Jump to content

M2 or M3 ?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been looking around and seen a M3 and an M2 advertised in pretty good condition. The price is close enough not to make a difference.

 

I have never had an M2 or M3 before, or ever used a non-metered camera, so I am quite excited

 

I like the vintage look of the M2 & M3, so please don't suggest an M4 or M-A, both lovely cameras but not what I am looking for at the moment

 

Since I am totally naïve about this generation, even though I have casually read on the web, I was wondering whether you folk would recommend one or the other, given a similar condition and price ?

I am aware that the M2 is newer but slightly less specced, but other then that haven't been able to glean much

 

All comments much appreciated ...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own both. I cannot offer anything on the technical side....I am sure you are aware of the difference in framing and rangefinder/viewfinder.

 

For some reason, the M2 seems less obtrusive when it is hanging around my neck. Not to say that either is an obtrusive camera...just that the M2 seems less so as a camera to carry around all day. The film advance on the M2 seems smoother. I hesitated quite a while before I posted this; because looking at them side by side, there is no explanation for this; but it does lead me to grab the M2 much more frequently than the M3.

 

Best

 

Wayne

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also preferred the M2 for two reasons:

 

- wider lenses 

- I prefer the clean design lines of the M2. Even though I'm sometimes drawn to the look of the M3, the frames around the rangefinder windows, and the other decorative touches make it feel more self-consciously 'old-fashioned' to me. You may want to make that statement(?) or possibly you want a camera that disappears more effectively, in which case the M2 is the better choice, in my opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought my first Leica when the M3 was still available new, but chose the (then) new M4 at the same price as I wanted to use 35mm without the bulky goggles on the lens. I never regretted it, but since retiring have added both M3 & M2. Of those I prefer the M2, but the VF is like what I was used to for decades.

I also wear glasses full-time, and the M2 (and later) are better for glasses wearers, as the VF is designed with farther eye relief (distance from the eye-piece) than the M3 - which I found documented in a Leica Fotografie from the M2 period.

I do use 90 mm with my M 4&2 (the first lens I bought for my M4), but with my 70 yr-old eyes I can see why the M3 might be preferred if I used it a lot.

I also have a goggled 35 Summicron for my M3, but the VF with goggles isn't as clear as an M2 and non-goggled 35.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're shooting mainly a 50mm lens, I believe the M3 is the way to go. It has a big and bright viewfinder, with the largest and most accurate focussing patch. The M2 has a less magnified viewfinder, so is more useful with a 35mm lens. It can also focus closer (0.7m) than the M3 (1m). Otherwise, aside from the shot counter and the bevels around the windows, they're practically the same camera.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Harold,

 

In many instances both cameras will work equally well. For many of the differences the familiarity that comes with use over time will compensate reasonably well for 1 camera's smaller advantages over the other.

 

There are only a few situations where 1 camera has a meaningful advantage over the other:

 

If you often use a 35mm lens & you prefer using a 35mm lens without some sort of optical device, attached or separate, then the M2 is a better choice.

 

For lenses wider than 35mm the operation is the same.

 

When using a 50mm lens the question is: Do you prefer the larger image & more accurately focusing range/viewfinder that shows the borders of the captured image near the edge of the actual image captured:

Or: Do you prefer a slightly smaller image with a rectangular "donut" of open space around the image being captured to see what is coming & going?

 

At 90mm the parameters change: An M3 is clearly designed first & foremost to be a camera for using a 90mm lens. There is a large, clear, highly magnified frame with space around it to see what is coming & going.

 

The larger space around & lower magnification make the M2 second here.

 

For 135mm the M3 has a reasonably large frame with more open space around it than the 90mm frame shows. A good choice for a 135mm lens wihout "goggles"**

 

The lower magnification M2 range/viewfinder requires an auxiliary viewfinder for 135mm & focusing is more difficult because of the lower (.72/.91) magnification.

 

The M2 has an additional advantage if you prefer to combine a "goggle" less 35mm lens with a 90mm lens*: You can use the M'2's reduced magnification range/viewfinder for both lenses.

 

With devices such as longer lenses, Visoflex & copying: Both cameras are the same. They both have lugs extending out of both sides of the camera body at the baseplate.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

* Combining a 35mm lens with a 90mm lens is often thought of as the least complex combination of equipment with the greatest increase in versatility. A step up from photographing with a single lens alone.

 

** The "goggles" of the 135mm Elmarit are a separate discussion whichever magnification range/viewfinder a person uses. They would not usually be a consideration by many people when determining whether to choose an M2 or an M3.

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an M4 for 43 years but finally sold it when I thought I'd be getting out of film. Well, that was foolish because I decided to come back to the dark side. I didn't have the cash for another M4, so I was looking at M3 bodies, as I remember all of my Leica friends from the past thought they were incredible, and I passed on the M3 when I originally got the M4. After a little reading I began to think about the M2...and by luck, one in good condition became available at about half the cost of a similar condition M3, so I took the plunge. The M2 turned out to be the better choice for me...to me it had cleaner lines, and I preferred the framelines over those of the M3. The viewfinder itself better fit my needs and what I was used to. If you can physically do a "hands on" of each camera, I think you can better decide which is the the better choice for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try changing film try rewinding quickly. I think the M4 you are not interested in will interest you. They are all wonderful. Careful with the aging bits They are old. I know you didn't want to hear about the M4 but I had to stick it in. It was the M that Leica designed for professional use.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Try changing film try rewinding quickly. I think the M4 you are not interested in will interest you. They are all wonderful. Careful with the aging bits They are old. I know you didn't want to hear about the M4 but I had to stick it in. It was the M that Leica designed for professional use.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK, you can all stop now, like the OP I was looking for a film M, I had my heart set on an M3, then this thread came along and I had to research the M2, now the M4 has been thrown into the mix! 

