I just purchased an M-A and am debating whether to part ways with my M3. My copy is almost mint and was recently overhauled by Don (DAG), so it works perfectly. Functionally, there are no issues, but a few limitations pushed me toward this decision.
I don't mind shooting without a meter, but the M3's rangefinder can't focus closer than about 0.9 to 1 meter, unlike the MP or M-A, which can go down to 0.7m. Another limitation is the lack of 28mm or 35mm framelines due to the magnification, which are focal lengths I really enjoy. As a result, I haven't been using the M3 as much as I'd like.
Sure, it's fantastic and likely a better choice for 50mm or 90mm shooting, but if I need higher magnification for 50, 75, 90, or 135mm, I can always use the LLL 1.4x magnifier on the M-A. (Like I do with my digital M bodies)
I think I will wait for the M-A to arrive before making a final decision, but I already have a feeling I will love it if it handles like the MP, which I shot for a couple of years before selling.
Feel free to share your thoughts on these two cameras.
Sounds like moving the M3 would be a safe bet. It doesn't support your preferred focal lengths, and the more restrictive MFD doesn't let you work the way you can on other cameras. Nothing wrong with that.
I think the M is such a specialized camera system already that finding that exact body to suit your shooting preferences is important.
I prefer all the 'modern' film Ms over the M3. They feel much tighter and smoother, and I much prefer the drop in film loading -especially if you follow Leica's super simple instructions on how to load it!
I find the rangefinder patch on my M-A (and other modern Ms) to be clearer and more defined. I find the .72 finder to be far more useful and it is totally fine for 50mm lenses. The fiilm advance feels more solid and smoother, frankly everything feels better.
There is no doubt that the M3 is/was the pinnacle of Leica construction. But a camera that is now pushing 70 years old is going to show those 70 years.
Of course if someone wants my M3 it is arguably the greatest film camera ever made.
Disclaimer - the above comments only apply to black Ms. The silver chrome on the M3 is far superior to the silver finish on modern Ms so I pity da foo who made that choice!
madNbad wrote:
I could offer the super rare Red Emblem M4-2 that I bought from Huss and was serviced by DAG but you would be getting the better end of the deal.
Two things:
1. I get first option to decline.
B. When I contacted Leica they had no idea how many of those they made, just that they made some!
Coincidentally, I'm considering getting an M3 to go along with an M-A.
Most used FL is 28mm, for which I much prefer framing with an external finder. Internal for checking focus occasionally. M3 would be a better fit for this workflow due to higher focusing magnification. Plus make shooting 90mm more enjoyable. Plus shooting 50mm with both eyes open.
burchyk wrote:
Coincidentally, I'm considering getting an M3 to go along with an M-A.
Most used FL is 28mm, for which I much prefer framing with an external finder. Internal for checking focus occasionally. M3 would be a better fit for this workflow due to higher focusing magnification. Plus make shooting 90mm more enjoyable. Plus shooting 50mm with both eyes open.
Think you should keep the M3 Fred
I tried the shooting w both eyes open and couldn’t get used to it on the M3 because it has the .91 finder vs the human eye’s 1.00. The difference is not that great but enough to make it not an optimal experience for me.
The Bessa R3A that I had had a 1.00 finder but the problem there was w the rf patch, centering it etc so that experience also was better w one eye closed (preferably not the one using the VF…)
Desmolicious wrote:
I tried the shooting w both eyes open and couldn’t get used to it on the M3 because it has the .91 finder vs the human eye’s 1.00. The difference is not that great but enough to make it not an optimal experience for me.
The Bessa R3A that I had had a 1.00 finder but the problem there was w the rf patch, centering it etc so that experience also was better w one eye closed (preferably not the one using the VF…)
Must be one of those subjective things.. Like some people don't have an issue with the 28mm framelines. I've only borrowed an M3 briefly, but could shoot 2-eyes open no problem. On the street with an 0.72x OVF I sometimes wish for more space around the 50mm frame, if the situation is dynamic and fast-paced.
I never liked the cool tint VF on my M4 and I just assumed an M3 would be similar. I really do love modern AR coatings so if I ever wanted my ultimate Leica I would get a chrome M4 again with an upgraded VF.
Not quite the same situation (I don't have an M-A), but since I have purchased an M6 (Classic) I have rarely shot my M3. Even though I am shooting mainly 50mm, I still prefer now the M6 over the M3. It is smoother and more refined, in my view. Plus it is a Titanium version, so better looking.
Then I have bought a Mamiya 6, so I have listed the M3 for sale.
I have two M3s, which is certainly one more than I need. I’m a 21-35mm shooter, but when I shoot 50mm, or 90mm I use the M3…and yes I have an MA and a magnifier and no I don’t miss 0.7m near focus.. well sometimes. To make the decision even harder, pair your M3 with the 90mm Macro-Elmar… with it collapsed, quite a nice small(ish) package.
I would suggest keeping the M3 for the next year and see if it gets used. Of course, it is a reasonable approach to view the previous year and see if it was used, but I’m a procrastinator. Been about to sell my Mamiya 7 for a decade.
My recommendation would be to keep the M3 in addition to the MA, unless you absolutely need the funds. The M3 is a wonderful classic and under valued in my opinion.
M3s are 60 years old, so the mechanical condition varies depending on how the camera has been used, stored and serviced. Clean cosmetic condition does not necessarily mean smooth mechanical operation. I am lucky enough to have a wonderfully smooth M3 with only very minor cosmetic imperfections. It is a joy to own and occasionally shoot with.
If budget is not a concern, I would take an M-A over an M3 any day. I personally find it more enjoyable to use and also because I mostly use 28mm/35mm lenses.
