This is not a question but I didn't know where to post a compliment. I just discovered this Leica site today and I love it. People using this forum seem so down to earth and not caught up in having to have the latest piece of auto-everything equipment. I am actually inspired enough to dig out my R-3 which needs some repair and spend the money on that rather than moping about top of the line Canons and Nikons that I can't afford.

Gail

-- Gail Hammer (gail@hammerphotography.com), July 04, 2001

Answers

Hmmm...

Gail, I hope I'm not intruding, but (a) don't worry about Canons and Nikons (which you can, I think, afford) and (b) don't think about an R3, but think about an M6 or an M3 (or M4 or IIIc or f or g).

Nice to hear from you, and yes, this is the site.

Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), July 04, 2001.

Good news: unlike similar vintage Nikons or Canons, the manufacturer will happily supply parts and service for your R3.

Bad news: it will cost more than the camera is worth.

You can find good working R3's and R4's for very low prices as Leicas go.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 04, 2001.

Gail, definitely get an estimate on the repair of your R3. I have an R3 that is in excellent shape, except that the felt foam light-trap had begun to disintegrate. I sent it to Kindermann Canada (a full service Leica repair shop) and for approximately $150.00 US they replaced the al the foam light-trap, replaced the LED battery light, and CLA'd it. Very resonable and far better (IMO) than tasking a chance on buying another camera with its possible problems.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 05, 2001.

Thank you all for your replies. First of all I live in Toronto where Kindermann is located. Last night I was lying in bed and the thought occurred to me that having that camera was going to cost more than the camera is worth these days! If it cost me $150 I would go for it but the price will be equivalent to $150 U.S. and with our taxes etc. it will end up costing close to $300 which may or may not be worth it. I'll probably bring the camera up there and find out. In the meantime I do have my R4 which is a pretty good camera and I have 3 wonderful lenses. When I referred to not affording Canon's or Nikon's I was thinking more top of the line and once again it's alot cheaper in U.S. dollars. As far as the M series is concerned right now that's a dream away!

Nice to hear from you all.

Gail

-- Gail Hamamer (gail@hammerphotography.com), July 05, 2001.

Hi, Gail: The R4 will make a nice job too, of course. I like it for its compactness and for the easy it is to handle quickly if needed. Just a little heavy. The light meter is excelent. Though not a multisegment one like the last high end cameras around have, it can make point measurements in manual and that is a great help. Though you seem to be mainly SLR oriented, I subscribe Michael's idea: if you can get a M3 it will mean great fun. Enjoy your photography, Gail. Welcome.

- Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), July 06, 2001.

Hi Ivan,

Thanks for your reply...well I think I might just take your's and Michael's advice. I have spent the a good part of the afternoon thinking of the M3. I have a very good camera repair friend and he is going to keep his eyes open for one as well as take a look at any potential purchases. I don't think getting an M3 will be as easy as walking into the camera store and walking out with an M3! I know very little about the M3 (although I do own a Kodak Retina so I have had a taste of a rangefinder - it does take getting used to). I photograph people, kids, animals and I have also done weddings. I love a documentary style and I always try to incorporate this feeling into the wedding shots. I'm thinking that having an M3 or the like would bring me to another level of photographic possibility and that is something we all strive for whether it be through a camera, a photography workshop, a magazine article or even a forum such as this one.

Gail

-- Gail Hammer (gail@hammerphotography.com), July 06, 2001.

by the way what is the difference between a double stroke and a single stroke camera? Also I was told to look for a camera where the serial # is 1,100,000 and over. Any comments anybody?

Gail

-- Gail Hammer (gail@hammerphotography.com), July 06, 2001.

Gail:

To be as simple as possible [which is all I can be :)]; with a double stroke, you have to move the film advance two times and a single stroke you do it one time. My double stroke SN# 852815 works perfectly. It looks as new as the day it was made. Of course, I bought it when no one wanted Leica equipment. The guy begged me to take it with an 80's 50 mm f/2 for $500 US. He just couldn't sell it and had his eyes on a new Canon. None of this is true anymore.

The word is that DS is not as good as SS. Others say that DS is better because it causes less strain on the system [the camera's not yours]. The word is also that later models are better made. Who knows; I certainly don't. You can get any of them fixed if they break. Find something that works and have fun with it.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), July 06, 2001.

Art,

The person who told me to look for a single stroke is my camera repair friend. Now my only problem will be finding an M3 in good shape and won't break the bank!

Gail

-- Gail Hammer (gail@hammerphotography.com), July 06, 2001.

Gail:

I would advise that you go with what he recommends. I'm sure that he knows more than I do about the subject.

