If I had to get an M body, I would surely go for an M2. If you shoot with 35mm lenses, the M2 has the best-suited finder that only shows one frameline at a time which is really nice.
Printable View
If I had to get an M body, I would surely go for an M2. If you shoot with 35mm lenses, the M2 has the best-suited finder that only shows one frameline at a time which is really nice.
tourmania -- nobody can answer your question without knowing what sort of photography you want to do. A camera is just a tool -- you need the right tool for the job -- you wouldn't go to sears and say "sell me a wrench, which is best?" You'd say "I'm rebuilding a Ford and need a set of socket wrenches calibrated in inches."
Nature? An R system camera might work best, especially if you want flowers or close-ups.
Street photography? Either an M or an older Barnack model will do fine.
Travel? I use my Leica CL for this -- compact, built-in meter, massive dependability.
And so on---
So, what do you want it for?
Hi,
Thank you so much for all your advice, I would like to spend around $1000 and would use it to shoot street photography and landscape, I'm thinking a M3, any advice which is best?
For 1000$ you should be able to get M3 with elmar 50/3.5 (screw mount with adapter is also good). It is a nice combination :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmania
edit: adding link
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f35.htm
The M3 is a fabulous camera, and I think the best of the older Leicas for 50mm and longer. But 35mm is one of the most popular focal lengths for Leica, and is compromised on the M3. The M2 has the 35mm frame lines and still performs excellently with a 50mm. The M2's compromise is at the longer end; 90 is okay (not as good as on M3 though) and it does not have 135mm frame marks.Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmania
Most Leica M users tend toward the shorter focal lengths where a rangefinder camera is at it's best. I prefer the classic 35/50/90 frame line set up, and would appreciate an M3 as a second body for 50mm and longer. If you don't want a 35mm lens, it is not an issue. You can of course use 35mm lens on the M3 with and external finder, or the bug eye versions made for M3.
I'd go with an M6. If you have a bit more money and want auto exposure, look into the Zeiss Ikon or an M7. M7 prices are surprisingly low now. I've seen a couple sell for about $50 more than a new Ikon.
If your buying your first M a M6 is probably the logical choice. Avoids some finder problems, is a newer comera than a m3/2 but cost the almost the same, and has the flexibility of a meter.
If your inexperienced metering, a M7 may be a better choice.
Haha awesome. I also had that urge to reply the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by narsuitus
As does the M4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Pain-MD
I have M6 and M3: for 50mm lenses M3 is so much better and more precise, and for 90mm and 135mm lenses M3 it is unbelievable superior - I can not use 90mm elmar on M6 any more after I used it on M3 :). For 35mm lenses go for M2/4/5/6.
An M3 is a good choice unless you foresee using a 35mm lens, also if you have really good eyesight you don't need the higher magnification of an M3. An M2 is less expensive and has solitary framelines for 35, 50 and 90mm lenses. Either way, you can find good prices on the rangefinder forum (RFF) and from Youxin Ye on eBay.