5 Frames with Kodak T-MAX P3200 (Pushed to 6400), a Leica M3 and v1 35mm Summicron – By Steven Bleistein

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

Go out and get yourself an M3! No reason not to!

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

It is a 35mm Summicron.

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

No, you are not mistaken. It is a 35mm. The error was in the title, and I have fixed it. Thanks!

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

I have pushed T-Max 400 to 3200, but it looks nothing like T-Max P3200. T-Max 400 has visibly finer grain. The lens is a first generation 35mm Summicron made for the M3 with attached optics. The optics covert the finder, whose widest frame on the M3 is 50mm, to a 35mm finder. The same optics will work on any Leica M excluding the M10, and will choose the 50mm finder.

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

Actually, that "highly competent technician" is me! So, thank you! Apart from the developing, I also modified the tone by applying a slight s-curve in Lightroom after scanning.

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

I shoot cameras I love because of how they make me feel, not because of what they can do. Shooting the Leica M3 makes me feel a way that none of the other cameras you mentioned can. Nonetheless, I think you're right. You could get excellent results with T-Max P3200 on just about any film camera featured on 35mmc. I have shot with a Ricoh GR1s, and the results are just as stunning. It's the film that counts. And yes, I have a Leica M240 that can shoot at 6400, but no higher, and frankly, while the images are acceptable, I still prefer the look of the T-Max P3200 film. The other cameras you mentioned all have good high ISO performance--some of the them excellent--the least expensive among them being the Fujis, whose low-light performance at 6400 is inferior to T-Max P3200 in my opinion. The X-E3 maxes out at 6400, I believe. The other cameras you mentioned, while all also wonderful, are all also thousands of dollars more costly than an overhauled M3 kit, even one in great condition--and none of the Leica analogue M's decline in value over time or become obsolete! As long as there is still 35mm film, the Leica M3 will always feel as fresh as it did in 1954. And then, there is serviceability. I don't think any of the cameras you mentioned will survive sixty years. My Leica M3 was manufactured before I was born, and I am probably older than most of the readers of 35mmc, and it will still be functional for my son long after I am gone.

Sroyon replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

@BC: I agree that low light performance is mostly about the film (or the sensor in case of digital cameras), but the M3 is very easy to focus in low light because of the large, bright viewfinder. Objectively easier than almost any other film camera (but whether it's easier than digital is a different, more complicated question).

BC replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

Hi Steve, the XE3 maxes out at 12800 ISO in fact as it is equipped with the same sensor as the X-pro 2. As for the pleasure of photographing including the feel and pleasure of using a particular camera, I could not agree more. But as a result it is personal and subjective. That the M3 is the best camera for you is fair (it is the one you own and use, then it makes sense) to turn the personal assessment into general truth is a big step. Personally I value an M2 over an M3 (and speaking of $, it is a cheaper camera), and my favourite M is the M6. This for simple reasons: the M2 and M6 have a 35 mm frame-lines included in the viewfinder, the M3 does not and the 35 mm Summicron is my lens of choice. The M6 has a rewind crank that makes rewinding film much faster, more convenient and less painful and frustrating. It is also a modern camera with a better shutter (even TTL flash metering for the latest version but I cannot say I care for that). For the 35 mm frame-line and the rewind crank I would choose any M4 model before I touched an M3. In terms of cost and decline in value the price of Leicas tends to fluctuate (it has definitely done that in the past year) and they do that like good cars : one loses a lot of money when buying them new and selling them within the next 4-5 years (so yes they do decline in value, sharply so even, not a real smart investment there), after that, I agree with you, they do stabilize more than most cameras. But, and as a result Leicas of the 1970-2000 are far more expensive than a Nikon F2 (a all-mechanical workhorse) or an F3 (was my favourite Nikon camera in terms of feel (the smoothest film advance ever) along with the F4s that was a little heavy though). In terms of durability, Leica is not the only one on the line, I can name a few other examples of cameras that last if it is a point in the conversation (I thought it was T-Max 3200 and M3 ;o) : the Nikon S have survived for as long as the Ms (not cheap either when one contemplates an SP but cheaper for as far as S3s and S4s are concerned, the Nikons Fs, F2s, Nikkormats too. As for not becoming obsolete, it depends on the availability of parts and this may come to an end too.

