sksaito Posted February 27, 2012 Share #1 Posted February 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am relatively new to M film cameras. I have an M3 and am considering buying an M2 or M4 for the 35mm frame lines. I read often that the M2 and M4 are cheaper versions of the M3. I do note the cosmetic differences in the viewfinders, rubberized film advance lever, film counters, etc.. But being ignorant in camera mechanics, how is it "cheapened" as you progress from the M3 to the M2 and to the M4? The outside looks similar. Is there more than meets the eye? M2s and M4s are $$$! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 Hi sksaito, Take a look here "Cheapened version of the M3". I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted February 27, 2012 Share #2 Posted February 27, 2012 Many consider the M2 to be the best M of the period. It has the best suite of framelines (much more useful than an M3, IMHO, which doesn't have 35mm lines) and the only "cheapening" spec is the inclusion of the external frame counter, which is perfectly fine in normal use provided it's maintained properly. The M2 has the full metal wind-on lever, btw, and the knurled-knob rewind. My first Leica was an M2. It would also be the last one I sell, if I ever have to sell them all. Find a good condition 59-61 model (there are lots about) and you will have a very enjoyable experience. Try to find a good 35mm Summaron f2.8 of the same age to go with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 27, 2012 Share #3 Posted February 27, 2012 Less expensive is a more accurate term. The M2 had a redesigned rangefinder - much the same as current models - and a simpler frame counter, as well as some other internal changes and other minor differences. I personally much prefer the M2 over the M3. The rangefinder elements in the M3 can be quite fragile today and separate without warning. Leica can fit a later M6J rangefinder instead, but at some cost. The M4-2/P were produced to a cost, by Leitz Canada. The redesign included different materials such for the body and steel rather than brass gears so that a motor drive could be used. I would worry more about the condition of the camera you buy today, rather than the cost of the materials used to produce it at the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 27, 2012 Share #4 Posted February 27, 2012 To consider M2 and M4 cheaper versions of M3 is not correct, even if the M2, at its introduction, had a list price lower than M3 (but, initially, it hadn't selftimer, a rather costly device, and the manual-resetting frame counter was indeed a small semplification) ; the truth was, simply, that the enormous success of M3 did allow Leitz to lower prices... which is seldom the right move to do on an existing and successful product.. to make a new version with some secondary minuses and a new set of framelines was the best way to go. BUT... it must be taken in mind that M3 is really a legendary camera... and many people consider its last version "the best mechanical camera of any time"... which leads to think that M2 and M4 are someway "cheaper" in the sense of a less refined mechanical construction: I think this is not true, even if some trustable people, seriously skilled to dismount and inspect those masterpieces, says that some little details of M3 are really unsurpassed in precision and quality of the assembly. Given that you have a M3, M2 is a fine complement , which allow you also to have an opinion of your own about the subtle quality differences between the two... and this will lead, by sure, to consider also the buying of an M4 in due time... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted February 27, 2012 Share #5 Posted February 27, 2012 It's funny that the M2-design was the original design for the new M (no "frames" on front "windows", simpler design of the top cover). Leitz thought it looked too "cheap", so they mocked it up a little bit for the M3. The story is told here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/163031-your-most-iconic-m-why.html#post1593422 On the other hand, the M2 was really cheaper in production, not just because it lacked some outward design elements but especially because the rangefinder was much simpler. The original rangefinder concept for the M3 was too complicated in production and less practical for the user. Nonetheless the M2 was less successful than the M3, even at times when both were produced the M3 sold better. This was already the case during the times of screw-mounts, as much more III serieses were built and probably sold than IIs or standards. Old Leica experience: expensive sells better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 27, 2012 Share #6 Posted February 27, 2012 You may find this interesting: Leica M Guide Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted February 27, 2012 Share #7 Posted February 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am relatively new to M film cameras. I have an M3 and am considering buying an M2 or M4 for the 35mm frame lines. I read often that the M2 and M4 are cheaper