Sharpest lenses available. Quiet shutter and without a mirror, easier to take sharper pictures with slower speeds. Name prestige and the most aesthetically pleasing camera design I've come across.

All manual design, no built-in metering. Film loading could be easier.

This is arguably the finest camera Leica made. Sadly, it has become a highly collectable camera, hoarded by non-photographers, and therefore sells at a premium, even for poor condition samples. I was lucky and purchased one around 1991 before prices skyrocketed. A good 'user' model went for as low as $300-350 then.

All Leica M-lenses will fit, but some will require additional rangefinders, as the M3 will only show framelines for 50, 90 & 135. These lenses are superior to any Japanese design. My best work has originated from this camera, not just because of the lenses, but because the rangefinder gives a totally different perspective of your subject.

Customer Service

Never encountered Leica service, can't afford it.

Similar Products Used:

Nikon and other various 35mm types.

* Magnificent, unequaled, "transcendent" quality of fit-and-finish.
* Superbly bright viewfinder with extremely fast, precise rangefinder focusing.
* Smooth transport and quiet shutter are a "religious experience" to quote Stephen Gandy of CameraQuest.
* Esthetically beautiful design.

* Clumsy film loading and rewind.
* Lack of modern features: no TTL composing/focus, no TTL exposure, no TTL flash, no zoom lenses, no built-in motor wind/rewind, no autofocus.
* Very expensive even for used equipment, 30 years old.
* Currently manufacturer lenses are very, very expensive.

In 1966 I bought a mint Leica M3 that I owned for a few months: the memory has stayed with me. It was the most beautifully crafted instrument of any kind -- photographic or otherwise -- that I have ever owned. I sold the Leica and bought a Nikon F because I needed SLR features and couldn't afford to keep both cameras.
Would it have payed me to keep the Leica? I paid Cdn$350 for the M3 with a 50/f2 rigid Summicron, both mint. Today a merely VG+ M3 with the same lens would sell for Cdn$2500 or more. (Not bad, but then I could have invested in MicroSoft or Amazon.Com.)
Someday I will come full circle and buy another Leica. A Nikon D1 with be more practical but were I to die soon after, I'd die more content having owned the Leica.

Customer Service

Didn't require service while I owned the camera.

Similar Products Used:

Many cameras, maily SLRs, notably Nikon F and Olympus OM1 & OM2.

Extremely precise, small, light, durable, beautiful, built right into my hands. Fast and precise focusing is a main advantage. The viewfinder shows everything in more or less natural size.

Haven't found one so far. People should stop complaining about film loading. Ok, it's much easier to do the loading on a table rather than being on location. But you can get used to it and gain routine.

The Leica M 3 is my favourite camera and will always be. Every detail matches the highest possible standards, and the entire machine looks simply great. Focusing is a pleasure and much more precise than any autofocus (at least this is my subjective impression). First I found it a bit time consuming to do this hand metering all the time. But that's another issue I got used to very quickly. After some weeks or so hand metering became just part of the pleasure (try spot metering and you'll find out what I mean). I really like the idea of using such a historic camera. I take many of my pictures for professional purposes and make use of the M 3 very often. Not being equipped with a mirror makes this very camera so quiet. I never managed to take sharp and crisp slides at 1/30 of a second with my SLR cameras. But I do take sharp photographs at 1/10 of a second with that great little Leica machine of 1956. Listening to the subtle noise of the shutter is a pleasure in itself!
As somebody else wrote: If you are serious in 35mm photography, you should have a Leica M 3. Try following combination: Leica M 3 with Summicron 50mm plus AGFA Scala black and white slide (!) film! I don't know if this kind of film is available in the USA or in Canada. But if you can get it - put it into your Leica M 3 and enjoy brillant, sharp, marvelously detailed black and white slides. Surprise your friends and your family with this type of classical photography!

Customer Service

Got new shutter curtains built in (ca. 1990) . The official Leica service checked everything and did a few adjustments on top of the shutter repair. The whole affair cost me as much as the camera body itself. This is not exactly what I would call inexpensive. But they were nice, competent and did a high precision job.

Similar Products Used:

Contax RTS (the first version). Nikon FM 2N. Nikon F 70 (that's the designation it bears in Germany). Leica IIf. Several SLR of the Yashica brand. Fujica ST 801.

Fantastic feel, fit, build, and finish. If it were a car, it would be a Rolls. Excellent lenses available, whisper quiet operation, can get decent hand-held shots at 1/10 of a second.

No built-in meter and a tad bit awkward to load film.