 

:p

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Harold - You can't go wrong.  

 

The M2 is probably the more practical choice.

 

 

But as has been said, the one thing that distinguishes the M3 from all of the other Ms is the viewfinder.  For 50s and longer it really is sublime.  The brightness, magnification and fat frame lines are a joy to view.   So all else equal, I'd grab the M3 on pure emotion.  You can use an external VF for FLs wider than 50, which is what I do.  Even with the 28mm frame lines in the camera's VF, I still use an external VF.  So you really are only missing the in-camera 35mm frame lines, which you can supplement with the external VF.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's your choice. I happen to prefer the M2, which I often enjoy using even more than the M6, whose exposure indicators and plethora of frame lines in the VF can be annoying. Although I use mostly 50mm and 90mm, I like the convenience of having the 35mm frame lines. Even film loading is not at all bothersome unless one is in a hurry. Extra take up spools can be pre loaded ahead of time if desired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Echoing the others, you can't go wrong with either. For me, the M3 viewfinder is unbeatable and the rangefinder base length makes focussing the 135mm APO-Telyt wide open easy. Just make sure you get an M3/2 in good condition, pay a bit more if necessary for a good one is my advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the M that Leica designed for professional use.

 

 

I've never heard this before - where did you read/hear it?

 

If anything the later motor drive equipped M's were 'made for professional use' with harder steel gears. But that said I don't think any were specifically made for 'professional' use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard this before - where did you read/hear it?

 

If anything the later motor drive equipped M's were 'made for professional use' with harder steel gears. But that said I don't think any were specifically made for 'professional' use.

 

 

I don't think I've heard it before either but I suppose the adoption of the slanted rewind crank, 'faster' loading could be interpreted as "professional" orientated features. If anything, the original MP was probably the first M camera to be marketed as a camera for the professional. The M2 has also been marketed (at least by Leitz USA) as "professional" and, contrary to Steve's point, the M4 advertised as "the think camera" :wacko:  (a foretaste of some of Apple's later advertising). I think we all know the relationship between advertising and reality. :)

 

27-Purist-Leica-The-professional-35-1967

 

 

leicam4_1.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The M2's viewfinder is a simplified version of the M3's, which is more complex and costlier.  As has been said above, the M3's frame-lines are for 50, 90 and 135, but a 35mm lens with specs will use the 50mm framelines, which are in any case always visible.

 

You might find the appearance of the 50mm framelines when using other focal lengths, intrusive or not, a subjective matter.  I do enjoy the elegant sparseness of the M2's viewfinder for this reason.  The .72x magnification of the M2 also accommodates glasses-wearers better.  If you wear glasses and go for an M3, make sure it's a later (e.g. single-stroke) type, since the earliest have a narrower eyepiece, that does make viewing the whole 50mm frame while wearing glasses quite difficult.

 

The .91x magnification of the M3 is virtually life-size.  In addition to greater accuracy this means that, with a little practice, composing can be done with both eyes open, literally in three dimensions, with the framelines appearing to float before you: amazing.

 

So - pros and cons.  Why not get both?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Harold

 

I had an M3. While the viewfinder was nice, I don't miss - at all - not having 0.91x magnification when I shoot with my M cameras, which are an M4 and a TTL, both 0.72x. I have lenses from 2,8cm to 13,5cm.

 

If I were to choose between an M3 and an M2 I'd easily go for the latter because of the ease of shooting with 35mm lenses, since I almost never use 135mm. If you already have 35mm lenses you'd likely want to get a goggled lens if you get the M3.

 

But it was the M3's film loading that I disliked the most.

 

I accept and enjoy the quirky loading of my Leica II which is similar to what the M3 and M2 have in that it uses a separate take-up spool. But for M photography, and in my view as someone who only shoots film, that is not a sufficiently convenient film loading system.

 

The M4 which, apart from the angled rewind, has the same clean looks as the M2, has a considerably more convenient take-up "tulip". You probably already know all of this of course. But it is a lot easier if the camera is one's main camera (as in my case the M4 and TTL are).

 

I know you don't want to consider the M4, but that would be the way to go, I think. Most convenient frame lines, best film loading, clean cool looks. And self-resetting frame counter. My Leica II requires manual setting upon loading the film, something which I tend to almost always forget but which I accept because of the particular shooting style of that camera. The M2 is similar in that it has a non-resetting film counter. Not having owned an M2 (but having considered one in detail before buying the M4), I can't speak from experience how annoying this is. But if it is anything like my Leica II, I know I'd find it irritating. 

 

All this being said, choosing a camera is like choosing a mate. You pick one whose looks and general behaviour you like and then you live with the quirks and annoyances. But I'd go with an M4 any day instead of the two you're considering.

 

best
Philip

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Philip probably reflects the majority view, however I actually prefer the traditional film loading!

 

I have film M's with both the 'rapid-load' and the traditional take up spool. I prefer the latter as you always are absolutely sure of correct take-up, you can preload spools (so that loading is even faster than the 'rapid-load' system!) and it makes it super easy on the rewind to not take the film all the way into the cassette (important for light integrity of the cassette and for some daylight processing systems).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...