Considering trading my 5D MKII and 70-200 f4 L for a Leica M3

[sniper x]

So, I am contemplating putting my perfcet shape low shutter count Canon 5D MKII, and the also cherry Canon 70-200 f4 L lens for trade. I have wanted a Leica M3 for years but can't justify buying one. I have quite a few nice DSLR's so can afford to trade off the super cherry 5DMKII for a nice Leica. I see cameras in lower condition than my 5D selling for 900 or so and the lesn for up to 500 or so neither in as good condition as mine. So, I figure my set up is worth at least 1500-1700 trade value since the camera also has a Canon Battery grip which is almost new, and 5 batteries and two chargers.

Now for the question to YOU GUYS....Am I crazy? Should I just put my camera and gear for it up on Ebay and sell it and buy a M3?

 

[Derrel]

Okay, big long reply coming!

You'd be going from 21st century technology and working methods and end-results (infinitely reproducible and infinitely malleable digital negatives, electronic image storage,and inkjet prints,easy on-line created photo books) back to 1953 technology and working methods: a camera that forces you to remove the baseplate and to bottom-load each roll, meterless,and expensive film and development costs for every roll, single-copy negative storage,and rangefinder focusing, and a basically 90mm lens top limit with accurate framing and focusing.

While the Leica M3 is/was a beautifully made machine (I wanted one sooooo badly in the mid-1980's), it's basically optimized for the 35mm and 50mm lens lengths, and has a rather crude viewfinder system when it comes to the telephoto lens lengths...not very precise on the rare,longer lenses, which were basically the 90mm, and the rare,uncommon 135 which never really caught on. The 75mm lenses were rare too.

I dunno...the Leica, and other high-end rangefinders were interesting cameras, but not really as versatile as an SLR type camera. No macro capabilities with the M3...not worth a darn on closeups...not useful for lenses over 75mm in length...unable to focus high-speed tele lenses accurate at close ranges at wide f/stops...no zoom lenses...needs separate viewfinder if you do want to accurately frame longer-lens shots...atrociously slooooooooow X-synch speed of the Leica is pre-Korean-war slow.....no meter, so color slide exposures need a meter for good accuracy...B&W or color neg exposures can be estimated by experienced shooters well enough...not really worthwhile for most action shooting except with short lenses and zone focusing...has a rather narrow window where the camera's basically "1920's design ethos" produces optimal results....the Leica was designed to be a small,light,fast camera for capturing moments back in an era when a tripod-mounted,slow camera was the normal camera....the original Leica's design ethos was RADICAL AND NEW in the 1920's...its actual,closest modern camera ethos is exemplified in the smartphone camera: fast,easy-to-carry,light,ever-present,intuitive,one-lensed,easy to shoot at close to normal ranges,not good for distant subjects.

I dunno...I've worked a lot with the 28/2.8 and 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 lenses as well as the 85/2 Nikkor lenses...this is the basic area where the Leica shines: 28mm,35mm,50mm, and to a lesser extent,much less, the short tele range of 75mm or 90mm.

You'd be trading an exceptionally versatile,capable,modern camera, the 5D-II and a 70-200mm f/4 autofocusing zoom lens for a camera that premiered in 1953, and which is suited to far fewer types of assignments, suited to slower-paced,single-shot shooting, and which is fairly poor for action or distant subjects.

I get the Leica mystique, and the cameras and lenses are very nicely made. I'm not sure what you want to use the Leica "for". The 35mm film rangefinder camera lives on in the Voigtlander brand, and I bought a 35/50/75+body Voigtlander Bessa rangefinder system in 2001...it was nice, but not Leica-grade in body construction, but the lenses were sharp and crisp and small and light. But honestly, for me, the rangefinder way of working was not something I wanted to do, especially with 35mm film.

The new Leica M-series digital cameras appeal to me,however, just for the capture medium: raw, DNG digital on reusable media. You asked, "Am I crazy?". I dunno...are you? A 1953 designed Leica M3 and a 50mm lens is a far cry from a 21st-century Japanese-engineered Canon 5D-II digital single lens reflex camera. The two cameras are vastly different. Each one has strengths that the other one lacks.

