Rangefinderforum.com

Rangefinderforum.com (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/index.php)
-   Leica M Film Cameras (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   4 Reasons Why the Leica M2 is Better Than the M3 (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168634)

bushwick1234 05-31-2019 06:38

4 Reasons Why the Leica M2 is Better Than the M3
 
I was reading this review and wonder if you can corroborate this statement: 4 Reasons Why the Leica M2 is Better Than the M3


https://www.casualphotophile.com/201...r-than-the-m3/

Erik van Straten 05-31-2019 06:57

With very fast 50mm lenses, like f/1.2, f/1.1, f1.0 or f/0.95, the M3 is better, because the viewfinder magnification of the M3 is 0.9x and that of the M2 0.7x. The M3 has more precise focusing. I don't read that in the above review.


Erik.

Richard G 05-31-2019 07:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik van Straten (Post 2890929)
With very fast 50mm lenses, like f/1.2, f/1.1, f1.0 or f/0,95, the M3 is better, because the viewfinder magnification of the M3 is 0.9x and that of the M2 0.7x. The M3 has more precise focusing. I don't read that in the above review.


Erik.

Dear Erik, the article does indeed cover this point too.


It’s all a bit of mischief, but I’ve long held that the M2 is superior. I once held an M3 and also looked through the VF. Rounded corners of the 50mm frame lines? I was shocked, and quickly put it down. And see my avatar. The ancient astrolabe inspired frame counter is wonderful, tactile, simple.

bushwick1234 05-31-2019 07:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik van Straten (Post 2890929)
With very fast 50mm lenses, like f/1.2, f/1.1, f1.0 or f/0,95, the M3 is better, because the viewfinder magnification of the M3 is 0.9x and that of the M2 0.7x. The M3 has more precise focusing. I don't read that in the above review.


Erik.

Yes, the review doesn't mention the magnification!

narsuitus 05-31-2019 07:09

I can only corroborate Reason #2 - Viewfinder woes. The only reason I considered the M2 and not the M3 was that I knew I preferred the 35mm lens to the 50mm lens and therefore knew that I would prefer the 35mm viewfinder frame line feature of the M2.

froyd 05-31-2019 07:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushwick1234 (Post 2890927)
I was reading this review and wonder if you can corroborate this statement: 4 Reasons Why the Leica M2 is Better Than the M3


https://www.casualphotophile.com/201...r-than-the-m3/

What? A little bored today? Way to stir up trouble! :P

davidnewtonguitars 05-31-2019 07:14

This has been going on far too long. One is not "better", they are beautiful tools for a specific user, and will be chosen for their particular features.

The M2 is for me because I prefer a 35mm lens. If I preferred the 50mm, the M3 would be the logical choice.

Mackinaw 05-31-2019 07:19

I'm a 50mm guy. I prefer the M3.

Jim B.

Ko.Fe. 05-31-2019 07:20

He lost me on "M3 is Ugly".

WJJ3 05-31-2019 07:32

c'mon, the argument is irrelevant because nobody who buys a Leica is going to have only one Lecia. It's only a matter of time before you have whatever Leica you bought in the beginning, and the other 3 you bought after it :p


Really though, the M3 simply cannot be beat for one reason (other than the reason Erik mentioned); 90mm lenses. That is the main role my M3 plays in my rangefinder setup, which is to shoot my 90mm lens.

Sarcophilus Harrisii 05-31-2019 07:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushwick1234 (Post 2890927)
I was reading this review and wonder if you can corroborate this statement: 4 Reasons Why the Leica M2 is Better Than the M3


https://www.casualphotophile.com/201...r-than-the-m3/

Pretty ridiculous, but I wanted to clarify that this tongue-in-cheek article is more of a silly conversation starter than a true examination into which Leica is best.

Miss that bit, did you? It's the context within which the quoted title was phrased.

Huss 05-31-2019 07:42

I'll put this right here:

"Leica M3 - the world's greatest 35mm camera"

https://kenrockwell.com/leica/m3.htm

"Every other LEICA since the M3 has been an inferior cost-reduction that merely plays on the M3's genius in an attempt to keep selling cameras.