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

The fact that we are debating whether a sixty-year-old Leica M3 can hold its own against a contemporary digital camera says something about the Leica.

BC replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

Yes SROYON but so do M4s, M5s, M6s, Contaxes, Mamiya Ms, and recently Fuji X Pros and X100s. And as for focusing accuracy how many people have their range-finders checked for accuracy on a regular basis? It is no chance that the majority of professionals for whom efficiency matters have moved toward AF systems (which does not mean I do not enjoy manual focusing but we are talking about performance here). Best.

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

How many digital cameras do you still own and use from fifteen years ago? How many of them do their manufacturers still support and service? Not long ago, I was at the Leica shop in Ginza. A young woman came into the shop asking them to service her beloved D-Lux 6 she had bought ten years earlier, and had stopped working. The Leica technician told her the cameras were too old to be serviceable, and recommended she purchase the current D-Lux model instead, which is functionally inferior. She left absolutely bereft.

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

I had no trouble. What else could possibly matter?

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

I own a Fuji X100-T and a Sony a6000. Frankly, I find both their focussing slow and inaccurate (the camera frequently chooses the wrong subject if I don't override its AI). I am far faster and more precise with my Leica, particularly in street photography, where speed can be critical. If I remain aware of my environment, neither autofocus nor autoexposure improves my speed. They both slow me down.

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 13/04/2019

Not a lame question at all! I metered at 6400. I find that for T-Max P3200 and 400 exact exposure looks best whether pushing or not. T-Max 100 looks better when overexposed by about a half stop, even when pushing. So I’ll meter 650 but push process at 800.

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 14/04/2019

I would love to shoot with you in Tokyo, but unfortunately I have an unusually packed week. I’m keynoting (in Japanese!) tomorrow for an event put on by the US consulate in Nagoya, and I leave for Paris Friday. I’ve committed other days to clients. Maybe next time, or whenever we find ourselves in the same city somewhere in the world. Keep in touch with me via Instagram.

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 14/04/2019

If an M3, I would get any of the Summicron 50mm lenses first. Get 35mm with optics later, either the Summicron or the Summaron. Both superb.

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 14/04/2019

If you have an M2 or an M4-P you are disadvantaged, as you are with every M camera other than the M3. See my 35mmc article on the M3 here. The 50mm finder of the M3 is superior to that of every other M. It is clearer, uncluttered and entirely visible, even with glasses. If you wear glasses, as I do, you will likely have trouble viewing the entire 35mm from of .72x finder of other M cameras. The M3 has a .91x magnification finder, greater than any other M. The focus patch is larger and easier to see. The M3 suffers from no finder flare like the M2, M4 (all of them), the M5, the M6, and the early M7s. The build quality of the M3 is superior to every subsequent M camera, including the current MP, M-A, M240, and M10. The M2 was a cost cutting version of the M3 when it was released. People with money, went for the M3. Leica cut costs ever further when making the M4-P.

BC replied:

Comment posted: 14/04/2019

AS mentioned above I use a 35 mm lens 80% of the time and I refuse to be dependent on a cumbersome not that precise contraption I would have to attach. As an addition to the reasoning here if it is not the lens that makes the picture, neither is it the camera. They are just tools that help our photography. The one that helps me is one with a 35 mm frame in its viewfinder, possibly 28 mm (15% of my images), and better, one with an integrated light-meter. So my M3 has been gathering dust since I got my M6 (30 years ago) which is my go-to camera simply because I use its 35 mm frame and light meter all the time and I have no problem at all with flare in my viewfinder, frankly I do not remember any time when it was a problem. I photograph almost everyday and have been doing that for a long time. To quote someone else, your best tool is the one that is with you and you work with. It may not be the best one ever but if it makes you work and enjoy your work that's the one you need.

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 14/04/2019

No one ever scientifically checked the "curves" of a Cartier-Bresson photo to validate it does indeed look good. No great curves ever help a mediocre photo.

BC replied:

Comment posted: 14/04/2019

??? Who can argue with that? ;o) True Cartier-Bresson is Cartier-Bresson and a good photo is better than a mediocre one, so... ?

Steven Bleistein replied:

Comment posted: 16/04/2019

I never use a flash, for exactly what your wrote.