RE: [Leica] My new M3

[Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu>]

Buzz:

Thanks for the advice.  I was trying to determine whether I needed to get
it CLAd immediately or not, and how bright (relative to other things) the
finder would be in the best case.  Obviously it will take a little time to
check out the function and condition of the finder.  I know very well that
these things cannot be determined by "remote control" but it is perfectly
legitimate to ask by comparison what a clean finder should look like.  The
insurance on shipping Leicas alone makes this worth asking.

And please don't assume that because I was not thrilled with M6 means that
I bought an M3 to bitch about it - since I got it for use with telephotos,
something I use Canon LTM bodies for now.  I am quite familiar with the
use of manual, high-mag  bodies for this purpose.  The major difference
is that the M3 takes bayonet lenses and is about half the price of an
M6 0.85x TTL.  There is no expectation that the M3 be super modern - I've
succesfully used much older and much more difficult equipment.  It was a
great camera in the 1950s, and it continues to be now. 

My only gripe on this group with the M6 started when people started
attacking the Hexar, spontaneously, without much in the way of objective
proof and with much insult, speculation and innuendo.  I didn't write the
infamous "list," which was later attributed to me solely by virtue of the 
fact that I didn't kowtow to some view that autoexposure would make you
go blind.  The ridiculousness of the whole thing is that Leica makes a lot
of things with autoexposure, DX coding and worse.  The M3 was a radical
departure from the other equipment of its day, too, if anyone remembers
that Leica continued its LTM lines for a while afterward.  Would the same
people on the attack now be attacking the M3 when it came out?

Not every question about a Leica should trigger vitriol - it's not worth
burning your stomach lining out over.

And now, lunch hour is over.

Cheers
- ------------
Dante Stella

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Buzz Hausner wrote:

> Brother Kurt put it better than I ever could.  Just go out and take
> pictures!  Thank you, Kurt.
> 
> 	Buzz
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: khmiska [mailto:khmiska@umich.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 8:46 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] My new M3
> 
> 
> Buzz,
> Your comments hit the nail on the head. I bought my M2 in March. I put film
> into
> it many times since then. I don't coddle it. I enjoy it every time I pick it
> up.
> I live with whatever shortcomings it might have but I don't think it has
> any.
> Wouldn't mind a 135 frame but then I have a finder for that.  BTW - I do the
> same with my Rollei TLR.
> Kurt
> Ann Arbor
> 
> Buzz Hausner wrote:
> 
> > Did you buy the bloody thing just so you could complain about it on the
> LUG?
> > I suggest that you do one of two things;  a) just get it cleaned, lubed,
> and
> > adjusted by a competent repair person, or b) trade it "up" for a Hexar.
> > Whinging and asking LUG members to diagnose your problems by remote
> sensing
> > is not what I for one consider useful endeavors, though others may
> disagree
> > and I apologize to all of them now.
> >
> >         Buzz Hausner
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dante A Stella [mailto:dante@umich.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 7:10 PM
> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] My new M3
> >
> > Joe:
> >
> > I will check it out with a flashlight (now where do I keep that?!).  Gear
> > trains
> > and 1/15 sound fine.  Times to 1 sec on my mechanical watch (with 1/5
> second
> > ticks), so I don't think the shutter is out of whack.  It could just be
> that
> > I
> > was looking at it in a room with bad light.  The testing will continue.
> > What I
> > had to compare it to on the modern end (Hexar RF) has the benefits of
> > multicoating and a totally different RF design, so we'll see.  If it looks
> > iffy
> > I'll have it checked locally and then call DAG.
> >
> > Why don't Canons accumulate crud?  I haven't seen a bad one yet.  Is the
> > high
> > ozone content of the air here going to cause problems?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dante
> >
> > Krechtz@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > In a message dated 9/18/00 1:37:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > dante@umich.edu
> > > writes:
> > >
> > > << (1) What is the story with the RF brightness?  I didn't see any fog
> or
> > >  separation on mine and compared it to about ten M2s.  Nothing really
> > >  notable in differences, but even compared to a Hexar RF, well... let's
> > >  just say that the 0.91 finder on the M3 seems to be more than overcome
> > >  by its old-school brightness.  (snip)>>
> > >
> > > The color tends to be on the cool, or blue side, compared to an M6.  I
> > have
> > > also read that the M6 is brighter due to removal of a condenser from the
> > > light path, which has the unwanted side-effect of fostering that "flare"
> > we
> > > know and love.
> > > You cannot really see fog or dirt in the finder properly unless you face
> > the
> > > camera and look into the finder from about 12-18" away while shining a
> > small
> > > flashlight through the eyepiece.  Unless a finder and/or mirror has been
> > > cleaned recently, it is likely to exhibit some dimming due to
> > accumulations
> > > of crud..  To me, this tends to explain why most of the 40-or-so-year
> old
> > > finders you saw looked similar.
> > >
> > >             (snip)
> > >
> > >   <<(3) Are some M3s quieter than others?  This one is a SS PV (927xxx)
> > and
> > >  it is far more quiet than any M I have encountered.  Does it have
> > >  anything to do with the shutter brake someone was talking about
> > earlier?>>
> > >
> > > >From what I am told, the double brake was found only on the DS,
> possibly
> > only
> > > the earlier units at that.  Your M3's behavior is, IMHO, more likely to
> be
> > > the result of a combination of old thickened lubricant and dirt, a very
> > > effective accoustical damper.  You didn't mention what the slow speed
> gear
> > > train sounded like.  Check it out on a shutter tester.
> > >
> > > << (4) What was the trick for allowing the RF to work at 0,7m?>>
> > >
> > > First, mount a lens that focuses to 0.7 m...?
> > >
> > > << Well, it will be an interesting experience.  The M3 is a much
> different
> > >  beast from the M6 (and sufficiently different from the Hexar RF), and
> > >  over the next couple of weeks it will be interesting to see how much
> > >  more difficult it is to use the M3-type loading and rewind.>>
> > >
> > > You got that right!  I think you will also find that advancing the film
> > takes
> > > a bit more effort than with the Hexar, and the TTL metering is not very
> > > reliable.
> > >
> > > << I  am most interested in finding out whether or not the finder really
> > > improves the
> > >  long/fast lens experience, especially as against a Canon 7, which has a
> > >  0.85x magnification and a lot clearer finder.  I hope it does - it's a
> > >  nice camera.>>
> > >
> > > IME, the M3 has a better finder, even if one considers only the square
> RF
> > > patch.  If your 7 seems to have a markedly clearer finder, I suspect
> that
> > it
> > > is either much cleaner or in better condition, hopefully and probably
> the
> > > former.
> > >
> > >  <<Any tips or tricks would be appreciated.>>
> > >
> > > Don't mention it!  Good luck.  Your M3 sounds like a good candidate for
> a
> > > CLA, so don't be too critical of its performance before getting it
> checked
> > > out.
> > >
> > > Joe Sobel
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Dante Stella
> > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dante
>