Which Classic Leica Should I Purchase

[Nathan King Miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Recently I purchased two Leica digital cameras (the V-Lux 1 and the C-Lux 1). They're wonderful tools that have interested me in the Leica legacy.

 

I'd love to step into the traditional M-Series cameras, but the M8 is far out of my financial reach. However, I have done 35mm work before and looking on Ebay, I found a lot of reasonable deals on older M-Series models such as the M3 and M5.

 

Which of these older M-Series cameras would be a good investment if I would like actually use them with newer Leica lenses just for hobby's sake? I'm hoping to stay under $1,000, at least for the body.

 

Are the Summicron lenses considered to be the classic fitting for these older cameras? I'm looking for some sharp glass, of course - nothing less for a Leica.

 

Thanks for your suggestions!

 

Nathan

[DTD]

I think the M3 would be considered *the* classic M series.

The M5 was a change of direction – one a lot of people didn't think was a good idea.

I suppose a 35mm lens is probably the most useful single lens.

 

For your budget and if useability was more importnat than collectability, you might find a decent M6, this would have the advantage of having a built in light meter and be newer than an M3 or M5.

 

I've only just got my own first Leica, so wiser heads than mine can step in with advice.

I was recomended to try to get one made after the move to Solms.

But any M ever made is fully servicable.

 

There are a lot of Leicas about, I imagine a lot of people will be selling stuff to finance M8s, so you should be able to pick a choice one.

 

With no disrespect to the two digital cameras you have, you will really understand why people go on about Leicas once you've got your hands on an 'M'.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tom0511]

I would agree that the M3 is "THE" classical Leica BUR IMO a M6 would be much more usefull if you really want to use the camera. They can be had for under 1000 € (maybe for 800), you have got the lightmeter. I love mine and wont ever sell it.

get it with a 35cron older version and a 90 2.8 and you will have a lot of fun.

[bill]

My first M was a secondhand early M6, marked "Leitz" and without the anti-rub inserts. It was lovely. I had a later M6 after that, and then my current M7. Budget for a CLA, and remember that the earliest M6s have had some problems with corrroded circuit boards, but as "user" cameras, the fact that you have all 6 framelines, and an accurate built-in meter do it for me every time.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Nathan King Miller]

Sounds like the M6 is a unanimous winner. I found them being sold for around $1,500 on average through Ebay and B&H Photo. I haven't seen many going for $1,000, but I'll keep my eye out and maybe save $500 extra for one anyway.

 

Thanks for the input everyone! I hope to be an "M" user in the near future.

[earleygallery]

I would go for an M6, or an M2. I did have an M3 for a while but it replaced an SLR and I just couldn't get on with it, and was also using my lllf which I preferred. But of course you benefit from being able to use new Leica glass on the M (which is why I'm looking at one again).

 

The M3 only has 50mm or shorter frame lines. The M2 and others give you 35mm or wider, which makes it much more useable.

[thomasw_]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

with your budget, go with the m5 and a 50mm summicron. it was the last camera fashioned by hand in wetzler; having a wonderful light meter, it is otherwise entirely mechanical. ask william about this, he knows the virtues of the m5. the m5 is überfunctional if you have medium to large hands.

[silvergull]

Sounds like the M6 is a unanimous winner.

 

Actually there is no "unanimous" winner since the M3 was mentioned a couple of times and the M5 was recommended.

 

Since the widest lens I have used on a Leica since 1966 is the 50 mm and the most used is a 2.8/90, I vote for the M3 too. Of course, the M3 can use any of the wide angles with the appropriate viewfinder.

 

The M3 has the longest rangefinder base length as well as the greatest viewfinder magnification.

 

If you want a M6, fine. Enjoy.

 

Cheers,

 

Jim

[tobey bilek]

M6 6 because of the meter and framelines for 35mm and it does not have all the expensive age related issues older ones have like aging shutter curtains and decementing rangfinder components.

