raid
Dad Photographer
Exactly, Keith.
In my posting above, I used the term "for me" twice.
It is a personal choice when there exist several M bodies.
Gary E
Well-known
I'm not so sure about that. My math teacher would say that M3+M2 does indeed add up to M5.
I have used both M3 and M2, and the M3 is my first and foremost favorite. Besides, I had a M3DS so it pleased me twice with every frame
.
MISH
Well-known
I never met a M camera that I didn't like
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
'So many M's ... so little time!'
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
You mean not for 35mm. This is the only focal length for which the M3 isn't perfect. Wider lenses require top mount finders (yes, even the 28mm lens) so the M3 is better for these, since the longer RF base gives better focusing when you need it. And of course the M3 is perfect for longer lenses- it's undeniably the best for 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm. So yes, the M3 is the best M camera Leica ever made, unless you are one of those who only shoots with a 35mm lens. For every length longer or shorter, the M3 is the best. I won't even mention the fact that it's the only M that never flares. (Oh wait- I just did. Crap.)
As for the M3 being the ultimate gadget, think about it; folks get all misty eyed about the incredible build of Leica M cameras. The M3 was the first, and I just proved
D) if to be the best M ever made. Ergo, the M3 IS the ultimate gadget. 
David Murphy
Mentor
Have you tried one? - they tend to sell themselves.Sorry to play the devil's advocate, but what objectively makes the M3 the "greatest" camera? (besides that the M mount has become the de facto RF lens mount standard nowadays. Rational facts, please, I'm not a Leica addict and I'm not a loather either. Thank you for giving facts!
Neare
Well-known
Best gadget of all time? I don't agree.
barnwulf
Well-known
I agree with several others here, I have to have 35mm frame lines. M2 or M4 for me. To be fair about this, I have never used a M3. Jim
Last edited:
hteasley
Pupil
Depends on definitions... I'd probably rank the knapped flint as the greatest gadget of all time, because I'm not sure I could come up with a good definition of gadget that would exclude things like that.
But for 20th c. gadgets, it's right up there. That it is still hard to beat, by any camera, 56 years later... that's sort of awesome.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Hear him! hear him! Some who used to be here would scorn but I like my M6. But seriously, it feels more like a new Audi where my M3 feels like a classic, bank vault Mercedes.
But this M2 which of so many praise - perhaps I must investigate...
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Be sure to post pics when it gets back to you. Robert has blacked three cameras for me and his work is first-rate.
fbf
Well-known
i assume. since clean, pristine m3 will cost you a fortune comparing to other regular leica M. I wish i can afford a bp m3 someday.
jarski
Mentor
been thinking what Leica can still do for these dinosaurs like M3 or 2. they still service them right ? can they fix finder as it once was ? or, replace with MP finder instead ?
fbf
Well-known
darkkavenger
Massimiliano Mortillaro
I've tried an M7 not so long ago, felt nice and solid, indeed desireable but nothing I would die for
And currently out of my league financially (not *that* out of my league, but other priorities, mainly family well-being) kievman
Kievman
I tried a M6 .72 a few years ago and I found the focusing patch to be too small and the frame lines for the 50mm to be too small too. Leica in my estimation has tried to fit too many framelines on one camera body. I have always heard that the M3 was best of the Ms for the 50mm and the M2 was best for 35mm lens. But I have never had a chance to play with either so I have no idea one way or the other. But after using Contax G1 and 2's and vintage Contax 2a's and Kievs, I find the framelines on my recently bought Canon P to be rather distracting and not to my liking. I prefer a rangefinder without frame lines now. especially since most rangefinders with frame lines don't give very accurate framing anyways -Kievman
sanmich
Mentor
I'm in the M2 camp.
even with a 50mm, my glasses made the M3 difficult to use.
On the M2, I have a comfortable view of the 50 frame and what's around it.
Still, the M3 I had was smoother and more beautiful than my M2's and I can understand why someone devoted to 50mm shooting (and maybe not bespectacled like me) can love this camera.
The Best camera? mhhhh... a black M3 with an M2 finder installed maybe?
even with a 50mm, my glasses made the M3 difficult to use.
On the M2, I have a comfortable view of the 50 frame and what's around it.
Still, the M3 I had was smoother and more beautiful than my M2's and I can understand why someone devoted to 50mm shooting (and maybe not bespectacled like me) can love this camera.
The Best camera? mhhhh... a black M3 with an M2 finder installed maybe?
Austerby
Well-known
I didn't know that: I've been using a 35mm on my M3 for years without realising I was doing something wrong.
I just make sure what I want is in the whole frame view and know that I've got a bit more round the edges. I then press the shutter and take a photo - works for me.
I always thought one of the benefits of a 35mm lens was that it corresponded approximately with the "two eyes open" field of view and therefore precise framing wasn't a big deal.
skibeerr
Well-known
Sorry to play the devil's advocate, but what objectively makes the M3 the "greatest" camera? (besides that the M mount has become the de facto RF lens mount standard nowadays. Rational facts, please, I'm not a Leica addict and I'm not a loather either. Thank you for giving facts!
+rang-e-finder base, flare resistance and build quality
- loading, no meter (i need one)
I found a good compromise in the M5
W
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
No. IIIf
Definitely more gadgety.
Last edited: