Talk:Leica M3

Regrets about some features

• "At the same time, the lack of an internal exposure meter and the lack of wide angle framelines is regretted by most".
  • I've read a lot about the Leica M3 and I've seldom if ever read any regrets about the lack of an internal exposure meter.

Actually it's even worse, it's incorrect! According to Pacific Rim's website, there was a clip-on exposure meter available for the M3 that could even be coupled to the shutter. driesvandenelzen 08:00, 29 June 2006 (EDT)

To regret the lack of internal exposure meter and lack of wide angle framelines is an opinion that is maybe expressed by people wanting to buy a rangefinder camera today. In my opinion it does not reflect the opinion of the customers at the time. The only rangefinder to have an internal exposure meter was the Contax IIIa, and its existence did not prevent many people from buying the Contax IIa. The wide-angle frame line issue was addressed by the M2, and it did not replace the M3 but only supplemented it, so there were enough customers that were happy with the M3's 50mm viewfinder and bigger magnification. In fact the choice between M2 and M3 was a bit like the choice of finder magnification on today's models.

--Rebollo fr 15:33, 29 June 2006 (EDT)

Beautiful?

• "Many consider the M3 to be the most beautiful Leica ever made"
  • What, if anything, does this mean?

M3 users on the internet express their appreciation for the M3's craftmanship and design. driesvandenelzen 08:04, 29 June 2006 (EDT)

Where "X" is the name of some camera, "X users on the internet express their appreciation for the X's craftmanship and design" is true for a considerable selection of "X", including the Leica M2 and M4, Nikon F, F2, F3, Canon F-1, T90, etc etc etc etc. I thought that M3 users appreciate its viewfinder magnification and rangefinder design. (As for the rather silly non-issue of beautiful cameras that take Leica lenses, I thought that the Canon P was the favorite.) -- Hoary 09:21, 29 June 2006 (EDT)

Any assertion about perceived quality is a difficult subject in a wiki article, but it does not mean that it must not be addressed.

To ban a judgement of good craftsmanship from the M3's page would be like setting the policy of not talking about this anywhere, and I don't think this policy to be useful. The list with Leica M2, M4, Nikon F, etc. is not overwhelmingly long, and we can afford a couple of sentences about their perceived quality in the corresponding pages. These cameras really have something that objectively makes a difference with a cheaply built one. I hope that common sense will prevent us from expanding the list ad nauseam, and from including the Holga.

However I would not use the adjective "beautiful": unlike craftsmanship or historical significance, it is very unlikely to see a consensus emerge about the beauty of a design. It depends too much on the viewer's "cultural" background.

--Rebollo fr 15:33, 29 June 2006 (EDT)