Jump to content

M3 or M-A


KAD

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've got 3 M's (3 DS, 6 classic and 9) and none of them have this "viewfinder flare".

Of course the M3 has the brightest viewfinder but I've tried to get all of them to flare (pointing straight to all sorts of different lights one can imagine, like sun, light bulbs and so on) and none of them showed the flare. The M6 is pretty damn fine. Either a lot of people have faulty Leicas or I was lucky to get a problem-free one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, you're taking yourself too seriously.

 

Fred

 

Brings to mind the lyrics from the Dire Straits song (yes, I am that old): "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong".

 

:-)

 

(Brings to mind, I said - because clearly different folk can and do have different experiences with the same gear.)

 

Double :-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried to get all of them to flare (pointing straight to all sorts of different lights one can imagine, like sun, light bulbs and so on) and none of them showed the flare. The M6 is pretty damn fine. Either a lot of people have faulty Leicas or I was lucky to get a problem-free one.

 

In my experience with the M6TTL, the rangefinder patch would white-out when the light source is not straight into the VF but rather coming in from an oblique angle. It was really easy to deliberately induce the "flare" with a table lamp or some other simple light source.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just compared my M6 x0.72 , M6 x0.85 and M-A:

The classic M6s both flare out the RF patch looking at a dark interior when at 45 degrees to a large bright window.

The x0.85 is worse than the x0.72 - the M-A is much nicer - no such problem :)

 

However, I was content with my M6s for over the past 15 or so years - the flare is more of an irritation than a show stopper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience with the M6TTL, the rangefinder patch would white-out when the light source is not straight into the VF but rather coming in from an oblique angle. It was really easy to deliberately induce the "flare" with a table lamp or some other simple light source.

 

You are right, I didn't realize that. My M6 does flare, my m3 and m9 don't. But, I will be honest with you, I've tried focusing with the flare happening on dark and bright areas, with low and high contrast. And in any sort of situation, even with flare, I had no problem with focusing. So I guess I really am a lucky one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No flare and brighter and perhaps a tighter focus tolerance with a newer mechanism. So I guess that there can be improvements to a mechanical camera in this day and age. Is it enough to buy a new camera? Up to the individual. For my eyes the answer was yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M-A makes you to enjoy the BUY OF A NEW FILM CAMERA, which isn't a common experience, these days... :) : of course, its major addon towards your current equipment is the 28mm finder... it depends on your attitude/needs, but to have a pair of bodies, one with 50, the other with 28 can be a very effective setup for street photo.

 

If this is the value for you, is a good choice and it's all about the wallet... the alternative is obvious : M4-P , same 28mm finder, meterless too, around 1/4 of the cost or even less, many items availble usually in very good conditions, a camera completely maintainable as your M3 : with it, a pleasant duo "Wetzlar+Canada" which could be accompanied with a Canadian lens (many good Canadians Elmarit 28 are available on the market, I have one dated 1982... my standard 28 and see no reason to change it) : roughly, a M4-P + an Elmarit 28 11804 means half the cost of a M-A body.

 

If you are using an M3 and want 28mm, why not just get Leica's very nice auxiliary finder? Failing that, your M6 can have its viewfinder upgraded to the more flare-resistant M6J finder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the M-A not only for my own amusement, but also because I wanted to support Leica in their brave decision to make such a camera new in 2015, I hope more people see it this way...if everyone just says WOW and goes on buying a M2,M3 or whatever, we are digging the mechanical Leica's own grave (in the long run)

After all, if Leica do not sell their cameras, they will stop making them, it's as easy as that...it does not help that people just says WOW...

 

The same goes for film + labs, buy your favorite film and it will remain, and use the labs or they will disappear completely... (Film will prabably be here forever, but we will keep loosing some of them, like we lost Kodachrome and such, if people stop using them, or move over to different types/brands...)

 

In short words "support the things you love using".... it's that easy!

 

Alex

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

Sorry about reviving an old thread, but I think my question fits here.
How does the M-A compare to the M3 in regard to build quality? I understand the obvious differences - frame lines, viewfinder magnification, etc. But how about the internals? Is the M-A built to the same engineering standards as the M3 (i.e. like a tank)? Or does it inherit the cost cutting measures (e.g. plastic parts) of the M3's successors?
It does look like an M3 on the outside. But it is actually an M3?

Edited by Vlad Soare
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I bought a MP à la carte new last year.

After 6 months, I sold it, because my good old M3 is by far the better camera.

Much smoother handling (focus, film transport, shutter sound, rewind….) and a higher quality impression (the lens doesn‘t move in the mount, no scratches on the film….).

