My M3 DS vs Newer Models

[Austinite]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not new to cameras or film but I am new to Leica. Picked a decent looking M3 DS because I had to have the Leica experience before I die. (hopefully not for a while). Great camera I love using it but am wondering if I'm missing anything by not using a M6 or newer. Other than the meter I can't really see what the advantage might be? Framelines maybe but besides an old Elmar 50mm 2.8 I'm using a VC 40 1.4 and matching viewfinder. (which i love BTW.) Any thoughts folks?

[woody]

A meter and framelines. That's about it. I have an M3 DS and an M7. I decided to get the M7 for the framelines, meter, and the auto feature. I use each camera about the same amount.

 

There's no beating the feeling of the M3 though.

[lars_bergquist]

All this questioning and self-questioning has two components, which it is best to keep apart. The first is your emotional reaction to the gear, and (sometimes) to the resulting pictures. The other is the technical side, which is objective, quantifiable and verifiable, in terms of the fidelity with which subject features and detail are rendered on the film, or sensor. The first is a matter of taste. The other is a matter of facts.

 

The M3 is a splendid old camera. It is inconvenient to use, but so is a classic Bugatti -- which you would not use for driving to the office. A late (post-c. 1960) double-range Summicron is a work of art. But it is not practical -- you can get nearly the same reproduction ratio with a standard 90mm lens, and with less hassle -- and in terms of definition, it cannot hold a candle to a modern 50mm lens. You may like the result, but it is definitely 'period'.

 

Well, I'm from that period ... I was 18 when the M3 debuted. I do own a 'classical' meterless M camera, a M4-P (Jubilee edition, at that). I pat it, and occasionally I run a film through it. I do own a v.1 collapsible 50mm Summicron 1:2.8. Interesting lens. Stopped down to 5.6 or 8, it reminds me of the old rigid Summicron. Wide open, it has more 'Leica glow' than you thought existed. I use it when I want that effect ... very occasionally.

 

The v.4 35mm Summicron however that came with the M4-P is such a fine optic that I sent it away for renovation and coding, and it is now my compact 35, for when I want to leave the Summilux ASPH at home. That is a lens that deserves to be used regularly.

 

But for serious photography, I use not a Rigid Summicron on a M3, or even a M2, but a Summilux ASPH on a M9. Photographic technology has made great advances in a half century, and I want to avail me of them. That is a personal decision. You have to make your own decisions. But knowing what it is you decide, makes for more intelligent decisions -- and less arrogant plonking, supported by no evidence, about which (old) lenses are the best, and which (new one) that are crap. This sort of thing is just too prevalent here. (Note: This is NOT a jab at you -- you are not guilty.)

 

The old man from the Age Before the M3

[lct]

....Other than the meter I can't really see what the advantage might be? Framelines maybe but besides an old Elmar 50mm 2.8 I'm using a VC 40 1.4 and matching viewfinder. (which i love BTW.) Any thoughts folks?

Matter of tastes of course. To me the M3 DS is the perfect film rangefinder. If you don't need a motor, built-in meter and wider framelines, later models won't give you better results in any way.

[Guest Austerby]

Careful now. You're where I was about four years ago. I bought an M3 and 50mm collapsible summicron, loved them but felt the lens could be better and that started me on a slippery slope of acquisition. I next got an M6ttl, replaced that with an M7, complemented that with an MP then got an M2 too to see what the fuss was about. I also bought a host of old and new, Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses.

 

This phase was followed by one of reduction when I took a long, cool look at what I had and what I liked. I've now ended up selling virtually all of the above, apart from the M3 and that original summicron (since restored), a couple of VC wide lenses, some old screw-mount Leica lenses, a 90mm tele-elmarit and a 135mm elmar. I've just added an M8 too.

 

I've had a great time - and didn't lose any money on buying and selling the cameras and lenses - but it is interesting that looking back I actually made a good choice with my first Leica purchase and I'm very pleased to be back to the beginning again.

 

So, to answer your question: no, you don't need to try the newer models (though you may have fun doing so).

[Austinite]

Thanks for the replies and opinions folks. Guess I'll just keep the M3 body and be happy. I bought it to shoot and not to start a collection so other models wont be needed. (Maybe).

[enboe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M3 is unique in its finder magnification. It is the closest to 1:1, and using a right-eye shooting technique with both eyes open, the frame lines "float" in space like a fighter plane's heads-up display.

 

The other models are predominantly 0.72 magnification, which supports the wide angle lenses. There are special models with 0.58 and 0.85 magnification for yet wider, and moderately wide viewing. The frame lines are different depending on model and magnification. The 0.72 is a favorite for many with a 35mm lens.

 

Having a meter on an M5 or later is definitely a convenience, but then so is having a self timer like you have on the M3, and the only film Leicas to give you both are the CL and M5.

 

So back to the title line - you could try renting an M6 or similar newer Leica and seeing if it is something you enjoy more than the M3. The demand for old Leica film rentals is pretty low, so you could try one for the weekend for a few tens of dollars.

 

Enjoy.

[StS]

Thanks for the replies and opinions folks. Guess I'll just keep the M3 body and be happy. I bought it to shoot and not to start a collection so other models wont be needed. (Maybe).

 

That's what I thought, when I got my M3...

 

 

Stefan

[NZDavid]

It is hard to think of any product of a similar vintage that is still going and capable of producing results that compare favorably with the latest equipment. The M3 was voted “top gadget of all time” by ebay.co.uk and Stuff magazine in 2006, beating such icons as the iPod and the original Sony Walkman. Your camera is an all-time classic.

[EJohnE]

I've had several M3s over the years up to the mid-80s. My only grizzle about the D/S M3 was that it did not have the frameline external adjuster. The double stroke was designed that way , apparently because it was quicker to use than one long stroke of the winder. The film change is slower than the M4 & later. I never liked a built-in meter display of red LEDs, as I often metered off centre relative to the framing, and disliked the unsettling demand to reset the shutter/diaphram. I just took out the batteries, and used an incident meter, and so had no accusing pointers to reset anything.

John.

[giordano]

It is hard to think of any product of a similar vintage that is still going and capable of producing results that compare favorably with the latest equipment.

 

Actually it's dead easy. A 100-year old carbon-steel knife slices onions just as well as a brand-new stainless wonder (assuming you keep them both sharp). The same with most hand tools and utensils. Not to mention books, furniture and on and on.

 

Yes, the M3 is a complicated bit of precision engineering and the other things I've cited aren't. But even the M3 wears out after many years of very heavy use. And even a well-preserved M3 can only produce results that compare favourably with the latest equipment if you load it with modern film and close the 1950s lens down a few stops; you can say exactly the same of a Hasselblad 500C or Nikon F (both of which, like the M3, are also compatible with lenses designed decades later).

[lars_bergquist]

I've had several M3s over the years up to the mid-80s. My only grizzle about the D/S M3 was that it did not have the frameline external adjuster. The double stroke was designed that way , apparently because it was quicker to use than one long stroke of the winder...

John.

Only the first batches, 1954--55, lacked the frame preview lever. Single stroke winding came in 1957-57. The official rationale for the double-stroke was fear that too fast winding would lead to discharges of static electricity on the film emulsion. That was a danger at that time, in very dry weather. But films were at that time already given antistatic coatings, and the Kine-Exakta had single stroke lever rewind already in 1936! DS rewind was a bad piece of design from the beginning, and prone to breaking down.

 

The old man from the Age of the Kine-Exakta

[EJohnE]

Only the first batches, 1954--55, lacked the frame preview lever. Single stroke winding came in 1957-57. The official rationale for the double-stroke was fear that too fast winding would lead to discharges of static electricity on the film emulsion. That was a danger at that time, in very dry weather. But films were at that time already given antistatic coatings, and the Kine-Exakta had single stroke lever rewind already in 1936! DS rewind was a bad piece of design from the beginning, and prone to breaking down.

 

The old man from the Age of the Kine-Exakta

 

Thanks, Lars, for putting me right on those two matters. I was told of the DS "advantage" by the fellow who sold me that camera. Anyway, I often used double stroke winding on the later M cameras as I had become used to it, and often found it more convenient than one long stroke anyway. I often wished the L/flex & R series had ratcheted winders.

John.

[jcrutcher]

I just purchased a single stroke M3. I know this thread is about double stroke.

 

Question is if I want to use a 35mm (I don't own the summaron with eyes) how far off are the framelines? Can I just guess? Or is it possible to buy a 35mm viewfinder?

 

My other Ieica's are a M6 and M8 so I have a few lenses to use. I would be happy to stick with the a 50 mm on the M3 if it's too much trouble for a 35. Thanks for any help you can offer.

 

Jim

[UliWer]

You can test it, when you compare the angle of view you get with a 35mm on the M6 or M8 and the 50mm-frames for the M3 - I think 35mm is way off the outer frame for the M3-viewfinder.

 

It's more wise to use 50mm or longer lenses with the M3, you won't find a better viewfinder in any M.

[Xmas]

You can test it, when you compare the angle of view you get with a 35mm on the M6 or M8 and the 50mm-frames for the M3 - I think 35mm is way off the outer frame for the M3-viewfinder.

 

It's more wise to use 50mm or longer lenses with the M3, you won't find a better viewfinder in any M.

Hi

But you can get 35mm viewfinders, that clip into the shoe fitting, that was all you had initially until googled lenses were available.

The only problem with early M3 is the rewind bush does not allow a rapid rewinder add on without risks of damage to the bearing.

Noel.

,

[jaapv]

I just purchased a single stroke M3. I know this thread is about double stroke.

 

Question is if I want to use a 35mm (I don't own the summaron with eyes) how far off are the framelines? Can I just guess? Or is it possible to buy a 35mm viewfinder?

 

My other Ieica's are a M6 and M8 so I have a few lenses to use. I would be happy to stick with the a 50 mm on the M3 if it's too much trouble for a 35. Thanks for any help you can offer.

 

Jim

If you search a bit, a vintage 35 mm viewfinder is not too difficult to find.

[adli]

I have an M6 but bought an old M3 in addition, just because of the viewfinder. If you only use 50, 90 and 135 lenses it is the best viewfinder you can get. Much brighter then other M cameras.

 

You can read about Leicas rangefinders and viewfinders here: Leica Viewfinder & Rangefinders