On many M3 era cameras, age is working against it. Winding gears can start to strip, the silver coating on the prisms start to deteriorate, etc.
The only M3 that I would pick over an M-A would be an original black paint.
Another nice thing about the M-A is the leatherette is very soft. Much more-so than the M6, M7 or MP.
If budget is not a concern, I would take an M-A over an M3 any day. I personally find it more enjoyable to use and also because I mostly use 28mm/35mm lenses.
On many M3 era cameras, age is working against it. Winding gears can start to strip, the silver coating on the prisms start to deteriorate, etc.
The only M3 that I would pick over an M-A would be an original black paint.
Another nice thing about the M-A is the leatherette is very soft. Much more-so than the M6, M7 or MP.
Yeah that may seem like sacrilege to some, but I find all the ‘modern’ Ms much nicer to use. They are tighter, smoother, brighter rf patches, easier/quicker to load etc.
Well, the M-A arrived today, and I'm loving it although only took a few pictures with it. I have it side by side with my M3, and I'm impressed by how similar they look externally. I really like the metal ISO dial on the back...it feels much nicer than the plastic one on the MP, even if it's just for remembering the loaded film speed.
Handling-wise, I prefer the M-A over the MP; without the battery compartment it feels better in the hands, more tactile. I do miss the M3's self-timer (mine has one), which I still use from time to time for family pictures.
The viewfinder is where they really differ. I like that there's no meter cutting into the line at the bottom, and that the 50mm frameline isn't always visible. That said, the M3 with a 50mm is still unbeatable in that regard.
Another thing I noticed: the M-A's shutter action feels more like the M3 with only one step, not the two-step of the MP or digital Leicas, which makes sense since there's no need to calculate exposure.
I just developed a roll I shot with the M3 in Joshua Tree with my daughter. She was terrified of the whole process, but I found it easy since I'm used to it. I was trying to show her that this is "better" than shooting Polaroid...well, I really meant cheaper!
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just purchased an M-A and am debating whether to part ways with my M3. My copy is almost mint and was recently overhauled by Don (DAG), so it works perfectly. Functionally, there are no issues, but a few limitations pushed me toward this decision.
I don't mind shooting without a meter, but the M3's rangefinder can't focus closer than about 0.9 to 1 meter, unlike the MP or M-A, which can go down to 0.7m. Another limitation is the lack of 28mm or 35mm framelines due to the magnification, which are focal lengths I really enjoy. As a result, I haven't been using the M3 as much as I'd like.
Sure, it's fantastic and likely a better choice for 50mm or 90mm shooting, but if I need higher magnification for 50, 75, 90, or 135mm, I can always use the LLL 1.4x magnifier on the M-A. (Like I do with my digital M bodies)
I think I will wait for the M-A to arrive before making a final decision, but I already have a feeling I will love it if it handles like the MP, which I shot for a couple of years before selling.
Feel free to share your thoughts on these two cameras....Show more →
The M3 is the only Leica M rangefinder camera which was made with the fabulous 0.91x viewfinder magnification ideal for 50 mm focal length since you can have one eye looking through the viewfinder and the other one open to the scenery. Both views nearly overlap into a single frame which is a big advantage for some composing aspects. This only works with 50 mm of course. But no other rangefinder M camera allows to do the same. This is the main reason why I would hold on my M3 forever.
You mention the 1.4x magnifier which will provide a similar magnification in the viewfinder with 0.72x standard magnification of later M cameras. Disadvantage of using the 1.4x magnifier is that it sticks out from the viewfinder and the camera itself - I never tried, and you can probably get used to it to compose with both eyes as I mentioned above. I personally would still prefer the original M3 viewfinder here.
Additional reason is the brightness of the rangefinder itself - very clear with a slight blue tint from the glass. The M3 built quality is extremely good and IMO is probably one of the best or the best ever built M camera series. Now common failure what can happen to a M3 is that the shutter breaks (happened to my camera due to original shutter age from the late 50s). The shutter can be easily replaced for a few hundred dollars.
Another advantage of the M3 is its potential usage with vintage goggle lenses. They look super cool combined with a M3 - I use for example the Leica 50/2.0 DR lens with goggle lens on my M3. The high magnification M3 viewfinder in combo with the goggle lens is just perfect for focusing at closer distance with this lens.
The M3 is less suited for wider lenses - external viewfinders are required. I always use wider than 50 mm lenses on my other M film cameras with support 35 and/or 28 mm frame lines. The M3 is ideal for 50 and 90 mm lenses.
My recommendation: keep the M3 and simply add the M-A to the stable. Both are tools for different jobs! This said, I have now the M3, M4-2, M6, and M7 in my collection and use them all!
ottokbre wrote:
I never liked the cool tint VF on my M4 and I just assumed an M3 would be similar. I really do love modern AR coatings so if I ever wanted my ultimate Leica I would get a chrome M4 again with an upgraded VF.
The bluish tint is something I also had to get used with my M3 especially after already using other M cameras with clear/non-colored viewfinder. The tint is harder to ignore when using in parallel another M with clear finder and going back and forward between both. I tend to use the M3 as only camera when I use it for this reason - because then the eye soon doesn't "see" the tint anymore. I believe this comes from a time when the M3 was mostly used with B&W film where tint is less of an issue compared to color photography when composing. One thing I really like on the other hand about the M 3 viewfinder is that it doesn't suffer from the quite annoying patch flare of which most models after the M4 suffer from until the M-P and M-A came along (and some later M7 models, too). I found out that my M4-2 was at some point modified by a former owner to avoid this patch flare. But my M6 and M7 cameras suffer from it.