I have never held a camera that I loved as much as the Leica M3. One may actually take fine photos wth it, but one can also spend hours caressing the camera. It feels right in one's hands. It is not my everyday camera (a Nikon F2 or a Yashicamat 124G) are my regular cameras; however, I prefer the Leica to any camera that I own. In terms of photo quality, the Leica M3 with collasable 50mm lens, is excellent. If I had lots of lolly, I'd exclusively use an all Leica system (except for those occassional excursions into medium format or, gasp, digital). I guess that is really important to me is the aesthetics of photography and photographic equipment and this is what elevates the Leica M3 over most other cameras that I've used or covet.

Customer Service

Never needed, yet.

Similar Products Used:

Ricoh 500 G, Konica Auto S, Olympus XA, Minox EL.

I just get better results with it. Cost, this stopped me buying all the lenses I lusted after but didn't need.
Incredibly tough.

Slow loading

This is a review for an M2, as it doesn't have it's on category.

Six months ago I wanted to sell the Leica, but have had a huge burst of photography in the last half year since I got an SLR again. I started putting B&W in the Leica and carrying it everwhere. All my negatives get scanned, and I find that the Leica ones don't need cropping anywhere near as often as the SLR. The finder is an exceptional compositional tool. The Summicron 50 (70's version) is a perfect lens.

The new Cosina (Voigtlander) lenses address the cost of lenses issue, but I can't imagine ever buying another lens, as the M2/Summicron combination is perfect, and adding a choice would just slow things down.

Leica are expensive, but when you look at retained value and lack of obsolescence, the economics start to make sense (as long as you keep it and use it).

Customer Service

No Idea.

Similar Products Used:

T90, F-1n, Eos 50

Fits in your hands, solidly made, mechanics and optics are excellent,very easy to handle, uncluttered.

None

Excellent overall feel. Sorry I sold the camera but I wanted the new M6 with built-in meter. If I had to do it over again, I would have kept the M3 in addition to the M6.

Customer Service

I had my M3 for about 4 years and had it checked out once by Leica during a free check-up in New York. It was working perfectly. I never had it factory serviced.No need.

Similar Products Used:

Most recently the M6 with excellent results. Doesn't feel as solidly made as the M3 but has a much brighter viewfinder.

Very well designed and durable. Size and weight. Takes excellent pictures.

N/A

I have a 1955 M3 with a 740k serial number. It is flawless even after all these years. Very well designed well engineered camera. With my Summarit 1:1.5 50mm and Elmar 1:4 90mm (Both have 1954 serials) I can get brilliant scenic shots when I'm skiing and just sightseeing. Took an award winning photograph of my Grandmother's 1896 Victorian home. It's a little more work than my Nikon N80, but well worth the time when you see the pictures.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

One of a kind.

The biggest strength of the M3, the reason I bought mine, and the reason you would put up with one of these is the big viewfinder magnification.

Contrary to popular lore, the finder is not the brightest on the market but it is the clearest and easiest to see.

Another plus is the brass body, which gives the camera a solid feel that the M6 (or anything modern) just doesn't have.

Very accurate focusing, and with slight modification, it can focus all M lenses all the way down to 0.7 meters.

The M3 has a lot of weaknesses that are specific to the age of the camera. All of them can be overcome, but it can be at a terrible price: body covering often extremely fragile and chips off with no warning; shutters invariably need cleaning if they sit for any length of time; beamsplitters can go bad, necessitating a $600 finder repair.

Two other design-related problems: the eyepiece is sharp metal and will chew up your glasses, and the lever-wind has no return stop - if you let it snap back, it *will* make a tiny ding on the shutter speed dial. So be careful.

I may one of a very small number who do not believe the loading is bad (at least not as bad as the M6).

I don't believe that it is an elegant aesthetic design, or one well-suited to big hands.

This is a solid, solid camera for people who like an easy view (and easy focusing) with 50 and 90mm lenses. Assume you will spend a lot of money, but realize that you will never want to give it up. Not a camera for everyone, but when I see an M4-P or an M6 next to an M3, all I can think is, "Leica did it right the first time around."

Customer Service

With parts they're ok, but I understand that actually having something fixed takes 3 months. Send it to DAG or Focal Point instead. Lisle-Kelso (Canadian Leica) is pretty good.

Similar Products Used:

Canon VI-L
Canon P
Konica Hexar RF
Leica M6 (non-ttl)

This is a very very nice camera. However, I would like to say that it can not be compared to the more modern Leica M cameras such as the M4-P or M6. Many of the reviews concentrate on the feel of the camera, on the type of click that it makes. Who cares? What matters is whether you get good pictures with it or not. Being interested in documentary photography I need a a fast camera which I can focus easily, and M4, M4-P and M6 are all faster than an M3. Furthermore, I need 35 mm lenses and sometimes a 28, and that is just not a good idea on an M3. But if you wanna go Cartier-Bresson and do everything with a 50 mm, the M3 is great. Don't get me wrong, the M3 is fantastic, but the later M cameras are MUCH better for serious work, in my opinion.

