macandal
Newbie
PatrickCheung
Well-known
Differences between a III and an M2...
The M2 has a combined Rangefinder viewfinder, while the III has a rangefinder window and a viewfinder window... the rangefinder window offers a magnified view and a rangefinder focusing patch, the viewfinder window offers a 50mm field of view for framing. You focus with one window, compose with the other. Though, after maybe 4-5 rolls through it, you can kinda guess what's going to be in your frame and mentally compose through the rangefinder window... not too accurate, but gets the job done when you need a quick photo.
The viewfinder on the M2 is also much bigger... easier to use.
The M2 is a bottom loader like the III, but it's back swings open to help you see what's going on when loading the film in.
The M2 has a crank advance... much more efficient than spinning the knob on the III.
The M2 has an easier to use shutter speed dial... don't need to pull the dial up then turn it. And it has a higher shutter speed of 1/1000.
III uses screw mount lenses... the M2 uses M mount lenses. Screwmount (LTM or Leica Thread Mount) lenses can be adapted to M mount lenses using adaptors that don't cost anymore than $50... or $10 if you use the chinese knockoffs like me!
My girlfriend just got an M2, it's a wonderful camera to use... it's also her first M. She got hers for about $550
I'm not a LTM Leica kinda guy... so I prefer the Ms to the III/II... but that said, I just ordered a Zorki 1 (Leica II knock off) to play around with. you can't go wrong with a $60 camera!
I bought mine from Artemstore on ebay... it's my first purchase from that seller... it should be arriving next week, I'll let you know how it is?
The M2 has a combined Rangefinder viewfinder, while the III has a rangefinder window and a viewfinder window... the rangefinder window offers a magnified view and a rangefinder focusing patch, the viewfinder window offers a 50mm field of view for framing. You focus with one window, compose with the other. Though, after maybe 4-5 rolls through it, you can kinda guess what's going to be in your frame and mentally compose through the rangefinder window... not too accurate, but gets the job done when you need a quick photo.
The viewfinder on the M2 is also much bigger... easier to use.
The M2 is a bottom loader like the III, but it's back swings open to help you see what's going on when loading the film in.
The M2 has a crank advance... much more efficient than spinning the knob on the III.
The M2 has an easier to use shutter speed dial... don't need to pull the dial up then turn it. And it has a higher shutter speed of 1/1000.
III uses screw mount lenses... the M2 uses M mount lenses. Screwmount (LTM or Leica Thread Mount) lenses can be adapted to M mount lenses using adaptors that don't cost anymore than $50... or $10 if you use the chinese knockoffs like me!
My girlfriend just got an M2, it's a wonderful camera to use... it's also her first M. She got hers for about $550
I'm not a LTM Leica kinda guy... so I prefer the Ms to the III/II... but that said, I just ordered a Zorki 1 (Leica II knock off) to play around with. you can't go wrong with a $60 camera!
I bought mine from Artemstore on ebay... it's my first purchase from that seller... it should be arriving next week, I'll let you know how it is?
btgc
Mentor
Kiev 4 - I still remember comrad Ruben with his attitude to those cameras. Do anyone remember his estimation of labour hours to get one working properly? In my memory he mentioned something not less than 50 hrs (or am I too optimistic ?); that means, how many quality hours per day you can dedicate for this project? His quote is based this isn't first camera you take apart.
macandal
Newbie
I just started looking at M2s. Where did she get hers? It would be nice to get a package deal. A camera and a few lenses. Say, three lenses. Normal, wide, long (whatever "long" means in RF world).My girlfriend just got an M2, it's a wonderful camera to use... it's also her first M. She got hers for about $550
Thanks.
PatrickCheung
Well-known
She got hers here on the RFF classifieds! If you want glass... the vintage Leica lenses are wonderful... and I personally prefer them to anything Leica has to offer nowadays... Modern Leica glass to me is just too expensive and lack character. My lenses right now include a 35mm f3.5 Summaron (LTM, didn't do a date check... but probaly around 50-60 years old), an early 50/2.8 elmar... a Zeiss 28/2.8 Biogon (modern glass, but I love it. Has that Zeiss pop), and a Canon 35mm f2 (LTM, 40-50 years if I'm correct?) I love them all... Except the Zeiss, they were all around $300-400.
It might help to know what you normally use to take photos...
I used to use a DSLR and I never used wides on my DSLR... only 50mm and above (my main lens was a 100mm...), but after switching to a rangefinder, I never use anything over 50mm... almost all wides. I suppose the RF calls for a different type of shooting, so maybe that Tele isn't really that necessary?
It might help to know what you normally use to take photos...
I used to use a DSLR and I never used wides on my DSLR... only 50mm and above (my main lens was a 100mm...), but after switching to a rangefinder, I never use anything over 50mm... almost all wides. I suppose the RF calls for a different type of shooting, so maybe that Tele isn't really that necessary?
macandal
Newbie
True. So maybe a normal and a wide to start.
TXForester
Well-known
Former Soviet Union (FSU) such as Zorki or FED, Olympus 35RC, Yashica Electro 35 all can be had for less than $100. The FSU cameras have interchangeable lenses. I own all of these and like them.
PatrickCheung
Well-known
I guess the other question is... how you like your images to look. I only like vintage glass 'cause of the older rendering of the lenses... high resolution, low contrast. If that's the case then maybe a Collapsible Summicron (50mm f2) or 50 Elmar (50/2.8 or 50/3.5) would be a good choice for a normal. for wides... my favourite would be the Canon 35mm f2, but mine started to show coating deterioration... I emailed Youxin Ye about this, and he said he saw quite a few Canon LTM lenses with the same issue in the past year, he thinks time's up for the coating on these Canon lenses... but I've seen many recently with perfect glass and no coating wear. I'm also enjoying my new Leica Summaron 35/3.5 a lot. All these lenses can be had for less than $500 if you find the right deal.
If you like modern image rendering... maybe the Cosina Voigtlander lenses are the way to go? I've used the 40mm f1.4 nokton before and love it... my girlfriend currently owns one and she likes it lots. It's a good all purpose lens. It serves as both a normal and a wide. My first rangefinder lens was a 35mm f2.5 Color Skopar, and that was just a joy to use, sharp, contrasty, compact... everything you could want in an M-mount lens!
I hope this helps
If you like modern image rendering... maybe the Cosina Voigtlander lenses are the way to go? I've used the 40mm f1.4 nokton before and love it... my girlfriend currently owns one and she likes it lots. It's a good all purpose lens. It serves as both a normal and a wide. My first rangefinder lens was a 35mm f2.5 Color Skopar, and that was just a joy to use, sharp, contrasty, compact... everything you could want in an M-mount lens!
I hope this helps
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
You seem to be exhibiting the first symptoms of Leica fever. Your best course of action now is to buy one and see for yourself. You might be pleasantly surprised - or dreadfully disappointed, depending on your expectations. In the latter case, you can easily get your money back by selling the Leica to the next victim of this terrible disease.
A good, working but not perfect (signs of exterior wear, etc) M2 could be had for around $600, I think. Get one that has been used (but not abused) and looks like it. Cameras that have been sitting on a shelf for 20 years may look like new - but most likely the lubricants have gone sticky and the camera will need service before you can put it to use. A little scratch here or there on the camera body won't foul your photographs but will shave off $100-200 from the sale price.
As for lenses - first get a LTM to M adapter and a Jupiter-8. Even if you get a better 50mm lens afterwards, you might want to use the J-8 in some cases: the Sonnar look is quite unique - you just can't get that with modern lenses (Zeiss C-Sonnar being the obvious exception
). Get a quality adapter from Leica or Voigtländer and make sure you get one that's intended to bring up the 50mm frame line. Using long lenses on a rangefinder is not the smoothest experience around. 135mm is outright impractical in most cases. But a compact, pocketable 90 is still good to have. These are also some of the cheapest rangefinder lenses around. 9cm f/4 Elmar for vintage look or 90mm f/4 Elmar-C / Minolta Rokkor for modern would be good starting points. $150 - $300 depending on make and condition.
35mm is probably the most popular focal length on rangefinders. You should at least try one of those. They are generally more expensive than 50mm lenses of similar speed. From Leica-land, the only option that is anywhere near cheap and of adequate quality is the 3.5cm f/3.5 Summaron in LTM. The M variants are optically the same and have better ergonomics - at some extra cost. I have an f/3.5 Summaron and while it is really nice when stopped down to f/5.6 and beyond, the performance at larger apertures is not up to modern standards. Still a good daytime lens, though. See this thread for what can be done with it.
macandal
Newbie
Older rendering, modern rendering??? I don't know what you mean by this???I guess the other question is... how you like your images to look. I only like vintage glass 'cause of the older rendering of the lenses... high resolution, low contrast. [...]
If you like modern image rendering...
I hope this helps
PatrickCheung
Well-known
Sorry... I guess what I mean is that older lenses produce images with an older look (obviously) and newer ones have a more modern look.
Older lenses tend to have lower contrast, sometimes flare in a way that make an image "hazy" and if they're well made... they're really damn sharp.
Modern lenses tend to produce more saturated colours and are much more contrasty, again, if well made... sharp.
Of course... some older lenses have more "modern" characteristics, and some modern lenses have more "vintage" characteristics.
Older lenses tend to have lower contrast, sometimes flare in a way that make an image "hazy" and if they're well made... they're really damn sharp.
Modern lenses tend to produce more saturated colours and are much more contrasty, again, if well made... sharp.
Of course... some older lenses have more "modern" characteristics, and some modern lenses have more "vintage" characteristics.
xxloverxx
Shoot.
Some older lenses have characteristics which might be considered technical flaws. While most modern lenses succeed in eliminating such "flaws", it wasn't always possible in the past. Nowadays, these "flaws" have become the reason why some people will spend so much for a 50mm.