M3 vs iiig

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You use buy the M3 first, as that is the more sane thing to do.  The IIIg makes you look more cool but the M3's VF is the next generation and infinitely more usable to focus.  Having said this, if you use a 28mm then the IIIg with an external VF is the way to go.  You can zone focus and you will be so cool looking

[250swb]

On 4/9/2019 at 7:09 PM, stvn66 said:

If you were given the choice between a Leica iiig and a Leica M3 which would you choose and why?

 

If it's your first Leica then neither, get a better one such as an M2 or M6. The IIIG is the last gasp of the old era, where even the oldest have charm and difficulties weren't difficulties in it's day because there was no choice. The M3 is the first of the new era, and as such it is cooed about as being beautiful and smooth, but a camera is for taking snaps, and the M3 has many operational and practical limitations especially today when rangefinder parts are so difficult to source. 

Don't get me wrong, they are both fine cameras (in their way), but if you want to take photographs and not indulge in an unnecessary retro performance around what lenses you can or can't use, how fiddly film loading can be, how often it is going to fail, then they are best left as the third or fourth Leica you buy. 

[Advertisement]

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

[M9reno]

My grandfather had the same choice in 1957 and he bought a IIIg, which I now have.  A more reliable camera cannot be conceived.

The whole Leica thing is unnecessary retro, by nature.  If you’re trying to decide between two pans, you already know you don’t want a microwave.

[250swb]

4 hours ago, M9reno said:

 

The whole Leica thing is unnecessary retro, by nature.  If you’re trying to decide between two pans, you already know you don’t want a microwave.

If it's their first Leica then the difference is less to do with pots and pans but more akin to ordering a takeaway from a restaurant you've never gone to before. I'm only suggesting not going for the Vindaloo at the first attempt if it's going to be used regularly.

Edited December 27, 2019 by 250swb

[Mr.Prime]

I received the M3 today. The finder is such a vast improvement over the iii (that I unboxed at Christmas) - one can not overstate the apparent improvement!

Unfortunately, despite the excellent overall condition of the camera, the shutter curtains of my m3 were poorly, the 2nd curtain containing an obvious pin-hole, so I’ve wrapped it back up for returning - all within an hour of opening it.

Not to be too disheartened at my first attempt to obtain an ‘m’ I have ordered another M3 off ePay which looks very promising. 

And I’ve separately ordered an Elmar-M 50mmto suit. If it turns out OK this will give me a iii + Elmar 3.5 and an m3 + Elmar 2.8 to explore.

I picked up a roll of HP5 today and will attempt to load the iii sometime this weekend.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Mr.Prime

[Mr.Prime]

I am half way through my first roll of hp5+ in the Barnack and have started to get a bit more used to it. Yesterday I took some photos inside a factory and even with the poor eye relief I was able to focus (to be confirmed after development) and compose much better than the first few shots. 

 

My (2nd attempt) M3 arrived. My first ever M. It looks great, everything seems to operate properly, no obvious holes in the shutter this time. It’s obviously a little larger and heavier than the iii(F) and so I am starting to see first hand the attractiveness of the Barnack. The finder in the M3 seems almost ostentatious after the Barnack.

The collapsible Elmar-m 50/2.8 arrived today. WOW IT IS GORGEOUS, it’s relatively new, looks pristine, ooozes quality, felt lined cap + lens hood and leather case. Oh boy, I want more lenses 🙂

 

Will get a roll of hp5+ into it today so the comparison between these cameras can get underway.

[Mr.Prime]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I now have a roll of film from each camera, developed. They look good, no issues that I can see. So far the M3 is ahead simply because of useability of the rangefinder when wearing glasses.

 

I bought an Epson 600 scanner. It’s fiddly and the Silverfast software is unreliable on my iMac (crashes/quits/errors). I HATE crappy software. I really have no patience for it. I will try tomorrow, if no-good it’s all getting shipped back. Thank goodness I used Amazon.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Mr.Prime

[tommonego@gmail.com]

Try the Epson software, the Professional section is easy to use and you get good scans. Don't bother with any other levels of the Epson software. I tried the Silverfast SE that came with my V700 and had the same reaction.

[gbealnz]

I agree, try the Epson software first.

Vuescan is another excellent choice.

