Leica M3 vs M6

[Bobby]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know this is not about lenses, but it is in a way. 

 

I wear glasses, and it seems the Leica M6 is better for people like us than the M3 (my favorite just by reading reviews and doing research on it). 

 

I've also found out on the Internet that 0.85 magnification is better than 0.92.  

 

I'd like to have some advice about this issue. 

 

 

Thank you, 

 

[earleygallery]

It depends on what lenses you prefer to use. M3 only has frames for 50/90/135.

 

You can’t decide much from what you read on the net, you need to try them for yourself.

[Advertisement]

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

[Bobby]

I definitely prefer 50mm. However, it seems like it's better an M6 with 0.85 magnification for people wearing glasses than the original and great M3. 

[a.noctilux]

The M3 was created for use mainly 50mm and it's viewfinder has less flare in focus patch than M6 0.85.

Correction lens (+ or - diopter ? depend on your viewing eye correction) may be used for comfort viewing in both M3/M6.

[TomB_tx]

I’ve worn glasses full time since I was 12. When I bought my first Leica in 1968 both the M3 and M4 were available new, and I quickly found the .72 finder of the M4 was better for me. A 50 Summicron was my main lens for the film decades, though I began to use a 35 more through the years, and 35 is still quite usable with glasses and a .72 finder. On digital (M9 &10) I use a 35 most of the time.

A great advantage of the M finder is being able to see the area outside the frame lines in the finder to better compose. Thus I would still prefer a .72 to a .85.

[Bobby]

I've found M6 with .85 magnification . Wouldn't it be better?

[gyoung]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bought the M3 originally as it gave me viewfinders for 35,50,90 and 135. This covered most of what I did. At the time the option was the M2, and the recently introduced M4. With my glasses on it was impossible for me to see the 35mm frame on the .72 finder in these cameras, and the 90mm frame a bit small to be pleasant to use, the 135 in these finders pretty well useless.

The 35mm viewfinder in the M3 requires the 'goggled' lenses, the extra glass in use gives a dimmer and lower contrast viewfinder than the others, but I preferred it.

Later I bought an M6ttl, which had the newer version of the .72 finder. The 35mm frame was made smaller so a 28mm frame could be added. I couldn't see the 28 frame but thas no great loss to me as I don't like that field of view, but I could now see the 35mm frame. Unfortunately the reduced size means its less accurate (actually about right for 40mm) but at least I could use it, although the compromise remained a minor irritant. 90mm remains a bit small, and 135 a mere token. I mitigated that problem by buying a 135 2.8 Elmarit with goggles to magnify the viewfinder. It also has a 75mm frame cluttering up the 50mm view, another minor annoyance as I didn't use a 75mm lens on it usually.

A lot of my own opinions here of coursse, but that's how I decided which camera to use. I like the 35 and 50 fields of view most, and the M3 gives me the same size frame for both of these. The viewfinder and rangefinder are very nice to use.

 

Gerry

[earleygallery]

I bought the M3 originally as it gave me viewfinders for 35,50,90 and 135. This covered most of what I did. At the time the option was the M2, and the recently introduced M4. With my glasses on it was impossible for me to see the 35mm frame on the .72 finder in these cameras, and the 90mm frame a bit small to be pleasant to use, the 135 in these finders pretty well useless.

The 35mm viewfinder in the M3 requires the 'goggled' lenses, the extra glass in use gives a dimmer and lower contrast viewfinder than the others, but I preferred it.

Later I bought an M6ttl, which had the newer version of the .72 finder. The 35mm frame was made smaller so a 28mm frame could be added. I couldn't see the 28 frame but thas no great loss to me as I don't like that field of view, but I could now see the 35mm frame. Unfortunately the reduced size means its less accurate (actually about right for 40mm) but at least I could use it, although the compromise remained a minor irritant. 90mm remains a bit small, and 135 a mere token. I mitigated that problem by buying a 135 2.8 Elmarit with goggles to magnify the viewfinder. It also has a 75mm frame cluttering up the 50mm view, another minor annoyance as I didn't use a 75mm lens on it usually.

A lot of my own opinions here o

f coursse, but that's how I decided which camera to use. I like the 35 and 50 fields of view most, and the M3 gives me the same size frame for both of these. The viewfinder and rangefinder are very nice to use.

 

Gerry

 

There is no 35mm frame in an M3.

 

You need a 'goggled' 35mm lens as you say and the purpose of the goggles is to optically distort the viewfinder so that the 50mm frames are stretched to cover a 35mm field of view.

 

It's a reasonable solution but it does result in a dimmer viewfinder and a heavier camera.

[UliWer]

For using 50mm lenses or longer and wearing glasses the main difference between a M3 and a M6 is the metal eyepiece of the M3-viewfinder. It will scratch your glasses, the eyepiece of the M 6 which is plastic will do no harm.

 

If one finds a way to cover the metal rims of the eyepiece (I havn‘t yet), I hold the M3 finder to be preferable. There are no frames for 75mm, the round corners of the view for 50mm are more beautiful.

[earleygallery]

 

If one finds a way to cover the metal rims of the eyepiece (I havn‘t yet), I hold the M3 finder to be preferable. There are no frames for 75mm, the round corners of the view for 50mm are more beautiful.

 

There are a number of threads about the eyepiece 'solution' for glasses wearers. Basically it involves cutting a thin piece of rubber, or felt, and glueing it to the metal rim. Problem solved!

 

I really didn't like the rounded corners of the viewfinder frames in the M3, I found them very off putting (same in the Leicaflexes). I don't cut rounded corners in any prints I make, or edit images to have rounded corners in PS, so why do I need to vew the world that way in the camera?

[105012]

The M3 has the best viewfinder of all, for eye glass wearers worried about scratches you can make a DIY protector or try these:

 

http://aki-asahi.com/store/html/patch/M2M3/eyepiece/

 

https://www.dagcamera.com/store/p108/Original_Leica_Rubber_Eyecup.html

 

I don’t wear eye glasses so don’t have first hand experience with these...

[pico]

There are a number of threads about the eyepiece 'solution' for glasses wearers. Basically it involves cutting a thin piece of rubber, or felt, and glueing it to the metal rim. Problem solved!

 

Correct. I have made my own, however DAG's eyepiece cups were great - when available.

Edited July 21, 2018 by pico

[spydrxx]

Having owned both and wearing eyeglasses, I wouldn't say one is "better" than the other as a general statement. As others said, it really depends on what you feel comfortable with, and the lenses you plan to use on it. I, personally, didn't like the M6 viewfinder, too cluttered, even though it seemed better for my 135 lenses. My first Leica was an M4 and I loved the viewfinder, especially as I used the 35mm lenses most often. As far as the rim of the M3 scratching glasses,  you canget a little plastic snap-on ring to cover the metal and all is copacetic. I stringly urge you to try both before you buy.

[Bobby]

Thanks a lot for your help!!! 

 

I ended up buying an M3, I couldn't resist. But I might buy an M2 in the future

[lct]

I own both M3 and M6J with 0.85x VF. The 50mm frame is larger in the M3's VF and the latter allows to shoot both eyes open more comfortably but it has no 35mm framelines, only 50/90/135. The 35mm framelines of the M6J can be difficult to see when wearing glasses though. 50mm being my favorite focal length, i've always considered 0.85x a compromise and definitely prefer the M3 from this viewpoint. Aiming and focusing with goggles is somewhat painful tough so i would take the M6 if you intend to use 35mm lenses as well provided you can see its 35mm framelines with your glasses.

[rpittal]

Correct. I have made my own, however DAG's eyepiece cups were great - when available.

 

on my M3, I use a toothpick and "paint" a ring of black liquid electrical tape on the ring (several layers to build it up). It comes off when desired (or when getting a CLA!) but otherwise I (and my plastic eyeglass lenses) have been happy with the solution

[250swb]

I wouldn't dream of recommending an M3 as a first M film camera simply based on the viewfinder.

 

There are far more advantages to an M6 and they far outweigh some head in the clouds romantic attachment to 'Leica's best viewfinder'. I wear glasses and the .72 or .92 are both good for 50mm lenses, but the frustration starts with the .92 with what is one of the key advantages of a Leica rangefinder, and that is being able to see the outside of the framed area, to see what is coming into frame, to see if you move six inches to the left you could maybe get an even better shot. The .92 takes the eye too far away from the window to properly see this when you wear glasses. So you end up with one minor advantage, the larger and a marginally easier to focus view, wiping out an even bigger advantage that is the very thing that made an M camera ubiquitous for catching the 'decisive moment'. 

 

There are even more advantages to an M6, the built in meter, the easier ability to use a larger variety of lenses (and I can see the 28mm frame with my glasses pressed against the window), ease of film loading, parts supply, etc. But then I suppose the choice between an M3 and an M6 can be more than wanting to make photographs, the M6 isn't nearly as cool as the M3 if you just want to talk about cameras..........

Edited July 22, 2018 by 250swb

[gyoung]

I bought the M6ttl for its conveniences, lightmeter and smaller,lighter form. None of them are 'perfect' but it's easy enough to cope with the various 'problems' just for the joy of using the direct optical viewfinder, a beautiful mechanical device, and access to the lenses which are so much better (for the most part) than their contemporaries.

I have never had problems with scratches on my glasses from the eyecup on the M3, glasses always needed replacing for other reasons before the minor marks became a problem, and any addition to the eyepiece moves the eye further away and exacerbates the viewing problem for the largest frame.

 

 

Gerry

[Ko.Fe.]

Then I wear glasses I'm finding 0.85 50mm framelines just right and 35mm too wide. I never compared it to M3, but M3 was giving very accurate framing. 

As for both eyes open, my M3 was not 1:1, but SBOOI is. I sold M3 after realising how great SBOOI is for both eyes open and 50mm lens.

I keep it on M4-2 with 50mm lens sometimes for street photography.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bocaburger]

I wear glasses, I've had all the standard, rangefinder M models at one time or another up through the M7 and MP.  The only film M's I kept were a pair of M4's.  The finders are, IMHO, better even than the later M7/MP with their redesigned flare-freedom.  I loved my M3 but lack of framelines wider than 50 relegated it to occasional use.