"Cheapened version of the M3"

[pico]

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 $$$!

 

The film advance lever on the M4 is hard, durable plastic and swings flat to the frame. Convenient. Never had one malfunction. I cannot testify to the M3 because I never owned one, but I can confidently say the M4 and M4-P are excellent, high quality cameras. I have nine of them, a couple worn and abused very badly. They still work. Always remember, these are relatively old cameras and should usually receive a CLA.

[UliWer]

...

 

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.

 

I don't think that the questions I'll rise in the following will add much to anybody's decision whether to buy a M3 or M2, though I think that there are some assumptions which I think unfounded and I'd like to comment on them.

 

First of all: was the M3 a pre-war design? There is a famous prototype for a Leica IV which already dates from Barnack's time. One might say that this prototype had some of the genes of the later M3, but I think it was a completely different concept. Most important: the Leica IV prototype did not work, it never came near to production. After the war they had to start anew. The essential patents for the M3 all date after 1945. So I can't agree to the assumption that the M3 was a 1930s design. It was clearly a post-war design.

 

One of the aims of the new M was to give it a much better viewfinder. If you look through the finders of an M3 and of a screw-mount Leica, you will have problems to call the eyepiece of the screw-mount a finder, it's just a looser. Most important for this progress was magnification: the screw-mount gave you a very small image, the M3 almost the view you have with your eyes. There is no compromise in the M3 finder: you have the maximum view for the standard 50mm (at this time cameras were usually sold with a 50mm standard lens) and some space beyond. Though as the finder doesn't compromise on magnification, it isn't wide enough for 35mm.

 

It is just to look at the situation of lenses when the M3 was designed: Leitz was week with wide angles. The 35mm Summaron was not bad, but only with f:3.5 - at a time when they already sold f:2 and wider for 50mm lenses and longer. Customers bought longer focal lenses much more often than anything shorter than 50mm. If you look at the handbooks from the first years after the war, they just mentioned wide angles, but there was only lukewarm advise to use them for practical photography. So the decision was: the viewfinder should support longer lenses, wide angles were not so important.

 

This was the decision taken at the early fifties. At the later fifties when the M3 sold in big quantities, the situation for wide angles had changed. The new 2.8-Summaron was in no ways worse than its 3.5 ancestor. Summicrons and Summiluxes for 35mm came soon. Though I'd call it a mild understatement, that the goggles for 35mm were an "accomodation". Leitz put so much importance on an elegant outward design that he hired a sculptor. The vertical line on the front and the window frames were thought very important for their new product. Adding those goggles was just like a hit in the face of the artist.

 

 

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.

 

This might be understood as if the M2 was newly designed after the introduction of the M3 to fulfill the new need for wide angles, leaving out 135mm and so sparing costs. That would be a misunderstanding. The new M was developped with many insecurities on Leitz's part. They had to make decisions but were not completely sure about them. No other M underwent so many changes in details as the M3: diameter of eyepiece, frame selection, lever for film transport, glass plate etc.

 

The most important variant of the new M during it's development was the core of the M: the rangefinder. There were already two completely different designs well before the M3 was introduced. The rangefinder we know from the M2 - and since in every new M - was already designed in 1952.

 

The designer was Willi Keiner. Together with Heinrich Schneider and Erich Mandler, who already were involved in the design of the M3-finder he constructed a second rangefinder, which was optically and mechanicall different from the M3-finder. It was clearly constructed with 35mm lenses in mind, but due to the reasons mentioned above not realized for the M3. You can find this story in the book by Günter Osterloh "50 years Leica M" . p. 40/41 (the book is bilingual in German and English).

 

The book does not say, whether Leitz already had a second model in mind from the very beginning - my theory is that they had, as it was the usual strategy from the times of the Leica II/III, but that they had to postpone the second model until they had enough production capacity and until they knew if the new camera was a success.

 

The second rangefinder made for 35mm lenses was not cheaper because they left out 135mm, but because of its different optical construction. This omission of 135mm frames had other reasons: Leitz's standards. The measuring basis for 135mm is too short with a magnification of 0.72. You can still find the echo of these old standards in the caveat of the M9 manual, that 135mm should be used only at f:5.6. Many will say: nonsense! as they can use 135mm at any opening. That's the reason for the M4.

 

So if somebody wants to own the original concept for the Leica M, he should spend some Euros or whetever currency more and get an M3 and an M2 together. Each of them is only half of the M story.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello sksaito,

 

BTW: Welcome to the Forum.

 

Hello UliWer.

 

Thank you.

 

A bit of clarification:

 

I said : "The M3, altho a 1930's DESIGN was not DEVEIOPED & INTRODUCED until after WWII".

 

Capital letters not in the original used now for clarification.

 

"Design" in this instance meaning "Concept".

 

Please note above: I also said the pre WWII design (concept) was developed into an actual camera & introduced after WWII.

 

I did not mention the Leica IV which was an interim prototype. Certainly a concept camera but not what I was talking about.

 

Further:

 

I did not say the M2 saved money by leaving out the 135mm frame. What I said was: Because an M2 was designed to allow a 35, 50 & 90 to be used that meant a less accurate & consequently less expensive range/viewfinder would suffice.

 

I also said the M3 range/viewfinder was developed because @ the time of its release (1954) normal & telephoto lenses were considered the main domain of high quality miniature cameras. I then said as high quality wide angle lenses became more available first goggles & then the M2 were developed to meet the rising demand.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael