The Immortal Leica M3: Predecessors and Progeny

J

Jason Schneider

the Camera Collector
Local time
10:59 AM
Joined
Feb 28, 2020
Messages
422
Homage to the Immortal Leica M3
July 22, 2020


Homage To The Immortal Leica M3: Predecessors and Progeny of the Most Influential Rangefinder 35mm Camera ever Aug 9, 2019 By Jason Schneider

In the pantheon of 35mm Leica cameras over the past century the Leica M3 of 1954 stands supreme. Only the prototype Ur Leica of 1914, the first production Leica (model A) of 1925, and the Leica II (model D) the first screw-mount Leica with built-in coupled rangefinder, marked comparable turning points in Leica history. The Leica M3 is a masterpiece of integrated design that took the rangefinder Leica to an unprecedented new level of sophistication and performance and propelled the photographic industry forward as other leading camera companies responded to the challenge it posed. Ironically, were it not for the M3, a camera that set the standard and defined the limits of what was possible in designing an interchangeable lens rangefinder 35mmm system, it’s doubtful the rise of the 35mm SLR, the DSLR, and the mirrorless camera would have occurred as rapidly or rolled out in the same way.

To read this entire article published on the International Leica Society (LHSA) website please click on or copy and paste the following link: https://lhsa.org/2019/08/homage-to-...most-influential-rangefinder-35mm-camera-ever
 
Yes, Immortal. M3.

LeicaM3/Elmar-M50mm f/2.8/Tmax400/AdoxMCC110

Erik.

48008507643_93513951a1_b.jpg
 
Was the design of the Leica M a team effort or was there a particular person that designed it; akin to Max Berek and Dr. Walter Mandler for lenses?
 
The design was technically a team effort, but aesthetically it was mainly the work of Herbert Janke, a sculptor.

A funny detail is that the first design of Janke was turned down. The look of the design was not "technically" enough. His second try was accepted. This was the classic M3-design, with the raised edges around the viewfinder windows. However, his first design was later used for the M2! So the M2-design is older than the M3-design. In fact the M2-design is great, timeless. It is the true M Leica.

Erik.
 
Now it suddenly makes sense to have the M3 followed by the M2, with the latter's design being first! Thanks for the history info, Erik.
I love my M3.
 
Thank you for the article on the M3, Mr. Schneider. I bought my M3 about 30 years ago in mint condition. The first owner bought this M3 as a back-up to his other M3. My M3 was taken out of the box once a year to "exercise it" without any film in it. There is a receipt from Leica!
 
raid said:
Now it suddenly makes sense to have the M3 followed by the M2, with the latter's design being first! Thanks for the history info, Erik.
I love my M3.
Click to expand...

Raid, the 3 comes from being the replacement for the Leica III. The M2 replaces the II, the M1 replaces the I (neither having an RF, both having viewfinders). Not exact replacements but same market segment.

It is the M4 that confuses everything by being an updated M2. From the previous numbering you would have expected an M2a and on up the alphabet.
 
Scrambler said:
Raid, the 3 comes from being the replacement for the Leica III. The M2 replaces the II, the M1 replaces the I (neither having an RF, both having viewfinders). Not exact replacements but same market segment.

It is the M4 that confuses everything by being an updated M2. From the previous numbering you would have expected an M2a and on up the alphabet.
Click to expand...

Are these established facts or your opinion?
 
raid said:
Are these established facts or your opinion?
Click to expand...

I'm happy to be corrected, but I understood them to be established facts. They are also my opinion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M2 -explaining the M2 as the simplified version.

This 1-2-3 sequence was also used by other manufacturers: see the Contax where the 2-3 sequence is used for specification and letters after for generations, or the Werra 1 to 4 in increasing spec.

Ken Rockwell says it's for the three framelines, but that's nonsense: the M2 would then need 2 frames.
 
Although an SLR type of guy, the M3 is the only rangefinder that tempts me from time to time. The different viewfinder/rangefinder of my IIc frustrates me at times, I think I will like the M3 much better. An excellent picture taking machine.
 
Thank you, Pan, this went all automatically. In fact there were a lot of people on the ferry. I thought the shot was spoiled because a man just walked in from the right. But there is a God that protects photographers - sometimes.


Erik.
 
Scrambler said:
I'm happy to be corrected, but I understood them to be established facts. They are also my opinion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M2 -explaining the M2 as the simplified version.

This 1-2-3 sequence was also used by other manufacturers: see the Contax where the 2-3 sequence is used for specification and letters after for generations, or the Werra 1 to 4 in increasing spec.

Ken Rockwell says it's for the three framelines, but that's nonsense: the M2 would then need 2 frames.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanations. This is interesting.
 
Scrambler said:
Raid, the 3 comes from being the replacement for the Leica III. The M2 replaces the II, the M1 replaces the I (neither having an RF, both having viewfinders). Not exact replacements but same market segment.

It is the M4 that confuses everything by being an updated M2. From the previous numbering you would have expected an M2a and on up the alphabet.
Click to expand...
This flies in the face of everything I've read and concurred with Leica experts over the years. The actual denotations, at least as I've come to understand them, are obvious and confusing at the same time.

The "3" in M3 had nothing whatsoever to do with those screw mount models preceding it. Rather, the "3" in M3 referenced its three framelines (50/90/135). The "2" in M2 was a reference to "less than" M3 although it also had three framelines, as the M2 was a less expensive "entry-level" model. The "1" in M1 was "less than the M2" and had no rangefinder focusing. The "4" in M4 was a return to the frameline reference (the M4 had 4 framelines - 35/50/90/135) and was the next level-up above the M3. The "5" in M5 referenced the "next level" - or order-up. The M6 had 6 framelines (you get the idea) and was next in-line.

From that point forward the number references the next model up - until the M240, which was to start a new M numbering system, but Leica abandoned that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top