenly either, and may types have proven still fine 80 years later. I have a new Yashica A from 1957 that has never been used. When I bought it some 10 years ago, it was still smelling fresh leather in its original box, to this day it fires and all levers work as new.

As I have stated in my little story, there are no guarantees fresh CLA is going to give much of free long life to an old camera. What was the point of me sending a perfectly working camera for an expensive CLA, only to discover problems the original at a much older life point had displayed none?

If camera runs fine as is, it does not require a CLA, why would it? Preventively can do one any time, reason or not, it's not a point I was trying to make. It's the idea that somehow getting an otherwise unwarranted CLA is the only prudent way to go.

Anyone can go a spend on CLA every year if they wish, some claim a Hasselblad in regular use "require" yearly CLA (which I don't think is remotely true, especially if it is in a regular use, it simply has inherent problems that make it go to CLA more than any other brand).

Lubricants naturally evaporate over time

Haze forms on optical surfaces due to atmospheric pollution

Springs stretch out over time

Gears wear

None of these things are necessarily visible but they all contribute to degrade machine performance

 

[Pioneer]

I completely disagree with “get a CLA just because it is old”. I say more, if camera works as designed, DO NOT waste money on getting it serviced, irrespective of its birth date. And I say this because of the ill advised decision to send my Rolleiflex 3.5 f to Harry Fleenor when I bought it 25 years ago.

When I bough it, she was some 40 years old and everything worked perfectly. Camera itself was as new, not a mark on it anywhere. The only thing that was "not as new" were failing stitches on leather case. Case itself had some tiny scuffs that would get there even without any actual use.

So as the friendly people on the internet who know more than everything advised, first thing to do is get it serviced. So I figured $400 price paid + one over to get it CLA'd by THE man of the Rolleiflex service world is not a bad idea. That CLA price of 25 years ago included Maxwell Screen installation. I envisioned using it regularly, so what the hell.

When I got it back it worked perfectly, except no more perfectly than before it got serviced. Screen being the only difference in handling.

Move to today, in the 25 years I sadly only put maybe 5 rolls of film through it, so it did not get much use. Just picked it up few days ago and shutter is sticky as hell, some dials too. Sure, normal from lack of use, my fault right? Can only blame myself for not giving it a regular spin?

Problem is I don't know of one mechanical camera, from most any brand (and I have tons of them with varying degree of use and mostly complete lack of use, that fails in lubrication to this degree after mere 25 years from production (or as in this case a CLA).

Did Mr. Fleenor NOT actually do any CLA, or did he use lubricants of worse aging quality than Rollei back in the day? The 40 years from production and clearly no use caused no mechanical problems, 25 years after the best CLA one could ask for it did?

One advantage to having a reputable repairman check and service your camera is that you can return it for a check up if additional problems arise later on. I would imagine a number of us have had experiences similar to yours, contacted the service technician later, and then had that camera brought back up to spec. There are several things that could have happened to the camera after he serviced it that he didn't anticipate.

Even new cameras can experience unanticipated problems early in their life cycle. I purchased a Leica M-A that had to be returned under warranty for repair shortly after I bought it. It is not what we would like but it does happen and we just expect the company to stand behind their product. I would expect no less from a technician who serviced that same camera and have returned other cameras under similar circumstances. Most of the people we work with to service our cameras stand behind their work and I expect Mr. Fleenor does the same. In your case, since you may have waited too long to expect warranty service, I would still expect him to fix the problem.

For my part, Harry Fleenor did a full service on my Rolleiflex around 10 years ago and that camera continues to work very well for me. I recently passed 100 rolls of film in that camera since that service and it continues to work just as nicely as it did after he returned it to me back in 2013. I may return it to him for a check-up sometime this year, similar to having my car regularly serviced, though I don't expect anything to be found.

 

[Hassasin]

One advantage to having a reputable repairman check and service your camera is that you can return it for a check up if additional problems arise later on. I would imagine a number of us have had experiences similar to yours, contacted the service technician later, and then had that camera brought back up to spec. There are several things that could have happened to the camera after he serviced it that he didn't anticipate.

Even new cameras can experience unanticipated problems early in their life cycle. I purchased a Leica M-A that had to be returned under warranty for repair shortly after I bought it. It is not what we would like but it does happen and we just expect the company to stand behind their product. I would expect no less from a technician who serviced that same camera and have returned other cameras under similar circumstances. Most of the people we work with to service our cameras stand behind their work and I expect Mr. Fleenor does the same. In your case, since you may have waited too long to expect warranty service, I would still expect him to fix the problem.

