Jump to content
Leica M EV1: Die erste M mit EVF statt Messssucher ×
Leica M EV1: The first M with EVF instead of Rangefinder ×

Hello from new member

galleryg

By galleryg
in Customer Forum

Recommended Posts

galleryg

galleryg

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings and Salutations,

I have been an avid reader for a while now and have never posted so I thought it was about time. I'm Gene and live in the Olympic Peninsula in WA but was born in Germany. I have been a Photographer for over 30 years. I have run the gamut for equipment from Canon and Contax to Rollei and Hassy. For the past 5 years I have been using and will continue to use Digital for my Wedding business.

 

About 10 years ago I got myself a M6ttl w/Summilux and for some reason it did not gel with me. It was my first RF and for various reasons I just found it a bit difficult for me to get accustomed to. Eventually I sold it [getting ALL my money back ;-) ] because it mostly gathered dust. I often lamented not giving it more of a chance. Recently I have re-evaluated digital vs. film and decided to take the plunge back into real photography for my personal stuff and took a long hard look at Leica again as my tool set.

 

After much research here and at the very nice site by Ken Rockwell I made my choice. I am the very proud owner of a Mint M3 with a 50 Summaron for B&W and 50 ZM Planar for Velvia. I also got myself a nice MR-4 meter. Holding and using this jewel has been a revelation and has infused me with a renewed vigor and joy with photography that I can only liken to my initial obsession with my first AE1 with single 50mm lens.

 

I can now fully appreciate the dogged devotion that users have for Leica. The M3 is magnificent in use and I find that more importantly, what it doesn't have are the little quirks that kept me from using the M6. I was instantly comfortable with it from the moment I picked it up. In use it just seems so intelligently direct, simple and user friendly. It is very hard to effectively convey the "it" factor that it gives me, but suffice it to say I have found photographic bliss.

 

I like to say thank you to all the members here for the wealth of information that led me to make this most excellent decision. I have attached some pictures of my new found friend. Until next time.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
andybarton

andybarton

Posted
Posted

Welcome to the forum Gene

 

And, don't forget that using a digital M is not inevitable and that many, many users love using their film Ms just as much today as they always have.

 

Don't feel under any pressure to go digital.

Link to post
Share on other sites
galleryg

galleryg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Andy,

Thank you, much appreciated. I have no intention to consider M digital. After long and careful consideration I have relegated digital to my wedding business and other specific tasks it is well suited for. I am so tired of new software learning curves and chasing technology that continually makes attempts to replicate what the M3 and film has been flawlessly creating for over half a century. Shooting film and having it scanned at development frees up countless hours of wasted computer time and gives me superior results every time. My singular interest with my new M3 is to create lasting art for my family archives. 50 years from now they will still be able to scan my film and create the most technically perfect digital repro available at that time from a technically superior medium that is better than any digital file created today. I have finally made my peace. That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
UliWer

UliWer

Posted
Posted
.... I am the very proud owner of a Mint M3 with a 50 Summaron for B&W and 50 ZM Planar for Velvia...

 

Looking at the lens on your photo, I gueass it's a 35mm Summaron. So how do you get on with it, without any frames for 35mm. Do you use the whole viewfinder image?

Link to post
Share on other sites
galleryg

galleryg

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Looking at the lens on your photo, I gueass it's a 35mm Summaron. So how do you get on with it, without any frames for 35mm. Do you use the whole viewfinder image?

Ooppps I did say 50 by mistake. You are right. Actually I am using an add on SBLOO finder without the meter for that lens. It's not Ideal but the lens is fantastic and I got it and the finder for $350 in the Little nickle want ads. Couldn't pass it up. I have found that using the whole finder is close, but still can include unwanted distractions if not thorough in evaluation. I will probably replace it eventually but right now I have my sights set on a 90 Elmarit

Link to post
Share on other sites
alun

alun

Posted
Posted

Welcome, Gene. A gorgeous camera has found the home it deserves. I like your stance on digital. I have formulated as similar position myself. I tell myself: "Life's probably too short and I have too much left to learn about getting good pictures *full stop* without chopping and changing between camera systems. I think I should continue to work with film and a Leica M or stop whining and don't bother -- no one else cares...."

 

BUt others of course may vary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Geschlecht

Michael Geschlecht

Posted
Posted

Hello galleryg,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

I have an M3 like yours & an MR. Why don't you look for a quick load? Even though people will tell you they are for M2s I have been using one on my 3 since the early 70s. After you pull out the spool just align it correctly w/ your right thumb on reinserting it. Quick to do & then loads & unloads easily. Use the baseplate attachment. Many people leave them out. I find it quite useful.

