apart from the collectors value, is there anyone who really prefers the m3 style rewind knob on some of the special editions? is there any advantage over the new tilted crank? from my old retina i know that this thing can be quite a pain when you are in a hurry, but,

(a) with such a leica you can afford to take your time or (b) the superduper leica quality makes even this a pleasure to use or (c) i am missing something here

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), December 08, 2001

Answers

I don't like it - too slow, although you can get bolt-on attachments that make it easier to use (see Stephen Gandy at www.cameraquest.com). Some people prefer the M2/M3-style all metal winder, though again I prefer the M4/M6-style 2-piece plastic tipped winder.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), December 08, 2001.

Nah, it just looks better. Anything would. I've read that the knob and the double-stroke advance of the first M3s both resulted from worry about the effect of too rapid transport on film. When that worry turned out to be goundless, even though there were elegant solutions like the Canon P staring them in the face, Leitz seems to have turned Willi Stein's masterpiece over to the village design idiot......................

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), December 08, 2001.

Unless you are leisure shooting, the M2/3 know is way too show. So is the loading system if you are in a situatiion where you will be exposing many rolls of film.

If I had a M2/3, I'd add a good rewind crank and modify the take up spool the the M4/6 quick load system. I think the M4/6 crank and quick load make the camera much more photographer friendly.

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), December 08, 2001.

They should all copy the ALPA.

-- Williumn (bmitch@home.com), December 08, 2001.

I went to the cameraquest web page, but didn't find winders for sale (just a review of different winders over the years).

Anybody know where to find a winder add on for the M3?

Thanks Phillip

-- Phillip Silitschanu (speedin_saab@hotmail.com), December 09, 2001.

phillip: i am not sure whether a m3 can be motorized, but you can add a rapidwinder with some modifications necessary to the camera. go to www.rapidwinder.com.

i very much like the m6 rewind crank. it is the best i used on a camera yet. i think it really helps that it is tilted. i can understand that professionals, who shoot film in greater masses, would need a motorized rewind. or an assistant.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), December 09, 2001.

You can add winding capability to your M3 by using parts from a M4-M or M4-2 and up cameras. The simplist way is to use the take-up shaft from a M4-M (getting very hard to find) but this limits you to the motors for the M4-M, Leicavit or Tom A's RapidWinder for the M2. Using the parts from the later cameras will allow you to use the more commonly available Winders, Motor and RapidWinder.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), December 09, 2001.

Why would anyone use an M2/M3 for photo-journalism? You don't gulp fine wine so what's the rush with these masterpieces.

The loading and rewind mechanisms may be a bit slow but they are absolutely bulletproof. I've never had to go back and shoot something over because the film failed to advance or there was a problem rewinding the film.

These are gull-wing Mercedes, not Dodge Vipers. Slow down and enjoy the ride.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), December 09, 2001.

I use a pair (the second came this weekend) of M2's for shooting, and thanks to ray I was able to get a rewind lever on each of them. They speed up rewinding quite a bit, but are Richard Wasserman style (this is the guy who makes them), so they are a bit bulky and the rewind itself stands out a bit). If you use your camera in a bag you wouldn't mind them, otherwise I'd stick to the 'normal' rewind. It isn't that hard, only 3* as slow ...

-- Kai Blanke (Kai.blanke@iname.com), December 09, 2001.

"Why would anyone use an M2/M3 for photo-journalism?"

Ask David Douglas Duncan, HC-B, Philip Jones Griffith, Paul Fusco, Dennis Stock, etc. etc. Take a look at "Self-Portrait: USA" or "War without Heroes" (both shot with M3s (and SLRs for 105 and longer).

Unfortunately you can't ask Larry Burrows and some other Vietnam shooters - they died in the war.

That being said, the M4+ rewind crank is a practical improvement IMHO, but there is a gracefulness to the look of the old knob. The special editions are intended to play on nostalgia and Leica history, and the old-style knob and/or advance lever without plastic tip support that goal.

Notice that Contax also copied the 'look' on the G2 by putting a knob the same size and with similar knurling in almost the same spot for motor speed/self-timer/multi-exposure control. A tip of the hat to the M3/2 design in a camera that has motorized rewind.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 09, 2001.

I seriously doubt those photojournalist heroes would be using an M2/M3 today. They'd all be carrying M6's.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), December 09, 2001.

for sure there is lot of use improvement in M4 rewind level, M3/2 can be friendly to use too, never as fast, but a lot more knock proof than M4 and M6 models.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 09, 2001.

I seriously doubt they'd be carrying M6s either, because the rangefinder advantage in focusing wide-angles has disappeared. Most of them would probably use EOS 1v's, at least for combat photography: ruggeder, better-sealed, IS lenses available, and faster............

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), December 09, 2001.

The finders of the M3 and M2 are much more susceptable to impact damage than the later cameras. The glue used in the cementing of the prism is much stronger in the newer cameras. If you use an aftermarket rewind crank on your the knob rewind Ms, use your finger to support the extended shaft or you may end up with it bent.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), December 09, 2001.

