The Leica M3, and along with it, the M-Mount has just turned seventy. As the Leitz exhibition stand at Photokina in Cologne was dismantled, exactly seventy years ago today on 11 April 1954, few contemporary press commentators realised the real significance of the event. In retrospect, the overwhelmingly significant story was the introduction of M3. The Leitz bayonet mount arrived to threaten the existence of the screw-mount LTM or Leica Thread Mount or M39 Mount, which had been the hallmark of the Leica “miniature camera” for 30 years. And a legend was born.
An anniversary with significance
This trade fair in Cologne would go down in history as its doors closed for the last time. Photokina 1954 symbolised the will to rebuild a destroyed country and the dawning Wirtschaftswunder (“economic miracle”, the era of fast growth in West Germany). It also demonstrated that the world was very much in order for the German optical industry at the time. But what will this Photokina be remembered for above all else? The Leica M3 was presented there for the first time, the nucleus of the M system, a living legend, built almost unchanged to this day.
A contemporary press photo shows the importance of this new presentation at Photokina 1954 for the entire industry and also for the Cologne trade fair company. Two men in white work coats hold up a model of the new M3, much, much larger than life. Where the front lens of the Summarit f=5 cm 1:1.5 should actually be, there is a mirror in which exhibition visitors can be seen. An unusual picture in every respect, intended to document a remarkable moment. An event, by the way, that was already significant from the perspective of the time and that was not (made into) a historical moment after the fact.
A PR photo of the Photokina 1954 tells us history
In fact, the M3 only arrived at dealerships later in 1954. With its bright, large rangefinder, with which you could select the framing and focus in a single operation, it was an immediate success despite its high price. And it is still loved dearly today. Of the approximately 227,000 units produced up to 1967 (when the successor M4 was introduced), a significant number still exist. On the one hand, this speaks for the esteem in which this camera is held, but on the other hand, it also speaks for the work of the people who made it and therefore for the quality of the product.
The Photokina jubilee passed by almost unnoticed
The Photokina anniversary went off without a fanfare. Leica would have had a good reason to commemorate an almost unbelievable story. How a new camera was developed over 70 years ago with a great deal of courage, diligence, and passion. How the renunciation of overheated innovation cycles was both a curse and a blessing for the company and the M-System. How, after the disaster of the M5, a courageous decision was made to give this iconic system a future after all. And that Leica continues to manufacture the M3 to this day in the form of the purist M-A, the analogue camera without any electronics.
Leica took a risk — what would the existing customers say?
All in all, it was a bold move for Leitz because the screw-mount system had attracted enthusiasts who had invested heavily in compatible lenses, only to find that they had to start afresh. But 1954 wasn’t the end of the Leica Thread Mount system. Lenses were produced until the late 1950s. Indeed, another screw-mount Leica, the IIIg, was introduced three years after the launch of the M3 and the M-mount. Incidentally, the M comes from the German word Messsucher or range-finder. The arrival of the IIIg, presumably, was an attempt to mollify the large user base for the screw system.
The M3 represented the future for Leica and was the Wetzlar’s first major post-war development. Why, though, was the first M-Mount camera called M3 and not M1 (both M1 and M2 came later)? There are various theories, but Thorsten Overgaard is probably correct when he says,
…it becomes a bit confusing because the Leica M1, Leica M2 and so on came later than the Leica M3. Fundamentally, there is no logical understanding of the model names, other than “that’s how it went”. But if you understand that the Leica M3 was named not as a model number to fit into a sequence of model names, it becomes simpler: The Leica M3 was named M3 because it introduced an M mount of the lens and because it had 3 frame line sets and the correct frame line set was activated by the lens (frame lines in the viewfinder to show what portion of the view would be in the picture).
One other possibility is that the then current LTM model was the IIIf, and it therefore made more sense to start the M range with 3 (III) rather than 1, to avoid it being considered a retrograde step — at least numerically.
Of course, the 70th anniversary year of the M-System has only just begun. It will certainly hold a few surprises. The press photo from Photokina 1954 shows us in many ways just how much the world has changed in these seven decades. It’s difficult to imagine men in white overalls and lovingly crafted XXL wooden models today. Even Photokina is history: it took place for the last time in 2018, and in the world of influencers and manufacturer roadshows, the classic trade fair concept has apparently become obsolete.