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by gbealnz
Spelling

[Mr.Prime]

finally, I managed to get somebody to scan (old scanner) my first roll of HP5+ that went through my new Leica F (iii). A self-portrait in the mirror of a chinese restaurant in poor light - the scan has not been processed except to lighten it and reduce the file size into a jpg. It looks really rough and strangely, I like it that way.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited February 19, 2020 by Mr.Prime

[Mr.Prime]

Here is a shot from the M3, same film type and processing, downsized into a jpg for the forum. This image has more pop than the other. I'm seeing the difference between a 1935 Elmar 50/3.5 and the more recent 1990's Elmar 50/2.8.

 

I'm also realizing that I crave a quicker turn-around for images than film will give me, even if I start doing my own processing etc. I love the look of the film so I will keep using it. I have bought a brick of HP5+ to get started. But I think I'm going to have to add an M10 to my collection fairly soon.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Mr.Prime]

The jury is in.

 

I have since added a Skopar 25/4 and associated viewfinder to my Leica iii F, and put some HP5+ through it. This lens has produced some results that are better than I have seen so far from the Elmar 50/3.5. Today the weather was great so I’ve loaded up a roll of FP4. The lens has no focus connection to the rangefinder so you set focus using the distance scale. As a wide angle lens focus is fairly forgiving, especially when not used up close or when stopped down. The external viewfinder isn’t that accurate for precise framing but it works just fine. In this way I’m not using either of the cameras native peep holes, neither the range finder nor framing viewfinder. This is a better combination because it makes the camera easier to use, however the external finder fouls the shutter dial so it will need to be modified with a small file if it is going to have long term use. I’m not convinced it will just yet.

 

The M3 remains a joy to use. It has created more keepers than the iiif so far. The viewfinder is simply a joy to use, the only limitation is not being able to use a wide angle. You notice that the M3 is heavier but not an issue with the Elmar 50/2.8 lens.

The jury says the M3 wins. The viewfinder of the iiif is just too painful.

I’ve since added a CL to the mix, the results are amazing with the Nokton 35/1.4 but can’t be directly compared with film.

 

p.s. I got myself a Plustek so now I can get decent images off of my negatives, but sorry, no images, this forum is too painful to post to on a regular basis.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Mr.Prime

[stvn66]

I have enjoyed your posts Mr Prime but the comparison was the M3 vs iiig, not the iiif.

The iiig has a timer and frame lines for 50mm and 90mm lenses. I do realise that some iiif models have a timer but not all of them.

However I do thank you for posts, I have a iiif with an external viewfinder but I do enjoy using the iiig more.

Stay safe.

Steve

[Mr.Prime]

Hey Steve, sorry for the dyslexia on my part !

I hope you’re enjoying the iiig. My iiif was my first ever Leica and most likely I’ll keep it for that reason alone. I had an affair with a Rolleiflex TLR and regret selling it on (I’m tempted to buy one back, put a roll of film through it to make it mine and then hold on to it this time but my new scanner won’t cover the large negs).

[a.noctilux]

11 hours ago, stvn66 said:

I have enjoyed your posts Mr Prime but the comparison was the M3 vs iiig, not the iiif.

The iiig has a timer and frame lines for 50mm and 90mm lenses. I do realise that some iiif models have a timer but not all of them.

However I do thank you for posts, I have a iiif with an external viewfinder but I do enjoy using the iiig more.

Stay safe.

Steve

Hello Steve,

I think that you are mixing IIIf ( here in Wiki ... ) with III (Model F) this model in Wiki ( in chrome ) which uses Mr Prime seen in post #30, his self portrait.

To figure it out, I've seen the separate top from the body's top plate of III (Model F) and in IIIf later camera's one piece top+top plate.

 

Arnaud

[nefarious]

On 4/6/2020 at 1:32 AM, Mr.Prime said:

The jury is in.

 

I have since added a Skopar 25/4 and associated viewfinder to my Leica iii F, and put some HP5+ through it. This lens has produced some results that are better than I have seen so far from the Elmar 50/3.5. Today the weather was great so I’ve loaded up a roll of FP4. The lens has no focus connection to the rangefinder so you set focus using the distance scale. As a wide angle lens focus is fairly forgiving, especially when not used up close or when stopped down. The external viewfinder isn’t that accurate for precise framing but it works just fine. In this way I’m not using either of the cameras native peep holes, neither the range finder nor framing viewfinder. This is a better combination because it makes the camera easier to use, however the external finder fouls the shutter dial so it will need to be modified with a small file if it is going to have long term use. I’m not convinced it will just yet.

 

The M3 remains a joy to use. It has created more keepers than the iiif so far. The viewfinder is simply a joy to use, the only limitation is not being able to use a wide angle. You notice that the M3 is heavier but not an issue with the Elmar 50/2.8 lens.