 

I have a 35 Summicron w/ goggles which is my most used lens which is quite good @ 4, 5.6 & 8.

 

BTW: You will find that although a 35 may be your most used lens an M3 is made for a 90. The best. Although I prefer the angle of view of a Tele-Elmar.

 

The view thru the viewfinder w/ a 135 is not bad & Like a 90 Elmarit-M you will like it @ every aperture & the price is reasonable. Part of what I lke about the Tele-Elmar is I routinely use it to 1 : 1.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
galleryg

galleryg

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Hello galleryg,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

I have an M3 like yours & an MR. Why don't you look for a quick load? Even though people will tell you they are for M2s I have been using one on my 3 since the early 70s. After you pull out the spool just align it correctly w/ your right thumb on reinserting it. Quick to do & then loads & unloads easily. Use the baseplate attachment. Many people leave them out. I find it quite useful.

 

I have a 35 Summicron w/ goggles which is my most used lens which is quite good @ 4, 5.6 & 8.

 

BTW: You will find that although a 35 may be your most used lens an M3 is made for a 90. The best. Although I prefer the angle of view of a Tele-Elmar.

 

The view thru the viewfinder w/ a 135 is not bad & Like a 90 Elmarit-M you will like it @ every aperture & the price is reasonable. Part of what I lke about the Tele-Elmar is I routinely use it to 1 : 1.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Thanx for the info. I've read that using the rapid load conversion is a compromise that works a little better but not as intended. Are you saying that it works as well as in a M6-M7 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Geschlecht

Michael Geschlecht

Posted
Posted

Hello galleryg,

 

No, not as well but better than the silly spools.

 

Since you have asked that question it appears you have not used them much. Many people have more than one original style spool. Some to lose & some to pre-load extra rolls of film on & put in dust/water proof containers (ie: baggies) & carry ready to reload more quickly.

 

The quick-load spool aligned w/ my thumb as in my Post and helped by the baseplate attachment many leave off but which I find quite helpful for film alignment is not quite the later built in's in terms of speed because you must remove the spool & reinsert it to re-zero the M3 frame counter each time. It is none-the-less in fact a genuine step up.

 

The reason people say quickloads are for the M2, M1 & MD is because you just have to turn the spool in the camera to align the opening to insert the film & then rotate the counting dial around the shutter release. You don't have the extra step, which I don't find a big deal, of removing & re-inserting the spool. The spool has a convinient little doo-dad that comes out to help make the job easier.

 

By the way, when I first got my quickload for my M3 in the early 1970s I used it on a IIIa for a while to see how it would work. The quickload worked fine but my friend whose camera I tried it on decided he didn't need it.

 

Back to M3s: Basically a lot of thing are the same w/ all the Ms. That a lot is ergonometrically correct (actually harder for them to do than for us to say) makes things even easier. It makes all Ms intuitive to a great extent.

 

M3s do not have BTL meters. We both have MRs which are equally good as hand held meters. The 90mm frame shows you the field of view of the meter when it is mounted on the camera. Use the 135 frame to determine the field of coverage of the meter when using a 35 w/ goggles whichever model of M you use the goggled lens on. An MR is good for probably 90% of all the metering anyone has to do on or off the camera.

 

Range/Viewfinder: Best one Leitz/Leica ever made if you need the focal lengths & can live w/ auxilliary finders &/or goggles if the specific lens needs them. No question about which M from anyone who needs a viewfinder from 50 up & has looked thru an M3 & any other. None is close to a 3.

 

No motors. Fit one & it will wreck your best ever made brass gears & I doubt you can replace them w/ anything close.

 

Quick rewind: There are some out there. Read the wiki please if you are considering. I sometimes think I might but never have. They have been around as add on's pretty much since the beginning of Ms.

 

I think that is pretty much it. If I forgot anything hopefully someone will chime in.

 

There is one other thing: Why isn't there an M3 today? The big cost difference between the M3 & M2 was the range/viewfinder. I think the last M3 range/viewfinder was about 1/3 of the total cost of the camera & was the primary reason for the cost differential between the two models 3 & 2. The M4 was probably developed because Leitz most likely correctly thought the continuation of the M3 rangefinder in a subsequent model would make the cost unacceptably high within the projected market & felt a modified M2 range/viewfinder would be quite acceptable since then modern lens design made wider angle lenses equal to longer focal lengths in image quality & they most likely saw their range/viewfinder system as a natural method of accurately focussing wider & faster lenses to come for which the modified M2 finder was certainly more than adaquate.

 

Enjoy & ask questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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