Only the M3 is still being loaded with film every day somewhere in the world to inspire its users to good craftsmanship and personal creativity.
Alive and kicking: The M3 still does the job. Here, on the German North Sea island of Amrum.
What do you think? Do you miss the giant photography shows of the last century, or are you content to get your information and experienced by browsing the internet? And do you share the idea that the Leica M3 was a ground-breaking camera? Or is it overrated today? Does legacy play too big or too small a role for the Leica company 70 years after the M3’s launch?
Join our community and play an active part in the future of Macfilos: This site is run by a group of volunteers and dedicated authors around the world. It is supported by donations from readers who appreciate a calm, stress-free experience, with courteous comments and an absence of advertising or commercialisation. Why not subscribe to the thrice-weekly newsletter by joining our mailing list? Comment on this article or, even, write your own. And if you have enjoyed the ride so far, please consider making a small donation to our ever-increasing running costs.
Correction : je voulais écrire “inusable”
(I wanted to write “indestructible”)
Utilisateur d’un IIIf et d’un M4 , je reconnais que mécaniquement, c’est un bonheur à utiliser. Le saut est immense entre faire une photo avec l’un d’entre eux ou avec un smartphone. Pour moi, d’un coté, on crée (on essaye…) une photo, de l’autre on génère une image. C’est une autre approche, un autre usage.
Reste un voeu insatisfait avec les M numériques : il devraient être rétrofitables pour recevoir les nouveautés électroniques, car faire réviser un M9 par exemple conduit au gâchis parce que non réparable coté numérique, on doit alors jeter le bijou mécano optique associé…
Ce n’est pas l’esprit inusable et indéfiniment réparable des boitiers historiques qui ont fait la légende.
(Goodle translated for benefit of our international readers)
User of a IIIf and an M4, I recognize that mechanically, it is a joy to use. The leap is immense between taking a photo with one of them or with a smartphone. For me, on the one hand, we create (we try…) a photo, on the other hand we generate an image. It’s another approach, another use.
There remains one unfulfilled wish with the digital Ms: they should be retrofittable to accommodate the new electronics, because having an M9 overhauled for example leads to waste because it cannot be repaired on the digital side, we must then throw away the associated mechanical-optical jewel…
It is not the indestructible and indefinitely repairable spirit of the historic cases that have made the legend.
Dear Denis,
I reply in English for the benefit of the whole community. I understand your point, and the idea of creating a kind of digital back for existing analogue Leica M Models has been tried more than once. It did not lead to a big commercial success, however. Other than the Leica R8 and R9 with a modern shutter, modern electronics and so on, the film-loading M models are pretty much 1950s technology (apart from exposure metering). But on the other hand, it sis quite an achievement that even the newest M11 is compatibly with almost all rangefinder lenses Leica ever made. So there is quite some longevity in my eyes.
All the best, Jörg-Peter
Joerg-Peter, thanks for this moody article!
I have never been a huge fan of Leica M cameras, but clearly understand where the fascination comes from: you just need to take one of them (it does not matter if it a M3 or M whatever) and you will immediately feel the superb craftsmanship and quality these instruments are built with. Same with – any! – Leitz / Leica M Lens. Just a joy to touch – unfortunately not so much a joy to use, at least for me. As a consequence I got rid of my M4-2 decades ago, it simply did not work for me.
Again – I do understand the fascination, heck I wish they would work better for me.
But most of it ai love the original photo of that giant M3 and these elderly men holding it, looking as if they came right out of the optical lab – which is probably where they came from, indeed 🙂
Do I miss the big shows? You bet I do! Photokina was, for me, every two years a „must see“ and I miss it a lot. I also do think that Messe Köln killed Photokina by very bad decission. who tled them that switching from bi – annual to annual would be a good idea? It was plain to see, right from the first announcement, that this will not work. So rather than saying ok, we made a mistake, we go back to bi – annual they just killed it, blaiming the general market conditions…
Well, I guess there is no going back. Just recently Photopia in ahamburg got axed, so…. Yes I do miss it
Thank you, Andreas,
for your comment and sorry for replying so late. The Leica M cult appears sometimes almost religious to me, and that puts me off. Neither the Leica M or any other is the Perfect Camera. It fits for some photographers, for others it won‘t. There are many options, and all the more tragedy lies in the trend that both the big trade exhibitions and the well-stocked dealerships are fading away. What places will remain to take different cameras in your hands, to check if their ergonomics fit, to feel if a certain camera somehow speaks to you?