I was disappointed by this new camera in comparison with my 60 year old and much used M3 (+/- 80 films per year since a very long time - regulary serviced every 10 years, which is not necessary, but nice).

Best,

Jens

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vlad Soare said:

Sorry about reviving an old thread, but I think my question fits here.
How does the M-A compare to the M3 in regard to build quality? I understand the obvious differences - frame lines, viewfinder magnification, etc. But how about the internals? Is the M-A built to the same engineering standards as the M3 (i.e. like a tank)? Or does it inherit the cost cutting measures (e.g. plastic parts) of the M3's successors?
It does look like an M3 on the outside. But it is actually an M3?

Build quality for me is M quality in whole, so "the thing" never bother me for decades, as user.

From my long experience almost every Leica M that I use, the repair/CLA is part of routine, when they need.

I have (had) some M3 of different periods (still use one of the first batch 1954, original state) that are not 'better built' than later M2/M4/etc.

 

I've had M-A when released and saw in them my last film M, so I rely on Leica for durability, but as seen here or there, those 2014's first M-A were 'better made' than MP/M-A of nowaday.

If I recall, M3 had so many betterings/improvings all over it's long life from 1954 to 1966/68.

I think that M3 of 1954 has -the best 'refinements'- with less features (glass back door with ball lock but lack of field selection for example).

In my use, those older M3 are so smooth comparing to newer M, maybe they had more shutter counts or ( 'better built' from start) whatever, I'm not sure.

 

Net result is they are very old and less repairable (I still have one M3 and one M4 not economically repairable, they served me well though) than say MP/M-A (at high cost)

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, logan2z said:

My 2017 M-A feels the equal of my CLA'd M4. If anything, the M-A feels a bit smoother in operation.  I don't have an M3 to compare it to at the moment, but I'm hoping to rectify that shortly 🙂

The M3 has achieved 'Cult Status' and, although a great camera, it is not quite up to the standard of the MP or M-A. I have an M3 which is now around 65 years old and beyond economic repair in spite of looking barely used. I rather like to use old Leicas and my favourite is my IIId but the M3 doesn't even match up to that. (Waits for howls of protest from true blue M3 fans). Having said all that, it should be recognised that we are all different so will have very different likes and dislikes.

Edited by Matlock
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matlock said:

The M3 has achieved 'Cult Status' and, although a great camera, it is not quite up to the standard of the MP or M-A. I have an M3 which is now around 65 years old and beyond economic repair in spite of looking barely used. I rather like to use old Leicas and my favourite is my IIId but the M3 doesn't even match up to that. (Waits for howls of protest from true blue M3 fans). Having said all that, it should be recognised that we are all different so will have very different likes and dislikes.

Just out of curiosity, where do you think the M3 falls short in comparison with the M-A/MP?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me M3 which served me well for decades can as always do what M-A can do.

Nothing more, nothing less, only when I use them that differ in some holding/functions/features (when I'm picky).

Just only some decades older (for me now not repairable anymore if broken M3), gained some smoothness over time.

My old M3 with the old style strap eyelets is less comfortable to hold.

The VF/RF has lost it's contrast when comparing to M-A, and the "round" 50 thick M3's framelines very nice for so long can become a bit "too much visible" now.

MP/M-A's accepting winder/Motor-M/Leicavit-M can be a plus, if I fancy to use these aids.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, logan2z said:

Just out of curiosity, where do you think the M3 falls short in comparison with the M-A/MP?

Poorer viewfinder for a start (I know people extol the virtues of the M3 finder but that is a personal view). Restricted range of coupled lenses, unless you use an external viewfinder. Mainly the modern Leicas, not just the MP and M-A, are much smoother to operate. However the main thing that most people seem to ignore is that, given the same lens, both an M3 and an MP/M-A will give identical results. If you get the chance of a really good M3 go for it but in my view the M2 would be a better bet if you really hanker after a vintage Leica M. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one qualification on M3s, the DS models have shutter components that are part of the body. My 1957 shutter is becoming terminal acording to YYE. Only repair would be to find a non functional SS M3 body and combining the two. These don't exist anymore, everything gets repaired with current prices. So I have been told to use 1/500 and 1/1000 sparingly and be careful with operation. 😕

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

Just one qualification on M3s, the DS models have shutter components that are part of the body. My 1957 shutter is becoming terminal acording to YYE. Only repair would be to find a non functional SS M3 body and combining the two. These don't exist anymore, everything gets repaired with current prices. So I have been told to use 1/500 and 1/1000 sparingly and be careful with operation. 😕

My DS has become terminal so I now have an almost mint display camera. I always liked my M2 more anyway 🙂

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...