 

[Gary A.]

Per your post, it is apparent that this won’t be your sole camera.

Sure, what-the-hell, experiement with new stuff. Have you any film experience? It with be such a different experience shooting a manual, rangefinder compared to a modern dSLR. an additional plus is that if you don’t like it, you won’t lose much, if any, money on a resale.

I have an M4-P and it is great for Street and such. You can’t go very long or very wide ... so you have to adjust your approach and thinking of what you desire as the final image. But that’s okay, often, shooting with restrictions will improve your skills and eye.

 

[Derrel]

Do you think you can find an actual Leica M3 owner who'd trade for a 5D Mark II? Do people like that exist?

 

[Designer]

.. I figure my set up is worth at least 1500-1700 trade value ..

When you say "trade value", are you taking about trade-in at a camera store, or you planning to sell it for cash to a private party?

And are you buying the Leica at full retail price at a camera store, or some other source?

 

[compur]

Now for the question to YOU GUYS....Am I crazy? Should I just put my camera and gear for it up on Ebay and sell it and buy a M3?

I happen to know KEH has M3's that they are having trouble selling. They have no trouble selling AE-1s, K1000s etc but the high end Leica, Hassy, Rollei cameras are a hard sell for them. And, of course, nice digital SLRs are easy to sell as well. This came straight from our local KEH rep here. So you might be able to work an extra good deal with KEH on the trade you mentioned. Might be worth a phone call.

And, no, you're not any crazier than the rest of us here.

 

[jcdeboever]

I've always wanted a M2, M3, or M4 with a sumicron but I never could justify the cost when I get good results with a less then $100 film setup of a Nikon F. I'm not sure how much better image quality could be than say this pic taken with less than $100 F with 100mm 2.8 E. Is it really going to get better than this 100% micro prism viewfinder? The F is a solid piece of metal and super smooth in operation. OK, it doesn't feel like an M3 but not that far off in my opinion. I spent another $200 on a few other lenses for it. I bought the F because I like the looks, feel, and viewfinder. It makes me want to go out and shoot. To sell a high end camera such as yours for a M3? Go for it, if that's what you want and it satisfies your desire to make images.

 

[Gary A.]

Hey ... I just realized you're the guy who just purchased the Ruskie rangefinder ... so, I am assuming, you have film experience and you have rangefinder experience. Definitely go for it. Taking photos with a precision instrument like a Leica or a Nikon F, is a great experience and the camera will deliver super photographs. It will be the pride of your collection. The only problem will be lenses. Good Leica lenses are expensive and the top lenses are ridiculous. But, the big but, with a Leica body in hand, is a great excuse to explore all the places where Leica stuff just might be lurking.

 

[webestang64]

I have quite a few nice DSLR's so can afford to trade off the super cherry 5DMKII for a nice Leica.

There is your answer.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

Do it. Its just a camera. You can always sell the Leica for another Canon at some point if you get bored with it

 

[bhop]

As a Leica shooter myself, I say... depends what you want to shoot. If you're a sports shooter, or like long lenses, then maybe not.

..but if you like "street" style, or just documenting your everyday wanderings (that's what I do) then go for it since you've got other dslrs already. M3 + Summicron 50 f/2 (assuming that's the combo you'd want) will probably run you around $2k though. Most of that cost is the lens. I haven't seen a Summicron without scratching and haze selling for less than $800 (i've been looking for a chrome one to go with my M2)

If you don't care about having a Leica branded lens, then Voigtlander makes excellent M mount lenses. There are also older screwmount Canon lenses you can use with an adapter. I use Canon's 50mm f/1.4 on my Leicas.

One other note, if you wear glasses, you won't be able to see the frame lines easily on the M3. That's why I went with the M2 instead with its wider viewfinder.