For my part, Harry Fleenor did a full service on my Rolleiflex around 10 years ago and that camera continues to work very well for me. I recently passed 100 rolls of film in that camera since that service and it continues to work just as nicely as it did after he returned it to me back in 2013. I may return it to him for a check-up sometime this year, similar to having my car regularly serviced, though I don't expect anything to be found.

My whole point about Mr. Fleenor's CLA, and I am not knocking down quality of what he did to mine, is that whatever he did, should have never gone gooey and sticky after 25 years, and that with little use. Had I not sent it in, with camera perfectly working at the time, I'd save 300$ for whatever use I'd have since and quite possibly the camera would have still been fine today. It's not all that unusual to have a 70 year old mechanical device working as new.

Sometimes problems can start when there is an attempt to "fix" or "overhaul" a perfectly working device. That's why I won't tell anyone to just go and pay up to cut it open, pull the heart out, and for sole reason just to see, if what was obvious through simple examination is actually still moving.

 

[qqphot]

My only piece of advice regarding Leica gear is that it is probably best to find one already recently gone over and with all issues addressed, and with actual documentation of such repairs. The currently active workshops are extremely backlogged and some of their work is rushed. Also, there is a big "fad" market for Leica film bodies and many cameras are pushed through shoddy CLAs and sold in "working condition" meaning "the shutter sounds like it fires ok." rather than actually working and accurate for the purposes of intensive use.

 

[bags27]

If one buys a M you would have better luck selling if one of the US techs did a overhaul. Two of them are near retirement.

I’m looking for a fun factor but I don't want to throw money away.

We're all throwing money away with our old, increasingly irreparable film cameras and what we spend on film, developer, etc. It's only a question of how much joy we derive from it. I, too, have maybe a 5 year horizon for film, but can't possibly game how much my top-of-the-market MF cameras will be worth then or whether there will be spare parts available. I just know that they give me a great deal of pleasure right now.

 

[nanthor]

It's all just my opinion but it is based on a few decades of owning dozens of M cameras. I think the notion of getting CLA's is overdone. If the camera is acting up or feels stiff, a CLA is in order. Most cameras I've had had no CLA history that I know of and the great percentage of them felt smooth, were quiet, and did not need a CLA for any reason. It bothered me when selling some when the buyer automatically assumed they needed a CLA no matter what I told them about the condition and function. "leave well enough alone" is something to think about. That being said, if you don't buy from a trusted and experienced Leica owner, like myself, you might end up with a camera that was stored in a basement and it might need more than a CLA so buyer beware of the M3's that sell for bargan prices from someone who doesn't know Leicas. I also don't agree with the over 1,000,000 serial number thoughts. Again, having many M3's I've had beauties that were early double strokes and dogs that were over 1 million and vice versa. If you are just looking for an M for use, the M2 and M4 are a better selection. If you like the history and the aura of Leica and also want a great camera the M3 is great but the viewfinder (better IMO for 50mm than all the others) lacks the 35mm frames. Whether an early double stroke or a later single stroke is simply a matter of taste, I prefer the single just for the feel of the long smooth stroke, but I also like the history of the early M3's because I am old and they were a new and magnificent invention when I was young.

 

[warden]

As far as I understand, it just means that your camera has all the latest 'advancements' that were made available in the M3 by Leica, including the single stroke advance, metal pressure plate, modern shutter speeds, latest braking system, etc.

That makes sense, thanks.

 

[chuckroast]

It's all just my opinion but it is based on a few decades of owning dozens of M cameras. I think the notion of getting CLA's is overdone. If the camera is acting up or feels stiff, a CLA is in order. Most cameras I've had had no CLA history that I know of and the great percentage of them felt smooth, were quiet, and did not need a CLA for any reason. It bothered me when selling some when the buyer automatically assumed they needed a CLA no matter what I told them about the condition and function. "leave well enough alone" is something to think about. That being said, if you don't buy from a trusted and experienced Leica owner, like myself, you might end up with a camera that was stored in a basement and it might need more than a CLA so buyer beware of the M3's that sell for bargan prices from someone who doesn't know Leicas. I also don't agree with the over 1,000,000 serial number thoughts. Again, having many M3's I've had beauties that were early double strokes and dogs that were over 1 million and vice versa. If you are just looking for an M for use, the M2 and M4 are a better selection. If you like the history and the aura of Leica and also want a great camera the M3 is great but the viewfinder (better IMO for 50mm than all the others) lacks the 35mm frames. Whether an early double stroke or a later single stroke is simply a matter of taste, I prefer the single just for the feel of the long smooth stroke, but I also like the history of the early M3's because I am old and they were a new and magnificent invention when I was young.

Spring detensioning, lubricant dry off, gear wear, and shifting shutter timing happen slowly and subtly.

By the time you actually notice an issue - the camera has long had problems.