But we shall stay optimistic, and there are still committed dealers who can give good advice…
All the best, Jörg-Peter
Another great reason to avoid online buying as much as you can 🙂 Ok, sometimes you can’t – but whenever there is still a local dealer: heck, support him!
I bought my cameras at Calumet Hamburg, save my X100V – just snapped it online, because it was very hard to get anyway 🙂 I also bought my Canon Pro 1000 printer in the shop and not online.
However, inks, papers, all that – it’s all online buy, since I have no other option.
Whenever you can – SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL DEALER!
Thanks Joerg-Peter,
It’s clear that when something finds the sweet spot, you should leave well alone. That doesn’t mean the sweet spot epitomizes perfection but the “flaws” that some people would prefer to eradicate are what give it character and why it became a legend or icon.
As success increases there’s inevitably pressure to add models and to add more sophistication to capitalize on what looks like potential to grow. If you visit many of the photographic forums you can see the push back and forth between adding more, and adding less. Look at the proliferation of menu options on some brands and you would have to wonder when even these owners might cry out “Stop – enough already!”
Yet the more you add features and other forms of sophistication the further you move away from that sweet spot. When you look at the arc of the history of the M you have to ask whether the current M has strayed too far from the sweet spot?
Are there enough buyers who would pay a premium for greater purity and simplicity and less complexity and sophistication? I don’t know, but I wonder whether the M-D was a success, or a good idea whose time had yet to come. Maybe a M11-D would be a good way to celebrate the anniversary of the M3 and a return back to that sweet spot?
Watch this space, Jon.
I read this argument over and over again: too many facilities, or capabilities, or options on newer cameras ..etcetera, etcetera.
One doesn’t have to use them! You can just ignore what you don’t want. We get about a hundred different channels with our TV package ..most of them are drivel punctuated by adverts almost as long as the programme material. So we don’t watch them.
We watch BBC1, BBC2, BBC4, and some old series repeated on Amazon Prime. We simply ignore what we don’t want. We DO sometimes use the ‘iPlayer’ (store and repeat) option on BBC channels if we’ve missed – or missed the beginning of – some programme ..so some newer technology (play on demand) is useful. The rest we ignore.
There are gazillions of options on my Olympus camera(s) ..I use what I want, and I ignore the rest! Simples. I’ve got a reverse gear on my car. For most of any journey I use the forward gears and ignore the reverse gear. I don’t drive 1st, Reverse, 2nd, Reverse, 3rd, Reverse and so on. I use it only when I back into the garage, or possibly into a parking space. There’s a horn on my car ..I don’t use it while driving ..I can’t remember the last time I did use it. It’s there in case I want, or need, to use it.
I’ve a breast pocket on my shirt. I hardly ever use it. I’ve got all sorts of apps on my watch; I just use the time, date, text message and dictation capabilities: I don’t test my pulse or find how many steps I’ve walked, or look at the time in Delhi or New Hampshire ..I ignore what I don’t need.
I can’t understand these complaints that there’s too much of anything: if you don’t want it ..just don’t use it. There are dozens of different buses which travel around where I live ..I’ve used only one single route. The trains from here go all over the country, but I generally just taken the one which goes into central London and ignore the ones I don’t need.
I don’t generally use Face Detection, Smile Detection, Keystone Correction, Remote Control mode, Burst Shooting, High Res (sensor shift) shooting, Focus Stacking, HDR, Bracketing, ‘Starry Sky’ Autofocus (never even noticed it till now!) or ‘AF Limiter’, ‘AF Scanner’, ‘AF Focus Adjustment’ or C-AF Speed, or C-AF Sensitivity and so on. (And that’s only about a quarter way through the Menu items.)