versions of the M3. I do note the cosmetic differences in the viewfinders, rubberized film advance lever, film counters, etc.. But being ignorant in camera mechanics, how is it "cheapened" as you progress from the M3 to the M2 and to the M4? The outside looks similar. Is there more than meets the eye? M2s and M4s are $$$! I lived for decades with M3's and 35mm with goggles. when you are accustomed with the M3 viewfinder (close to realty) you can be unconfortable with M2 or M4 ones. This was my case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted February 27, 2012 Share #8 Posted February 27, 2012 no "frames" on front "windows", simpler design of the top cover And interestingly enough not having those frames makes it much easier to clean the windows. I just can't understand the frame counter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted February 27, 2012 Share #9 Posted February 27, 2012 I was about to buy my first Leica when the M4 was introduced at the same price as the M3. I had already used a friend's M2, and had looked at the M3 in the store. When the M4 arrived and I had a chance to try it, it sold me immediately. I found the new advance lever more comfortable, and the rapid film loading a real plus. I especially liked the finder. In recent years I added an M3 when the 4 went out for service. I haven't used it since I got the M4 back - stll my favorite M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted February 27, 2012 Share #10 Posted February 27, 2012 The M2 is the apex of elegant camera design IMHO, the MP is Leica's tribute to the M2. So OK it may have been cheaper than the M3, but that is where the comparison pretty much stops. Clean lines, elegant, simple, understated and built like a tank (this is an understatement). Totally agree with Andy that '59-'61 is a killer combo with a Summaron 35/2.8. I only very rarely remove that lens from my M2, except for the 90 TE (fat). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 27, 2012 Share #11 Posted February 27, 2012 To my mind, the M2 is the sexiest of all Leica M cameras – except the current MP! Both are like classic British sports cars: You sit with your arse practically rubbing the tarmac, you feel through the steering whel when one front wheel runs over a snail, you have to use hand signals, and rain is trickling down your neck inside your shirt collar. The only difference is that with the MP you don't have to use a hand crank to start it. And from a production engineering point of view, the MP is probably better made, because modern computerised component manufacture works with smaller tolerances and better finishing and modern materials. And I really do prefer the 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE to the first Summilux, which was a dog wide open ... But when you think of it, the ability to use a half-century old camera like a new one, is slightly miraculous. LB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sksaito Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share #12 Posted February 27, 2012 Thanks all for the info. What happened in '59-'61? Better technicians? I just bought a 35mm/3.5 Summaron because it was cheaper. What defines the 35/2.8 that appeals to so many? I've used the m4P before and I can feel the obvious difference in the weight of the metal used. The shutter release feels quieter and dare I say smoother than the M3. Is that a true comparison in general or just the copies I used? It's more tempting to get a Canadian made M4p with the 28mm frame line over the Wetzlar M4 because it's more affordable and available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sksaito Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share #13 Posted February 27, 2012 I sound like a cheapskate on this thread. I guess I kind of am. The M9 cleaned me out but I want to go film instead if digital. I'm new so please bear with me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twotone Posted February 27, 2012 Share #14 Posted February 27, 2012 I've recently (in the past year) bought the complete M3 kit or more accurately accumulated it from various sources. The M3 and 50mm Summicron (rigid) is an amazing combination and even more so given the age of the components one of which is 52 years old and the other, the lens, 46 years old. In low light situations with relatively fast film the resulting photos are nothing short of remarkable. I looked at buying an M2 at the time I bought the M3 but I decided on the M3 purely on the basis of the magnification of the rangefinder and the fact that the camera was the best designed camera in the world when it was released so being able to handle and use something like that was, for me, like buying a Alfa Romeo Spider or Merc sports from the same era. I.E, early sixties. You just can't buy that sort of quality now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted February 28, 2012 Share #15 Posted February 28, 2012 Hello Everybody, The M3, altho a 1930's design was not developed & introduced until after WWII. It is a design from a time period when normal & longer focal lengths predominated. High quality wide angle lenses were, for the most part, a post WWII development. An M3 which works well w/ a 50 was in fact clearly designed around a 90. With a 90 it is a camera @ its best. No slouch w/ a 135 w/o goggles either. W/ the development of newer optical glasses, computer programs & the like after WWII high quality wide angle lenses became a reality. 