Bummed @ M3 Framelines

[schmoozit]

I just got an M3 today. I was more than a little surprised that, with my eyeglasses, I cannot see the 50mm framelines. I had no idea that would be a concern. Any recommendations in using it this way?

[SolaresLarrave]

I find it quite the opposite... after using an M6TTL 0.72, in which the 50mm framelines are ridiculously small, the same focal length framelines in the M3 made me rediscover the 'cron 50.

I too wear eyeglasses, schmoozit, and the advantage of the M3 finder is that you're not dealing with extreme magnification: you see things through it at much the size you see them without or outside the viewfinder, so it's an aid for you to visualize your shot.

Just get some of Aki's felt pieces for the viewfinder ring and you'll be all set!

BTW, welcome to the Leica side!

[meyman]

I'm a left eyed shooter with a big nose, no glasses. I can barely see the left and right extremes of the 50 frame while on top and bottom I see a bit of the outside of the frame too. If I wore glasses, the M3 would probably be a 90mm lens camera for me. Guess we're all made to a different standard of quality and useability. Maciek

[jaapv]

That is correct, the M3 viewfinder is not very suitable to be used with glasses, there are, however, correction lenses available that screw into the ocular. Then you can use it without glasses.

[Tony Salce]

The later M3 finders were better for eye relief for eye glass wearers.

I had an early M3 and it wasn't that good for the 50mm finder.

I sold the early M3 and subsequently picked up a buttery smooth single stroke CLA'd and hand picked by Sherry Krauter. Much better for eye relief with the 50mm frame.

You can also convert the eyepiece if you have an early M3 to a later style eyepice.

Don't part with the M3. The best built M with the best rangefinder.

[summilux]

yes, larger eye piece (screw in type) is available, so is the larger eye piece of M4, which can also be installed for M2, but you have to take the camera's top off to do it. The first batch of M4 has the same eye piece as M2, later ones changed to the bigger ones, as found in all later M bodies.

[schmoozit]

Thanks, all. I took the M3 out shooting tonight, and think I may be able to deal with it as is. I do hope I can figure out a way to use it while viewing the entire 50 lines, however.

[SolaresLarrave]

See, schmoozit? You've learned to love and live with a Leica.

You're one of us now... <sinister laughter>

[schmoozit]

Well, unlike many, my first encounter with the Leica M was not religious, emotional, or anything overly joyous. It wasn't disappointing, but it was sorta, "Hmm! So you are the little Leica M?". It was smaller than I anticipated, and not nearly as heavy. I think it must be lighter than my G2 was. Anyway, I was looking at it and wondering what was supposedly so mystical about it.

I cleaned it up a little, played with the advance, shutter speed dial, and release. Everything seemed fine, though I'm very surprised that the speed dial isn't easily turned. I'm still wondering if this is normal. I mounted my Summar, and had a complete cow trying to load the film. I thought the manual I downloaded was clear, but somehow, looking at the real thing, it didn't make sense. I eventually figured out that the take-up spool winds opposite of how I thought, and things became more clear. Alrighty, then... let's burn some film!!!

I snapped a few test shots so I can verify correct focusing. In operation, everything was cool. I went out with some friends, took the camera along, and shot several frames. From these test shots, and really test roll, I've started to appreciate this thing more and more. Firstly, the viewfinder is great: Clear, contrasty, and snaps into focus very easily. Secondly, though the camera isn't necessarily easily held by my somewhat large hands, it still seems to "fit". The shutter release is situated in a way that allows me to very easily and smoothly release it without stress, and therefore, camera shake. I feel very confident when I'm shooting that I'll be getting a good image.

So, these are my very preliminary findings on the M3, and Leica magic. I'm hoping the thing keeps surprising me... just not the way the viewfinder did!

[merciful]

Listen up, marine! You will learn to love your M3. It will become part of you. You will eat drink and **** Leica. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME?

[schmoozit]

Sir, yes sir.

You caught me just before hitting the rack! Now I'll have to sleep with my, err... weapon. Hope my wife doesn't roll the wrong way.

I never pictured you in one of those funny hats.

[Peter Klein]

Hey, Schmoozie! Congrats on the M3.

Glasses and Leicas are a problem, though less of a problem than glasses and Zorkis, Feds, Contaxes or Kievs. How bad the situation is depends on the shape of your face, how "off" your vision is, and in what direction.

The .72x finder in the M2, 4, 5, and 6 is OK for me with a 50mm lens, and I lose a bit of the sides with a 35mm. The M3, with its .91x finder, is no good for me with a 50mm. Neither are the Bessa R3A and Epson R-D1, which have 1:1 finders.

My solution is contact lenses. I got them primarily so I wouldn't need to switch between bifocals and computer glasses two dozen times a day at work (I do tech support/network admin). So I didn't get contacts only to shoot with Leicas, but they sure make a difference. If I'm traveling and wear glasses, I just put them on one of those neck cords so I can quickly take them off if I use a 35. I'll focus with the 35, drop the glasses, then frame and shoot. Since my favorite focal length is 50mm, I'll put up with this some of the time.

Paradoxically, though I don't like small DSLR viewfinders, at least I can see the whole frame.

Bottom line is that the .72x viewfinder is the best-compromise finder for most of us. Many glasses wearers do have issues with the M3. So you either adapt to it somehow, or eventually switch to a smaller-magnification body. Or use the M3 only for 90 and 135mm lenses, and get a second body for 50mm and shorter.