I don't disagree with you David that modern PJs would be carrying Nikon or Canon pro models, but why has the rangefinder advantage in focusing wideangles disappeared?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 09, 2001.

It hasn't disappeared on my M. Focusing a wide angle lens wide open in dim light is much easier with a rangefinder camera. If your AF camera has a focus aid light then it will focus very quickly but I feel it is a rather laughable solution.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), December 09, 2001.

Mani and John: I meant that the best modern AF can duplicate or even better the M's ability to take a wide angle instantly to point of sharpest focus, unlike a manual focus SLR, which requires one to go past that point and back to it (and evaluating where that point is can be very hard with extreme wides.) Not only that, but the AF sensors in cameras like the Canon 1v and Nikons F100 and F5 can lock on in light so dim that it's difficult to even see an RF patch. I'd never trade the M for one of these monsters for unobtrusive close range work but for most other purposes, it's obsolete....

-- david kelly (dmkedit @ aol.com), December 09, 2001.

Hi David,

I use M cameras because I love the viewfinder. It is a pair of cropping "L"s with no in or out of focus misrepresentations. I frankly do not care if someone makes a better camera with faster this or more intelligent that. I just want a simple viewfinder, a simple meter and a simple shutter. My pictures will not improve with a more sophisticated camera only with a more sophisticated mind.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), December 10, 2001.

Getting back to the original question, the M4 raised a big flap when loyal Leica enthusiasts saw that it looked different from the M3/M2. The canted rewind crank looked like it didn't belong. The plastic inserts on the self-timer and frame preview levers, as well as the plastic tip on the winding lever, also raised eyebrows. I'd say the regression to the older style rewind crank is an effort to capture the nostalgia dollar, from those who haven't accepted these changes yet. When I rewind my M2 I am reminded that the new crank was a very good idea. Legend at the time had it that Leitz felt there was too much danger of static marks from rapid rewinding. That could be, I guess. I never get static marks from rewinding the M6, though.

Funny nobody complained when the bayonet model (M3) was introduced, even though it didn't look like a IIIf. Nobody said, "Gee, it's just not the same anymore." It wasn't supposed to be. Neither was the M4 and subsequent models.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 10, 2001.

John: I agree completely. But Andy and Bud had steered the thread towards the M as a camera for combat photography; my point about state-of-the-art AF was made in that context....

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), December 10, 2001.

Bob: I disagree completely. Stein's M3 is widely agreed to be a benchmark of industrial design, on a par with the Eames lounge chair or Pinin Farina's Alfa Romeo Giulietta Spyder, to take two examples from the same period.

It is also a very considered design, just four rectangles and a circle, the smaller rectangles given emphasis by raised edges and the line of the top plate continued by the shutter speed dial and release button at exactly the same elevation. You don't have to be a RISD graduate to see that lopping off a corner breaks the tension between these simple elements. Those blobs of plastic you mention don't improve matters either. One might as well offer the Eames chair in pink or put tailfins on the Alfa.

This numbskullery would easier to forgive if Canon's designers hadn't already demonstrated an elegant solution to the same problem. But was it the work of an individual moron , or a committee? I'd guess the la

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), December 10, 2001.

I like the old style rewind knob. The secret is to have it well lubricated then it goes ok. And if you stop rewinding in the middle the roll doesnt "wizz" and unspool. Really it's not that big of a deal. With the new slanted rewind crack I worry about it breaking.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), December 10, 2001.

I miss the old days when my young wife and I were using an M2 and M3 and we'd find a nice shady spot to sit down to change film. Since my wife wore skirts in those days, her lap made for a handy spot to put base plates, take-up spools and film.

My wife's purse also doubled as a camera bag where those small, chrome lenses resided.

Nearly forty years later, I really can't see where auto loading or auto rewinding has increased our enjoyment of photography nor have automatic transmissions improved on the fun we used to have in the Porsche 1600 Normal with it's manual gearbox.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), December 10, 2001.

Look at these closeups of the Canon P rewind lever, on Steve Gandy's Classic Camera site, for an illustration of what David Kelly is talking about

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

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 10, 2001.

"Notice that Contax also copied the 'look' on the G2 by putting a knob the same size and with similar knurling in almost the same spot for motor speed/self-timer/multi-exposure control. A tip of the hat to the M3/2 design in a camera that has motorized rewind."

With all due respect to the landmark piece of industrial design that is the M3 . . . given the brand's heritage, I think Kyocera just as likely took their styling cues for the G2 from the original Zeiss Ikon Contax RFs (after all, they also adopted the signature Contax focus wheel)--the G2's motor function switch is 1/2-way between the size of an M3 rewind knob & that on a pre & post-WWII Contax (although the slight slope @ the "rewind" end of the G2 is probably a nod to the M4/M6). It should also be remembered that the M3 (a.k.a. the "Leica IV" in prototype form) was itself developed as a response to the Contax II &, in many ways, bears a closer resemblance to it than the Leica thread mount cameras.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 11, 2001.