1 accomodation for this was the goggles for 35's on M3's. A second accomodation for this was the M2 which had frames for the 35 but not the 135. The 135 frame was later added in the M4. The M2, because of its lack of a 135 frame allowed the development of a less expensive, less accurate, range/viewfinder which was the majority of the 1/3d or so cost differential between the M2 & M3. The M3 being the more expensive. Beyond the range/viewfinders & some minor cost cutting features & cosmetics both cameras are pretty much the same. As is the M4 which is basically an updated M2 usind a slightly modified form of the major cost cutting less precise range/viewfinder of the M2. So, there it is: If you want an in-range/viewfinder 35 frame w/ less precise framing & viewing of longer lenses but fine for 35's & 50's then an M2 or 1 of its sucessors is for you. If 50, 90 &/or 135 are the lenses you most use/need then an M3 is for you. If you want the best of both that is why Leitz made both the M3 & M2. The M4 that replaced both being a compromise camera which gave you quicker & better loading, an angled rewind which was faster & a 135 frame in a 35 to 90 range/viewfinder as well as some other small things. What the M4 did not have was the large, bright, clear M3 range/viewfinder which is a pleasure, not a chore, to use to focus 90 & 135 lenses w/o goggles. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted February 28, 2012 Share #16 Posted February 28, 2012 And interestingly enough not having those frames makes it much easier to clean the windows. I just can't understand the frame counter. and perhaps more interestingly removing those frames makes it necessary to clean the windows far more often... I have done some tests with my M9 compared to M3. The frames greatly protect the windows from fingers wipes and act as a guide to warn fingers to stay away. I want those frames on any M10- I have even though of trying to make some add on frames for the M9... and back to topic: M2 is superb camera- the frame choices are perfect. To feel M2 or m3 is a very similar experience. M3 viewfinder is wonderful though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 28, 2012 Share #17 Posted February 28, 2012 You just can't buy that sort of quality now. No, fortunately. The M3 was assembled with a lot of hand finishing of the components, simply because component quality was low. The machine tools could not work to the required tolerances. Leitz/Leica understood all the time that this was an untenable situation, so they invested early in more advanced machinery, first NC and then CNC. Now you won't see a file on the Leica assembly line any more. And that is good, not bad. The rest is nostalgia. I am not nostalgic for the 1950's – I went to school and to the university in them. LB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted February 28, 2012 Share #18 Posted February 28, 2012 and perhaps more interestingly removing those frames makes it necessary to clean the windows far more often... I have done some tests with my M9 compared to M3. The frames greatly protect the windows from fingers wipes and act as a guide to warn fingers to stay away. I want those frames on any M10- I have even though of trying to make some add on frames for the M9... . M3 viewfinder is wonderful though... I agree with this 100% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted February 28, 2012 Share #19 Posted February 28, 2012 What happened in '59-'61? Better technicians? I just bought a 35mm/3.5 Summaron because it was cheaper. What defines the 35/2.8 that appeals to so many? IIRC '59-'61 are the M2's with self-release timer and lever rewind. Personally I like the lever rewind design more - but technically there probably is little difference with button rewind.I can't compare 35/2.8.with 35/3.5, as I don't have the latter, I expect both are great little lenses. The slightly faster aperture is an advantage I guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick in CO Posted February 28, 2012 Share #20 Posted February 28, 2012 I am relatively new to M film cameras. I have an M3 and am considering buying an M2 or M4 for the 35mm frame lines. I read often that the M2 and M4 are cheaper versions of the M3. I do note the cosmetic differences in the viewfinders, rubberized film advance lever, film counters, etc.. But being ignorant in camera mechanics, how is it "cheapened" as you progress from the M3 to the M2 and to the M4? The outside looks similar. Is there more than meets the eye? M2s and M4s are $$$! Are you thinking of the M4-2? Many think is was a step down in quality, but is from my experience a great user camera, nonetheless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.