--Peter

[Brian Sweeney]

I am extremelt nearsighted, corrected with thick glasses. I can see all of the 50mm lines at once on the M3DS, but do get right into the eyepiece. I put an O-Ring around it to protect glasses. The M3SS stroke has a bigger eyepiece, and offers more relief. As suggested, you could have someone swap it out for you.

[merciful]

As my friend Kevin (an ex-mortar platoon leader) said, "You'd be a good soldier, but the army would not be a good place for you."

Originally Posted by schmoozit

I never pictured you in one of those funny hats.

[VinceC]

I, too, am extremely nearsighted. Interestingly, I have found that, in an emergency, I can focus a rangefinder without my glasses on because it's fairly easy to see when the images line up. With an SLR, I'm incapable of focusing without my glasses, unless you count scale focusing.

[schmoozit]

Thanks all. Good information as always.

Merciful, that is me to a "T". I was a good Marine in so many ways, and so bad in so many others. I was once told to clean a pastry rack in the mess-hall. Two hours later I only had about a square foot done. I was "busted" down to dishwasher duty, but that one square foot was in mint condition. I was in no place to talk back to the srgt, but I really wanted to tell him that if he only wanted me to wipe it down, he should have said so. To me, clean is *****-and-span, spotless, CLEAN! I think I still have leftovers under my nails.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by summilux

yes, larger eye piece (screw in type) is available, so is the larger eye piece of M4, which can also be installed for M2, but you have to take the camera's top off to do it. The first batch of M4 has the same eye piece as M2, later ones changed to the bigger ones, as found in all later M bodies.

Critically important info!! I never knew there were larger eyepieces for the M3, nor that there was a larger eyepiece change in the M4.

In another thread we've been speculating why I have such a hard time (without glasses) seeing the whole 35mm frame in my button-rewind M2... while in the M6 with the same 0.72x finder magnification, there's a 28mm frame. I'm thinking, "How did they DO that?"

In my M2, the 50mm framelines are the most usable, and it was a surprise, since for 38 years I never used a 50mm lens on it until recently.

Now I'm thinking of getting that larger eyepiece put in my M2! That'll be great... thanks for the info, Summilux.

[schmoozit]

Hey! I'm still wondering about the speed dial. I don't think it should be so stiff. I would think it is/was designed to be switched with you index finger, easily, while holding the camera in shooting position. If so, I have serious doubt that this camera was CLA'd by Sherry last year.

[peter_n]

Originally Posted by Tony Salce

The later M3 finders were better for eye relief for eye glass wearers.

I had an early M3 and it wasn't that good for the 50mm finder.

I sold the early M3 and subsequently picked up a buttery smooth single stroke CLA'd and hand picked by Sherry Krauter. Much better for eye relief with the 50mm frame.

You can also convert the eyepiece if you have an early M3 to a later style eyepice.

Don't part with the M3. The best built M with the best rangefinder.

Welcome to the forum Tony!

[Doug]

Originally Posted by schmoozit

Hey! I'm still wondering about the speed dial. I don't think it should be so stiff. I would think it is/was designed to be switched with you index finger, easily, while holding the camera in shooting position. If so, I have serious doubt that this camera was CLA'd by Sherry last year.

Well, my M2 had a CLA a couple years ago, and I'd characterize the shutter speed dial as "semi-stiff"... Not so easy to turn by accident or even with just a fingertip, but with the whole index finger pad applied it's not so hard. Hard to say how this compares with yours...

I think it was later with the M6TTL that the shutter speed dial was made larger and overhung the front of the camera, and thus easier to turn. My Minolta CLE's dial is also easy to turn from the front of the camera, as is the Bronica RF645's.

[MCTuomey]

Schmoozit, fwiw, on my M4 the speed dial is what I'd call "firm" not stiff. My take is that it prevents accidental movement, not a bad thing. I tend to adjust exposure via aperture on RFs anyway.

As a recent convert to a Leica body, I had the same initial reaction in use as you did. But with more use I started to find myself appreciating the operation of the camera. Looking, looking, cock the shutter, snap focus, squeeze. There is a rhythm that my Leica seems to encourage, something to do with how it focuses, its balance, its shutter. I'm no mystic. My cameras are tools. But my M does have a certain hard-to-define character in hand.

[richard_l]

It's better to have the shutter speed dial a little stiff so that it doesn't get turned accidently. By the way, it's usually a total waste of time to adjust exposure for every shot. Unless the light changes, leave the exposure alone, for goodness sake! It can drive you nuts to adjust exposure for every shot, and it won't improve your photos one iota.

[schmoozit]

It's better to have the shutter speed dial a little stiff so that it doesn't get turned accidently. By the way, it's usually a total waste of time to adjust exposure for every shot. Unless the light changes, leave the exposure alone, for goodness sake! It can drive you nuts to adjust exposure for every shot, and it won't improve your photos one iota.

I'm not planning to change the shutter speed all the time. It isn't necessary, and does indeed drive me nuts. I'm only trying to ascertain the condition of the camera by contrasting it to others experience. That said, I'd much prefer a speed dial that is quite easily turned. On the Ms (not all, but most), the speed dial is out of the way enough not to be bumped.

I'm getting the impression that mine is a little stiffer than it should be, and though it isn't a show stopper in the least, it's bothersome and hopefully can be made to operate more smoothly.