 

I like my M3, but have spent a lot on money curing problems. To pay mor than $500 sight unscene and no warrantee would be foolish.

 

M 2 and M4 are also old. The classics are nicer to use if you do not want a meter and you pay to get them working properly. So are screw mounts, but they have quirks to.

[@bumac]

My first M is a M6, I have bought in one month ago with a 1,4/35.

 

The M5 is not a real M. It is bigger and ugly. (I know, I know, the M5 has Fans outside there.) The M3 is a very nice camera but without frames for the different lenses. The M2 and the M4 have them.

 

The M6 is newer, has a meter, and if you buy a good one you don't need to send it to the service.

 

My M6 is a great camera and the 35 a great lense. I'm enjoying it, like never I have enjoyed a camera. Buy one and you will see.

[LADP]

Nathan, the other thing to consider is that whatever M you get, I would bet it won't be the last one. I'm guessing that you will get bitten by the bug, and you will own a second M body down the line, so don't sweat too much over which model to get now. Look around carefully, and when a good deal comes up, ideally from a reputable person or store, make your move. In your budget range, you may find an M6, and certainly M3's and M2's will be available.

[Jean LeBlanc]

If you want a meter, get an M5, M6 or newer. If you don't care about a meter, I'd go for an M2, M4 or M4-P. The M3 doesn't have frames for the 35mm lens, so it's not so convenient. You can get goggled 35mm lenses, but they're heavy.

 

Also, don't get sucked into the "newer is better" lens foolishness. Sure, the newer lenses are slightly better than the older ones. But the older lenses are wonderful, and put to shame most SLR lenses, at least in the 50mm and shorter focal lengths. The differences between older and newer lenses are generally so small you can only see them using test charts, so who in his right mind cares?

 

Assuming you don't need a meter, I'd suggest you pick up an M4 that's been well used and a 50mm or 35mm Summicron, also well used. That way you don't pay a lot of money. You can get the two for no more than $1000, and then send them off to a good service shop for a complete going over. Anything over 20 years old should be gone over anyway, and if you start out with a camera and lens with cosmetic scratches, you'll save far more than the cost of the servicing. Mint cosmetics doesn't guarantee that the thing works properly. That way you end up with a camera and lens that's functionally like new, for under $1500.

 

The M4 is relatively easy to load film in, has frame lines for 35, 50, 90 and 135mm lenses, and the fast rewind crank. So it has all the nice features of the newest bodies, just without a meter. If you do need a meter, get the nastiest looking M6 you can find, and ship it off for service.

 

If you do get a metered body, you'll need to be careful about using certain lenses. Older wide angle lenses can block the meter, or even damage the meter, if you get the M5. Buy from reputable sources and you'll stay out of trouble with the older stuff.

[earleygallery]

and if you start out with a camera and lens with cosmetic scratches, you'll save far more than the cost of the servicing. Mint cosmetics doesn't guarantee that the thing works properly.

 

Its interesting that with older musical instruments, violins being an obvious example, one which displays the patina of being 'well used' is worth much much more than a mint example. Musicians like to buy something that has been played, and has developed character in the process. I always think that a well used camera - assuming it is all functioning - has probably been serviced throughout its life whereas a mint boxed item is more likely to fail due to lack of use.

[rob_x2004]

one which displays the patina of being 'well used' is worth much much more than a mint example.

 

Its not the patina. Some string instruments and not many. And an old piano, for example, is usually ready for the tip.

 

If you eventually wind up with a latest lens, or body, then the old 'for practice' lens would have made one hell of a downpayment on the new. Buy what you are going to keep I reckon.

[rsh]

My first suggestion is that you go with an M with a built in Meter. My second is to handle several and get the one that feels best. All are great cameras.

[rsh]

By the way, the M5 IS a true M, and still my favorite M in terms of handling. But again, this is personal preference. You will be happy with whatever you choose.

[xjr]

All M's are classic the M8 being the last one but perhaps M3.