If I dare compare the LEICA M3, the LEICA M2 (1957-1967), the "poor mans's LEICA," used a lower-magnification finder with a simpler, cheaper and inferior rangefinder system. It also lacked the automatically-resetting internal frame counter of the M3, and uses a primitive external wheel as a film counter, requiring manual resetting for every roll!"

bushwick1234 05-31-2019 08:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by froyd (Post 2890934)
What? A little bored today? Way to stir up trouble! :P

Well, Erik made an interesting and new point, for instance.

Ko.Fe. 05-31-2019 08:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by WJJ3 (Post 2890941)
c'mon, the argument is irrelevant because nobody who buys a Leica is going to have only one Lecia. It's only a matter of time before you have whatever Leica you bought in the beginning, and the other 3 you bought after it :p


Really though, the M3 simply cannot be beat for one reason (other than the reason Erik mentioned); 90mm lenses. That is the main role my M3 plays in my rangefinder setup, which is to shoot my 90mm lens.

I sold another two film M and will keep just one, because of the CLA cost.

Deardorff38 05-31-2019 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik van Straten (Post 2890929)
With very fast 50mm lenses, like f/1.2, f/1.1, f1.0 or f/0.95, the M3 is better, because the viewfinder magnification of the M3 is 0.9x and that of the M2 0.7x. The M3 has more precise focusing. I don't read that in the above review.


Erik.

I'll be very happy to fly across the Atlantic to take that button rewind black M2 off your hands ;)

ktmrider 05-31-2019 09:58

I like the M2 better primarily because of the 35 frame lines. Other then the viewfinder the differences between it and the M3 are very minor.

CharlesDAMorgan 05-31-2019 10:03

It's just the usual clickbait.

I have both.

giganova 05-31-2019 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huss (Post 2890944)
I'll put this right here:

"Leica M3 - the world's greatest 35mm camera"

https://kenrockwell.com/leica/m3.htm

If Ken Rockwell says so, it must be true. :rolleyes:

giganova 05-31-2019 10:27

I don't want to start a war, but ... :D

Wouldn't the M-A be one of the best film M ever built? I don't see much love on this forum for the M-A and I always wondered why. I don't have one, but as soon as Leica announces that they will stop producing it (which they certainly will very soon), I'll buy one. Hard to justify almost $5k for a film camera, I know.

aizan 05-31-2019 10:52

Will this topic ever get old? M3 vs. M2, M4 vs. M4-2/M4-P, M6 vs. MP. Iíve been reading this junk for almost 20 years, and I still click on it. Nobody has anything new to add.

presspass 05-31-2019 11:20

No, but it's all fun to read on an otherwise dull Friday afternoon. As such, it achieves its goal.

bushwick1234 05-31-2019 12:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. (Post 2890938)
He lost me on "M3 is Ugly".

You're right, kofe! They are all beautiful (1-7).

Michael Markey 05-31-2019 12:29

I have both …. differences are minimal although I prefer the auto frame counter on the M3.

Beemermark 05-31-2019 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik van Straten (Post 2890929)
With very fast 50mm lenses, like f/1.2, f/1.1, f1.0 or f/0.95, the M3 is better, because the viewfinder magnification of the M3 is 0.9x and that of the M2 0.7x. The M3 has more precise focusing. I don't read that in the above review.

Erik.


VF magnification doesn't impact focusing accuracy. Focusing accuracy is dictated by the distance between the beam splitters -which is the same for all M series.


VF magnification doesn't help you focusing. The RF patch is same size and aligning the split image is again independent of magnification.


But finally we all know the M4 was the best.

Erik van Straten 05-31-2019 12:42

I own both too, for many years. The disadvantage of the M3 is the large viewfinder image for the 50mm lens, but the large viewfinder image is also an advantage. The disadvantage is that the finder of the M3 is not easy to oversee for composition. Then the M2 is better. However, the M3 is better for focusing very bright lenses.
The M2 is also better for the use of 35mm lenses. All in all, the M2 is the more universal camera. That is why the production of the M3 was stopped in 1967, but the discussion about which camera is better will never end.

Erik.

Erik van Straten 05-31-2019 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beemermark (Post 2891003)
Focusing accuracy is dictated by the distance between the beam splitters


No, also the magnification of the image is important here, see the difference of the rangefinders on the Leicas II and III with screw mount.


Erik.

Mackinaw 05-31-2019 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik van Straten (Post 2891005)
..... The disadvantage of the M3 is the large viewfinder image for the 50mm lens........

I don't get this. To me, the large viewfinder image is an advantage.

Jim B.

Erik van Straten 05-31-2019 13:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mackinaw (Post 2891014)
I don't get this. To me, the large viewfinder image is an advantage.

Jim B.


The image is too big, you can not oversee the whole image at once. When you look at the right, you don't see the left and vice versa. Try it. To see the whole is important for the composition. The composition is everything in 35mm photography.


Erik.

davidde1000 05-31-2019 13:11

IMHO, using the M3 versus, say, any .72 Leica film body is not really a comparable experience. The M3 magnification helps one much better conceptualize and compose a 50mm shot, instead of trying to use that little rectangle in the middle of the .72 view. The M3 feels really more like using a, *gasp*, SLR with a 50mm lens.

Toreno 05-31-2019 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushwick1234 (Post 2890927)
I was reading this review and wonder if you can corroborate this statement: 4 Reasons Why the Leica M2 is Better Than the M3


https://www.casualphotophile.com/201...r-than-the-m3/

The older (M3) is better in James (Author) opinion.

Mackinaw 05-31-2019 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik van Straten (Post 2891015)
The image is too big, you can not oversee the whole image at once. When you look at the right, you don't see the left and vice versa. Try it. To see the whole is important for the composition. The composition is everything in 35mm photography.....

Maybe for you, but not for me. And I really don't understand "oveseeing the image." I don't know what this means.

Jim B.

Keith 05-31-2019 14:36

All these years at RFF and an M comparison can still stir passion!

I love it! lol :p

Erik van Straten 05-31-2019 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mackinaw (Post 2891025)
Maybe for you, but not for me. And I really don't understand "oveseeing the image." I don't know what this means.

Jim B.


Yes, this is all very subjective, I admit. But viewfinders on cameras ...


Erik.

Huss 05-31-2019 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by giganova (Post 2890976)
I don't want to start a war, but ... :D

Wouldn't the M-A be one of the best film M ever built? I don't see much love on this forum for the M-A and I always wondered why. I don't have one, but as soon as Leica announces that they will stop producing it (which they certainly will very soon), I'll buy one. Hard to justify almost $5k for a film camera, I know.

As the owner of an M-A, as well as M3, M4, M7 etc etc I can definitely say that the best camera Leica ever made is the:


M5

I didn't bother with the M2, but I understand it as it is the antithesis of why eat hamburger when you can have steak?

bayernfan 05-31-2019 15:14

If you shoot 90 more than occasionally, get the M3. You can get by with an external VF or a goggled lens for 35mm and wider. The M3 is the better of the two in this scenario.

If you shoot 35 more than occasionally and never venture into telephoto, get the M2.

To state definitively that one is better than the other is just asinine.

Toreno 05-31-2019 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huss (Post 2891041)
As the owner of an M-A, as well as M3, M4, M7 etc etc I can definitely say that the best camera Leica ever made is the:


M5

I didn't bother with the M2, but I understand it as it is the antithesis of why eat hamburger when you can have steak?

We should collect them all.

Ko.Fe. 05-31-2019 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huss (Post 2891041)
As the owner of an M-A, as well as M3, M4, M7 etc etc I can definitely say that the best camera Leica ever made is the:


M5

I didn't bother with the M2, but I understand it as it is the antithesis of why eat hamburger when you can have steak?

It looks huge on images, how it is in real handling? Like walking with it every day on one week trip. I'm using neck strap or keep it in the backpack while I"m working.

Deardorff38 05-31-2019 15:40

"We should collect them all" (Huss) On the contrary: We should use them all.

K.F. I found them big & awkward in the hands, totally unlike any other Leica i had used....some people like that. It didn't work for me. Kind of like an F4 Nikon after years of using an F with plain prism.

Huss 05-31-2019 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toreno (Post 2891049)
We should collect them all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deardorff38 (Post 2891052)
"We should collect them all" (Huss) On the contrary: We should use them all.

Hey Toreno said that!

CameraQuest 05-31-2019 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushwick1234 (Post 2890927)
I was reading this review and wonder if you can corroborate this statement: 4 Reasons Why the Leica M2 is Better Than the M3


https://www.casualphotophile.com/201...r-than-the-m3/

click bait

The real purpose is increasing web traffic - which of course it is.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:00.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.