The jury says the M3 wins. The viewfinder of the iiif is just too painful.

I’ve since added a CL to the mix, the results are amazing with the Nokton 35/1.4 but can’t be directly compared with film.

 

p.s. I got myself a Plustek so now I can get decent images off of my negatives, but sorry, no images, this forum is too painful to post to on a regular basis.

just post to Flickr and paste the link here - it's very straightforward!

[giannis]

The IIIg is in a weird place.

For usability, the M is a big step-up. Even many of the competitors were a big stepup in usability and ergonomics over the IIIg. For instance, the Contax IIa (and the earlier II) had a combined viewfinder/rangefinder, a unified shutter speed dial, and a bayonet mount. So did the Voigtlander Prominent. Even the build quality was superior, using thick chrome plating and real leather covering, for instance on the Contax. When the M came out, it improved further upon the competition, by offering a bigger, brighter combined vf/rf, on top of incorporating what the competition was offering (unified shutter speed dial, bayonet mount, etc.). But just because the M3 was superior to the competition, doesn't mean the brand's earlier cameras were that great (relative to the competition always). It was the M3 that made Leica stand out, before that Leica wasn't the top dog, either in usability, or price-wise, or lens-wise.

I'm saying all this to emphasise how massive of a change it was the transition from screwmount to M mount bodies. With all the usability and ergonomics improvements (as well as build quality improvements), the only thing the screwmount bodies have for them, is small size. If you're shooting wides/ultrawides, you're using a bright external finder anyway, so you sidestep those bodies' Achilles' heel. Pair a IIIf with a recessed superwide like the 21mm f/4.5 Biogon, and you have a very small and capable system. 

And this brings me to the weird place of the IIIg. It's noticeably larger than the IIIf, while still far less ergonomic (and smaller/dimmer viewfinder) than the M3. It was kind of a stop gap, at the time, but it's questionable if it makes any sense now. Either go M3, or IIIf. Unless you come across a *great* deal on the IIIg of course.

[a.noctilux]

Giannis, you are right on the IIIg/M3.

I have some opinions as old user of LTM (discovered after decades of M use) and M Leica .

The IIIg which was launched a couple of years ( 1957) after M3 (1954) was at launch already a "non-sence" when we take only into account "usability/features/logic/etc.".

But when in use the IIIg is something else in "smoothness" , "gentleness", "quietness", etc. and this old-timer feeling not present when I use M, even not the smoothest of them.

People not yet using a IIIg (including me of course before) can not imagine it's use in real world.

 

For size wise, I've compared some years ago to understand, I think that the lens in use IS the answer (if only there is one answer ! )...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

M4 IIIg Standard+50mm

[giannis]

8 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

The IIIg which was launched a couple of years ( 1957) after M3 (1954) was at launch already a "non-sence" when we take only into account "usability/features/logic/etc.".

Yeah but it served a purpose: the M3 with a summicron was exactly double the list price of the IIIg with an elmar. The IIIg was introduced as the budget option, both for the body, and for the people who has lots of screwmount lenses and didn't want to rebuy them in m-mount versions.

But I agree with you, old cameras can be fun to use and pleasing, even if not very ergonomic. For instance, one of the smoothest and best built cameras I have ever experienced, is the Contax IIa which I use very regularly, despite being unergonomic compared to more modern cameras.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[TomB_tx]

Leica historians note that Leitz wasn't sure how the M3 (and later) would be accepted by the thousands of users that loved the ltm cameras. The IIIg, coming out at the same time as the M2, was a way to hedge bets: still the charm of the III series, but much improved VF and other features. There were even M-mount prototypes, but Leitz didn't want to dilute sales of the more expensive M models (like the later CL did to the M5).

I have both ltm Leicas and Contax II and IIa, and have used and disassembled all. My take on the Contax is that it is over-engineered, with needless complexity, and "features" designed more for marketing specs than usability. People note the elegance of the coaxial shutter release and speed dial - but thin disk dial is harder to grip, raise and turn than Leica's simple knob design. (I actually like Canon's IVSB2 speed dial, that can be set either before or after winding the shutter. Early Pentax used that design also.) When Nikon copied Contax they put in the simpler Leica-modeled shutter, not just for cost but because it was simpler and better proven over decades of use. Design complexity brings more potential failure areas. Compare sales figures of the cameras to see how the market evaluated them. 

The Contax is a solid and secure feeling camera, but I prefer the relative simplicity of the III series design.