But I DO like the speed and accuracy of the Olympus (digital) OM-1 auto-focusing, (I use the Small Spot focusing in the centre of the viewfinder; focus and recompose, ‘cos I’m old school) and I like the range of small and very sharp and accurate lenses, the small size and weight of the SLR camera and its lenses, the FOUR storable sets of memorable settings, the knobs and buttons in just the right – for me – places, the ease of adjustment of aperture, shutter speed and over/under exposure, and the speed of adjustment of ISO and White Balance.
But as for all the rest of the options – which I’ve obviously paid for, but just am not generally interested in – I simply <ignore them.
Similarly ..if I didn’t want to see what I’ve just shot (???!!!-huh?) then instead of buying or using a camera which has no screen (M11-D..?) I would simply not look at the screen! ..What’s so difficult about that?
I really don’t understand this minimalistic less-is-more attitude. But maybe I’m barmy. My attitude is that I don’t have to use it just because it’s there. I simply ignore what I don’t want – as you may ignore what you don’t want to read of this Comment – and I make the most of what I DO want.
My using the M3 (..Comments, further down..) is for nostalgia’s sake, not photography’s sake; for thinking of my father-in-law using it, and having a connection with him and with the nineteen fifties (which I remember well).
But I don’t drive a Sunbeam Talbot, or an Armstrong-Siddeley, or a Lanchester or a Triumph Herald or any other car of yesteryear. I drive a modern car, and ignore all the radio stations on the dash except BBC Radio 4. But I DO use the automatic gears, the auto-choke (does it have a choke, or is it fuel-injection? ..I dunno).
My rule is, what you don’t want ..ignore!
What could be simpler than that?
This brings us back to my article on Operation Lock. Like you, David, I don’t use 90 percent of the options on a modern camera, so a get annoyed when an errant finger, thumb, or nose changes something without my knowledge. So an operation lock is a good way of dumbing down to the absolute minimum…
See
https://www.macfilos.com/2024/03/27/operation-lock-one-way-to-tame-that-skittering-focus-point/
I am a minimalist pur sang (the two wheels of the CL suited me just fine) but there is truth in what David says as well. My Canon has way more buttons than my Leica(s) but if you don’t use them why care? Additionally you can disable the buttons you don’t use which I did.
My comment was as much about the aesthetics of cameras. The button count increases, and yes it’s true you don’t have to use them, but it still creates a sense of clutter. Modern design for controls aims to reduce the clutter and put more into soft controls, as the CL and TL showed. It would save money for manufacturers and buyers if the physical button count was reduced. Let’s stick with shutter speed, aperture and ISO as the only physical controls beyond the shutter itself.
As to firmware/software, why not have a “buy what you use” and nothing more? If you want more, simply add more instructions and options and pay for them?
Those ideas would seem to fit with “das Wesentliche”
As a delighted Tesla owner, some of the same principles apply to car design. At first, I worried about (almost) everything being concentrated on that single screen in the middle of the dashboard. In particular, I worried about the relatively small speed indication in the top right-hand corner of that screen (in the UK, it will be in the top left-hand corner in the USA). I now realise that I prefer it. I get regular software upgrades which sometimes transform the driving experience. And one of the main reasons they can do this effectively, even after physical model upgrades, is that they don’t have to program buttons and dials. Leica’s minimalist approach, then, is probably the future. But I still like my S5 with its multitude of old-fashioned hardware.
Dear David,
I can‘t miss out on reacting to this comment. And believe it or not, I widely agree. Not only on the new OM-1 which is a stunning camera and (with the excellent 12-100) my workhorse for news photography. I also think that ever more features are simply a matter for progress, and we can be thankful for that. And we are free to use or ignore any feature in our cameras (I, for example, have never fiddled with JPG settings, and continuous AF is also something I rarely use) – but not all manufacturers help us to concentrate on the basics. Olympus, or now OM System have improved, but I still think the Leica SL cameras are class leading in this respect.
But what I actually wanted to say: The whole „Das Wesentliche“ thing is a marketing issue. It can be seen as really nothing more than an attempt to retroactively ennoble sheer deficits in the innovation of the M cameras. After the disaster with the M5, Leica became utterly conservative, and they found out that the niche is big enough to survive. And they are so good that quite some (otherwise enlightened) consumers are ready to pay more for getting less.