Over the years, I have had IIIF, IIIG, M3, M4 and M6. My opinion [and this is a personal bias] is that they got the finder right in the M3 and have screwed it up since then. I use the M3 from 35 mm thru 135 mm [yes I know that it has no 35 mm frame lines but frame lines are just a suggestion anyway; close enough]. I use it in preference to the M6 to avoid the clutter. Try one and you will like it.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), July 06, 2001.

Gail,

Many of the current M6 users cut their teeth on the M3. It is a very good design, and when you consider how similar the M6 is to it, an amazing piece of hardware for the time it was first produced.

I would make a suggestion that might broaden your potential search. The recommendation to look for a serial number of over 1,100, 000 is going to be very limiting. This is fast approaching the end of the run which had a serial number of 1,15X,XXX. These are very desirable and therefore expensive. Many users also feel that the double stroke camera had a smoother action, I know my two double stroke M3's did. I would go with the often repeated serial number of 85X,XXX as a starting place. This will add thousands of potential cameras to your selection.

My two M3s were both out of adjustment and the shutters were off upon purchase, but after being tuned-up by Leica, they were like new cameras. If you are considering a price, factor in a tune-up by a good repair service. I bought "ugly", and saved a lot of money for a fully operable cameras that I was not afraid to use.

Good luck.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 06, 2001.

Hi Al,

Thanks for your advice. I will keep it in mind during my search! I hope the search won't be too long now that I'm so inspired from all these e-mails.

Gail

-- Gail Hammer (gail@hammerphotography.com), July 06, 2001.

Frankly, I never care whether a camera is "worth" a particular amount or not. If your R3 is a dear old friend and you want to use it, have it fixed and use it. The value is in the use.

My '51 Rolleiflex 3.5MX is probably worth $190, but I had it cleaned, a Maxwell screen installed, a ful refurbishment. The cost was about $300 or so, never mind what I paid for the camera. But what I have now is a lovely, beautiful Rolleiflex which can take a superb picture ... now what's that worth?

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), July 07, 2001.

http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm

Gail, take a look at the website above for more info on rangefinder cameras, including Leica M's. Good luck on your hunt for an M3.

-- Ron Gregorio (rongregorio@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001.

Thanks for the address Ron. I will definitely check it out. I have already found out that it won't be easy finding an M3 for sale but I guess that must mean that people love them and don't want to give them up. I have a Kodak Retina that I have had for a few years. I haven't used it for awhile although it took some good quality photos. One of my concerns with the rangefinder especially with the M3 is this issue with wearing glasses but apparently there are solutions. This will be a bit of a process trying to decide whether to go the "M" route or as Godfrey suggested, invest some money in fixing up the R3.

Gail

-- Gail Hammer (gail@hammerphotography.com), July 11, 2001.

Gail,

regarding the wearing of glasses, for years I was using the 35mm lens as my standard, and gravitated from the M3 to the M2 so that I could use that focal length. When I finally had to admit that my eyes were not as good as they use to be, and I started wearing glasses, it was a pain to see the whole frame of the 35mm lens with the M2. There was one thing that I was able to do, and that was to see the whole 50mm frame with the M2, which occupies less area than the 35mm frame. I reluctantly started using my 50mm Summicron, and rediscovered that focal length. The M3 is a great camera, no doubt, but if you wear glasses and like the 50mm lens, take a look at the M2, M4 or M6. Even with glasses, you can still see the whole frame, and some of the area out of the frame. This might add to the amount of potential cameras for your search.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 11, 2001.

Gail, just speaking from my own experience, use your R-4 for now and save the money you intend to use on fixing the R-3 to buy a used M3, M2, or M4 body. I went the long way around trying to justify why not to buy an expensive M body through purchases of other SLR's (currently stowed away), and in the end I ended up with an M2 but at a higher cost altogether. It's just different looking through a rangefinder than an SLR, and you end up taking pictures differently than with your SLR.

You may want to check out the Asian market (Bangkok, Hong Kong, Singapore) if you have connections there since 2nd-hand M's are considerably cheaper there than in North America.

-- Ron Gregorio (rongregorio@hotmail.com), July 12, 2001.

My favorite lens is actually not the 50 mm. I prefer a wide angle lens. But if the viewfinder is really bright I may not have to wear glasses. I am not going to spend any money yet on fixing the R3 until I can at least try out one of the M's but I have noticed that there is a lot of passion expressed for these cameras (and not just from this forum but also from known photojournalists etc.)and I am just wondering if anyone can explain to me why this is - what changes when a person goes from taking pictures with an SLR to a rangefinder? Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail Hammer (gail@hammerphotography.com), July 12, 2001.