Thank you all for the replies. It sounds like moding the M3 would be too expensive. I have really considered getting an M2 with a 35 before, but i really wanted to have one body with a ttl meter. I guess I would have to look at M6's again.
I'm afraid it may just be that I am just not a RF guy. Like Dennis said, it does slow me down a bit and for me, make it less spontaneous. I suppose that's something I need to consider and whether it's a negative or positive. It may be that I need to "let go and let Leica" as it were. I am going on a little road trip to shoot 4x5 this weekend and I think I will take the M3 to see if I can rekindle the romance.
I wish I could sympathize, but I love the rounded frame lines on the M3. No meter nor 35mm lines are the icing on the cake ;)
I have met a few others who can't stand them though, so you are not alone. Would you be against using an external meter like the VCII?
I have seen pics of the VCII meter and it's not too bad. not a fan of the LR/SR44 batts. at all. I suppose that and a M2 with a 35 would do it though.
Get a Bessa body for your 50mm.
Who has an M5, and can tell us about the corners of the frames in that camera?
Originally Posted by Trask
You have M5 viewfinder picture there.
Thanks, Darko. Well, there we go -- you can mentally "connect" the white lines in the M5 to get your (imaginary) corners. Will they be as accurate as what you see in a Nikon F? Nope, but then photography with a Leica RF camera is a different experience from using an SLR. Only the individual user can decide if it's an equally good experience.
I think we are missing several points.
The direct vision and SLR are like roadster and sedan different compromises.
SLR no parrallex, the frames are only 'correct' at the range the lens is focused to.
SLR normally about 90% of actual 35mm frame shown except e.g. Nikon F and F2... 100%
The M2, 35mm frame is near enough to 40mm that lots of people file their 40mm lenses to show the 35mm frame, note the M6 and later have different frame sizes.
You can see the M3 frame in starlight (and below) ...
The M3 focus and parrallex 'corrects' to 1m the M2 to 0.7m the SLR is dependent on lens
You cannot see depth of field with some SLR screens...
So do you like apples or oranges, most people can eat both...
I would not modify a finder; not worth it. You may consider an external finder.
I recommend a M6 for a metered 35mm frame. Pair with a Minolta 40, a near match on film for 35m framelines.
Migrate to any metered M. You need to adjust to the finder accuracy. It helps to process your own prints in a DR. With a M6 finder, at 15/20 feet, frame the shot and take one step forward; then shoot. At 12 feet and closer just frame and shoot.
Don't you find those numbers in the M5 viewfinder a distraction? When you look through the viewfinder, surely all you want to see is the image and not be distracted by all that number rubbish.