No frames for wide angle lenses. Charming but cumbersome film loading

A very fine camera, but I like the later M cameras better!

Customer Service

$300 for cleaning and adjusting IS very expensive. I mean nothing was even broken on it. But sure it will be alright the next 10 years, so...

Similar Products Used:

Leica M4, M4-P, M6

I have an M2, which is similar but not identical to an M3. Instead of the M3's viewfinder frame lines for 50, 90 and 135 mm lenses, the M2 has frame lines for 35, 50 and 90 mm lenses. This camera's strengths are its durability, reliability, precision, simplicity, directness, controllability, quietness of shutter, accuracy of focusing (especially with wide angle lenses in dim light), handling feel, the flexibility of the 35/50/90 frame lines, and the high quality, high speed and variety of lenses available for it both used and new. This is a basic but very high quality precision instrument, especially well suited to taking candid photographs of people in available light. It is elegant, in the sense that it has everything necessary but nothing superfluous, and is built to last. Although my M2 camera body is more than 40 years old, it continues to function well as a frequently used photographic tool.

While this camera takes interchangeable lenses, it is a rangefinder rather than SLR camera, so it is most effective with its core range of 35, 50 and 90 mm lenses. For telephoto lenses of 135 mm or longer, or wide angle lenses of 24 mm or wider, an SLR would probably be a better choice. This camera's weaknesses are its high initial cost (although it continues working longer after cheaper cameras break, and holds its resale value very well), lack of a built-in light meter, somewhat slow and awkward film loading, and its inherent limitations as a rangefinder rather than SLR camera.

As an amateur photographer who takes family pictures for recreation rather than earning a living from them, I have the luxury of choosing my equipment solely to suit my personal taste. Given the choice, I would rather take pictures with this camera than with anything else. For taking candid, unobtrusive photographs of family events, concerts, or other situations using available light, which is what I enjoy doing most, it is unsurpassed. For certain other types of photography, such as sports or nature photography in which long telephoto lenses are essential, or commercial photography making extensive use of electronic flash equipment, an SLR would be a better choice. If your skills in using manual camera controls are modest, then automated equipment might also be a better choice. Compared to more modern and automated cameras, using an M2 with a separate hand-held light meter is a bit like driving an older but well-built sports car with a manual transmission, rather than a new sedan with an automatic. If you were on a twisting mountain road with steep grades, which would you rather be driving -- a brand-new Toyota with an automatic transmission and cruise control, or a somewhat older Porsche with a 5-speed manual transmission? Using a rangefinder camera with manual controls properly requires somewhat more attention and thought than using an SLR with automatic exposure and focusing, but if effort has been expended to learn what all of the controls are and what effect they have when used in various combinations, the photographer has a greater degree of conscious control over how the picture will turn out. This is by no means the only equipment or the only approach with which one can obtain good photographic results, but it is the equipment and approach with which I am the most comfortable and most satisfied after taking pictures with various types of 35 mm equipment over many years. The availability of fast, high-quality, durable wide angle, normal, and moderate telephoto lenses is also an important consideration. I am currently using this camera with some older Canon screw-mount lenses using a lens mount adapter, and the results are excellent. Used Leitz M-mount lenses have an excellent reputation. Leica is still manufacturing new M-mount lenses which recent reviews rate as offering extraordinarily high optical quality and mechanical precision and durability, although they are sufficiently expensive to require that most photographers buy selectively and plan their purchases well in advance. I would be the first to agree that the most important components of any set of photo equipment are the photographer's vision, training and experience, and that these are far more important that what hardware he or she is using. A talented photographer with average equipment will almost always take more interesting pictures than a mediocre photographer with excellent equipment. A Leica is just a good camera, not a magic totem; it does not take pictures all by itself. Having said that, however, it is a solid, precise, reliable, confidence-inspiring piece of equipment which will function well and take high quality photographs under a wide variety of conditions, so long as you learn how to use its controls effectively, take advantage of its strengths, and respect its limitations. The high prices paid even for older used Leicas attest to the value which the market places on their quality and durability. I had to save for a while to get the one I bought, and it wasn't cheap, but I don't regret one penny of the money I spent for it, and I plan to keep it a long time. My bottom line: if I could only have one camera, I would rather have one of these than anything else, limitations and all.

Customer Service

I bought my M2 body used. It was functioning when delivered, but I found a couple of problems which the dealer had repaired for me by a professional service at no additional cost. If you shop for a vintage camera of high inherent quality but long prior service, you are better off looking for the most reputable dealer rather than the one offering the lowest initial prices.

Similar Products Used:

Rangefinder cameras -- Olympus 35 SPN, Canon P, CanonL-1, Canon Owl. SLR cameras -- Canon TL, Canon TLb, Canon FTb. Have also used Nikon F.