Re: [Leica] M Durability

[Feliciano di Giorgio <feli@d2.com>]

Ted Bayer wrote:
> 
> All this give and take about durability has me wondering if I made a
> mistake.
> 
> I just ordered a "used but not ugly" M3 (#1072XXX) and am impatiently
> waiting for it to arrive.  Why did I buy it?  Because of past Leica
> experience, and all the good things I read on this and other lists a few
> weeks back about how durable the old M3s are -- and of course for the
> effective base length of the wonderful viewfinder.
>



Well, I've been kicking around the idea of getting a second body around
for a few weeks. A friend of mine just let me borrow his M3, for a test
drive. Now I have it and my M6TTL .85 sitting on the desk in front of
me. I've read all of the comparisons etc.
and here's what I think:


a) I like the old M3 advance lever, but oddly enough it rubs against the
shutter speed dial and get's lost under the MR Meter. Both levers are
comfortable, the M6 maybe a little more, because of the softer plastic
tip. The M3 feels a little different when winding and I attribute that
to the change over to steel gears. Both feel nice and smooth, like a
precision piece of gear. I'm not sold on the double stroke of this early
M3. I would get a single stroke or have the DS converted to SS.

b) The more ornate M3 body is a handsome looking piece of gear. There
are many nice little touches. Black crinkle paint on the inside, instead
of flat paint on the M6. The engraved film loading diagram, auf/zu
markings on the baseplate latch and the Leica logo on the top plate are
nice. Somehow the lack of the Leica logo on the top plate, makes the M6
look like it has a bald spot. The ornate ledges around the M3 finder
windows are very nice as are the fancy metal preview and selftimer
levers and strap lugs. The M3 has a nice touch of old world charm. Oddly
enough when comparing the M3 and M6, it reminded me of a comparison I
once saw on TV between the Messerschmitt 109E and Spitfire Mk 1. The
Spitfire had a hand built quality to it, like an old British wooden
speedboat or car. The Messerschmitt was all business. Very well built,
but totaly followed the rules of form follows function and efficent
production. No wood trim in a 109. You get vulcanite. The M6 is a
beautifull piece of gear, but strikes me as more utilitarian than the
M3. I would judge the overall fit the same. The M3 has more bells,
whistles and details (engravings, crinkle paint etc) and the M6 has
definatly been streamlined to reduce the cost of production, but both
cameras feel very solid. The M3 is a little heavier, due to the extra
brass.

c) The vulcanite on the M3 is a bit more coarse than the PVC on the M6
which sometimes feels a bit slick. But the vulcanite on the M3 is
starting to crumble and feels a bit sticky/slimey when it gets moist. I
have a feeling that it would get dirty more quickly than the PVC, since
it seem to be somewhat absorbent.The covering on this M3 smells neutral.
I have a IIIc on which the vulcanite smells a bit burnt, although the
camera is in perfect cosmetic and mechanical condition. The smell is
starting to go away as I use the IIIc. It sat in a drawer for a good
40-50 years.

d) Shutter release on the M3 is smooth as silk. There's less resistance
than on the M6, which has more trigger travel do to the meter, before
releasing the shutter. Once I put a Softie(tm) on the M6, they felt
about the same.

e) The M6 film rewind lever wins hands down. If I had a M3 I would
probaly add some kind of rewind gadget.

f) The M6 is definatly easier and faster to load. The lack of the
pronged takeup spool on the M3 is a pain in the neck.

g) The M6's built in meter is easier and faster to use and more accurate
than the Meter MC sitting on this M3. 

h) I haven't compared the flash, since I've never used one...

i) I like the selftimer on the M3. A nice touch, but I wouldn't trade
the M6 meter to get it back.

j) The M6 can take a moter drive, the M3 can't.

k)I really like the viewfinder on the M3. The eyepiece seems less
"squinty". There is a square mask inside the M6 eyepiece, which may be
the cause of this. I'll probaly be skinned alive for saying this, but
the M3's finder reminds me of looking though my buddies Nikon FM. It
feels very big and unrestricted.

l) The M3 patch is wider and shorter, but seems to cover about the same
area. 

m) I can't get the M3 to flare.

n) I really, really, really like the corners on the M3 frames lines. The
50 has round corners, which is a little strange at first. 90 and 135mm
are suddenly very useable. I think I'm going to have to get the eyepiece
magnifier for the M6. There goes another $250 bucks. The M6 .85 has
lines for 35, 50, 75, 90 and 135. The M3 for 50, 90 and 135.
A 35mm on a M3 is not an easy thing.

o) This M3 is definatly going to need a CLA, so there goes another
$300-400 bucks
Then there is the rangefinder time bomb. Pellicles oxydizing, seperation
issues etc. 

p) My 50mm Summicron DR looks better on the M3. 




Both are great cameras. The M6 feels more utilitarian, where as the M3
has a bit more of an old world charm. Both are built like tanks. If I
mainly used a 35mm I would pass on the M3. The M6 meter and faster
loading etc make life a lot easier. If I could only afford one body I
would probaly go with the M6TTL. If I could only afford the M3 I would
buy it in an instant. As a professional I would get two or three M6TTL
bodies. As a enthusiast I'm leaning towards addding the M3 to my
arsenal, because I love the viewfinder and I find that it's charm puts a
smile on my face. 



feli
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html