You certainly don't have to CLA on frequent basis, but the context here is a camera in 65-70 year old range. Absent proof of CLA, it is quite likely that a tuneup of the mechanicals, a check and retiming of the shutter curtains, and a general cleanup of the viewfinder optics are a good idea.

I just got an M2 made in 1961 that was CLAed by DAG last November. Although it is not cosmetically perfect, it's mechanically seamless, fires cleanly, and has a very bright viewfinder and brightlines. The guy who sold it to me sent me a photograph of the DAG invoice as a proof of service. That made that camera more valuable to me as I am unlikely to ever need this done again on that body.

 

[MattKing]

My whole point about Mr. Fleenor's CLA, and I am not knocking down quality of what he did to mine, is that whatever he did, should have never gone gooey and sticky after 25 years, and that with little use.

The fact that it has had little use during the last quarter century means that you have no meaningful way to evaluate the value of the CLA.
Inactivity isn't good for cameras. The CLA is designed to improve a camera's usability, not how well it withstands the conditions of storage (or mostly storage).
If you had had him prepare the camera for long term storage, it would be different.

 

[chuckroast]

The fact that it has had little use during the last quarter century means that you have no meaningful way to evaluate the value of the CLA.
Inactivity isn't good for cameras. The CLA is designed to improve a camera's usability, not how well it withstands the conditions of storage (or mostly storage).
If you had had him prepare the camera for long term storage, it would be different.

+1

Moreover, if the seal foam went gooey, that's hardly the fault of the CLA. That's what seal foam does over time.

 

[campy51]

I fix copiers and we use to say that if we did a general cleaning or cla as it's called with cameras within a week many would call back with a problem and the first thing they would say is, it was working fine until he cleaned it. Many times I would see something that wasn't perfect and decided to try to make it perfect and then suddenly something bad happens and it was usually Friday afternoon and either had to run back to the shop for a part or leave them down until Monday morning. This has happened enough times that now I am a believer of leaving well enough alone, not just for me but also the customer. Copiers are a lot more complicated than cameras but everything is bigger so sometimes easier to fix. I have bought many Rolleiflex cameras and all of them were bought because of the excellent cosmetic condition and slow shutter speeds not working right, that brings the price way down. For me it's the best Rolleiflex to buy since I do the work myself and all you have to do is flush the shutter and blades with a contact cleaner and a few tiny drops of sewing machine oil on the post of the gears in the slow speed assembly. I would love to try a Leica but since I don't shoot 35mm I will have to wait for a bargain to fall in my lap. I did fix my Canon IVSB with the help of you tube showing how the Leica comes apart and again spraying the contact cleaner in a few spots and a drop or two of oil in the right spot fixed the shutter problem. Anyone have a Leica that they don't think is worth fixing they would sell cheap?

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I’m circling back to the original question that started this post.

which M3 would be most desirable with an eye towards retaining its value.

Cameraworks-UK specializes in refurbishing M bodies and offers a repaint service. What are your thoughts on the positives or negatives of acquiring a UK repainted M3.

 

[beemermark]

DAG has done numerous CLA and repairs on my Leica's over the decades. Recently (within the last 2 years) an M7 and an M4. Both were working fine, at least until I dropped the M4. I thought the M4 was buttery smooth and working fine until the drop. What a difference a CLA makes. The M7 didn't really have anything wrong except one of the bumper pads had gone missing. I bought the camera new in 2007 so about 16 years old. I thought it was perfect. It came back more perfect. When I advance the shutter in either camera after it's been on the shelf for a week or two I wonder if there is any film in it. I need to advance the shutter while watching the rewind lever to verify there is film in the camera, absolutely no drag. Fleenor has also done my Rollei's though Dan Daniels did my last 3.5F. Omega Watches recommends service every 5 to 8 years. Same mechanism.

 

[brbo]

Cameraworks-UK specializes in refurbishing M bodies and offers a repaint service. What are your thoughts on the positives or negatives of acquiring a UK repainted M3.

I have a CameraWorks repainted M2.

I went with the glossy black paint (they called it "type I" back then and I'm not sure they even do that type anymore; it should be the closest to the first Leica black paint) which Alan from CameraWorks explicitly did not recommend. My M2 now looks looks like it's been to war and back (ok, slight exaggeration). I like it like that, but if you are worried about resale value do NOT get the "type I" paint. Truth is, the word from them was that "type I" paint takes up to a year to fully cure. I didn't care much for that information, of course.

They say that type II paint is virtually indestructible, but I just don't like the look of it. You can immediately tell it's a non-Leica custom (re)paint. If you are buying the M3 with resale in mind, I don't think a repainted camera is the best decision.