 

[Dave Colangelo]

I have quite a few nice DSLR's so can afford to trade off the super cherry 5DMKII for a nice Leica

As others have said this is pretty much the key line. If you have other DSLR's then presumably you wont be killing your digital ability which i think is important for the discussion on a practical note. Realistically no matter how many cameras you have you can only practically use one (maybe two) at a time so the question of letting something out of a collection is more of losing an ability which, with the above note, it sounds like you lose nothing.

If time has shown us anything digital bodies drop in value over time, while the classic film market has leveled out and you may actually come out on top by trading the camera while it still has solid value. Beyond that the monetary decision is one only you can make.

I say go for it...

Now some thoughts on film and the leica. The Leica is one of the great film cameras i currently dont own but would like to give a serious shot one day. It must be worth something if people trade them like hot cakes and it gets the reviews it does. So why have I not bought one? I have a really minty F3 with the 50mm 1.2 and feel that the quality from that setup is still something I can push more out of. Dollar for Dollar it was way less than an M3 rig and I have been happy for at least the past 3 years with it. Time will tell but ever time I have watched an M3 auction on eBay the F3 stares me down from the shelf and reminds me what I have.

I could make a case that your money is better spend on a Hasselblad as medium format has a certain look and will yield better results than the 35mm stuff but that is likely to be conjecture, little evidence and biased opinion. I might tell you to split the difference and get a Rolleiflex, but what do I know...

Onto the film part. Film is a funny thing, for me film is about the whole process. If you are going to shoot film you should also print it, on paper, in a dark room. If you are just scanning the negatives there are plugins for that... Printing color at home is tough these days. Chemical and paper production has limited if not almost completely exhausted that. The time it takes to make a print is fairly high and the results vary. At some point the cost will kill you with color prints. As such I rarely shoot color film. When I do its because im using a film camera and I when im in the swing of it, its easier to load color film than switch cameras but thats just me, it all ends up scanned. Printing BW at home is very doable and I do it fairly consistently with results I really like. It took some practice but not all that much. What I like about it is the process, the fact that it takes time and I get a real print out the other side, something I can really frame. This is where film for me really shines, it really forces you to learn the process as such anyone looking to get a good film camera I say yes. However in this case you should try and find a nice Leitz enlarger to pair with it....

If you are serious about shooting black and white and printing it go nuts with the film cameras. If you are just shooting to scan, ask your self why you are spending all the time and money on that. if you have a good answer, go for it. If you dont have a good answer, go for it we all do things we dont logically understand.

 

[bhop]

If time has shown us anything digital bodies drop in value over time, while the classic film market has leveled out and you may actually come out on top by trading the camera while it still has solid value.

This is a good point. You'll probably be able to sell the Leica gear for what you paid or more. My M6 is selling for more than it was when I bought it in 2009, for example. No reason it won't continue to go up.

Onto the film part. Film is a funny thing, for me film is about the whole process. If you are going to shoot film you should also print it, on paper, in a dark room. If you are just scanning the negatives there are plugins for that...

...If you are serious about shooting black and white and printing it go nuts with the film cameras. If you are just shooting to scan, ask your self why you are spending all the time and money on that. if you have a good answer, go for it. If you dont have a good answer, go for it we all do things we dont logically understand.

I disagree with your scanning comment. Plug-ins certainly don't look like the real thing IMO. It's always a little "off" compared to scans of real film. If you do extra work you can make it look close, but a scan already looks like film right from the scanner. Sure a darkroom will be a little better, and probably more fun if you've got the space and time, but not everyone does.

Scanning aside, shooting film is just more fun and rewarding IMO. The smell of it, the feel of the advance lever, the anticipation of seeing your photos develop.

 

[dxqcanada]

I would just get the Leica ... because I can look so cool while telling everyone that yes, I am a Leica M shooter.
... and I am being serious

 

[compur]

"Ooooh -- is that a Leica?," the young lady asks as she eyes the Argus C3 hanging from my neck.

"Why, yes it is," I reply with a cool and knowing smile. "Made in Germany, you know."