And as for the M3: At its launch in 1954, it was certainly not a product that was reduced to the essentials. It was simply the best and most modern rangefinder camera Leitz was able to design and, more important, to produce. If they had managed it, they would certainly have built in a light meter or even an automatic exposure system. The reluctance to bring good ideas to market came only later for Leitz, when they sold their auto-focus system to Minolta, but that‘s another story.
I think: It‘s all about hagiography a bit. And we are all part of it. Also this small article and our discussion here. We should, however, keep in mind: What we see in a Leica M3, or a Nikkormat, or a beautiful OM-2, or EOS-650, or a Rolleiflex is not what was intended when these cameras were new. They all reflect what was state of the art at some time in history. Everything else are our narratives.
But that‘s just my view. Perhaps this could be a Macfilos article on its own with a busy comments section!
All the best and thanks again for your thought-provoking contribution.
JP
Dear Jon,
Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing. I will reply to the point of minimalism below to David B.‘s interesting comment. Paying more for less features is certainly very much of a first world problem, and I am not sure if we are reaching a tipping point where even the Leica audience will become reluctant. I wish an M11-D all success, and there will be enough buyers globally.
But in the end, it‘s up to you, how many functions, menu settings… you are actually using. The quality of a camera is also visible in the way the multitude of functions is organised. The old Olympus menu system or the one by Sony are examples how additional complexity is being produced. For my taste, the Canon menu proves that the other way is also possible, and the Leica SL user interface as well. But your mileage may vary.
JP
I was never particularly keen on Leicas when I worked (..we-ell, was paid to enjoy myself..) at ‘Practical Photography’ in the 70’s and early 80’s: they were expensive, and were generally under-specified compared with then-current Olympus, Pentax, Canon, Nikon ..etc.. cameras. And the Leica SLRs were massive, heavy and clunky.
Long afterwards, when my Beloved’s dad had died, we went to her parents’ house to see if there was anything the family might want before the house was sold. She found her father’s M3 in a drawer, along with a 50mm and a 35mm (the camera had a collapsible 90mm on it) and offered them to me. It was very stiff to use ..it hadn’t been wound for many years.. so I sent it off to Gus Lazzari (a Leica specialist in the States), for a clean and lube and general restoration – along with its lenses and its external lightmeter – and six months later got it back again, with a reground and coated front element on the 50mm, and the others spick and span and sparkling.
Whenever we’ve gone anywhere that I’ve thought that her dad – an engineer, and keen on beautifully machined items – would have gone, and where he would have taken photos, I’ve taken it and used it.
It’s one of the earliest batches from 1954, with a ‘double-stroke’ – now butter-soft – winder and a glass pressure plate. It’s right here beside me, number 7006xxx, and I was using it just this morning! I’ve bought an assortment of lenses for it since (mainly 2nd or 3rd hand) and it’s a ‘working antique’ ..a bit like I am, really.
They’re still – the newer Leicas – too big, too heavy, and with not many features which aren’t better implemented in other brands ..in my opinion, anyway.
But my – my father-in-law’s – M3 is simple, perfect, and ever reliable! A pleasure to use.
I really like “not many features” when I’m making photos!
Very nice, David, to share this memory, and adding the emotional side to it all. Some time ago, I wrote about the Rollei 35 that my mother once got from my late father and that we took on a trip to Italy. It added to the travel experience, so the Rollei will again be our companion for a future trip. And then, it is not about taking the greatest photos of some place in Italy (all these images are already existing) but creating memories. One of the best reasons to actually use such a beautiful M3! All the best, JP
I always thought in the LTM cameras III was the top model, II was a simplified version and I did not have a rangefinder although not all series had all three.
It is hard to find a 60+ year-old camera as functional and as elegant as the M3, and which can still undergo a CLA. My SS version has a new skin and looks great with a 1965 50mm Summicron Rigid, and works great. It never fails to start a conversation on the street when strangers see the camera and admire it. Also significant is the 50 Rigid works great on my M10 Monochrom.
Very nice to hear that, Bill. A Leica M system component is a pretty sustainable investment and be it only the circumstance that you can have fun with it over generations. I wonder if any advanced consumer product (that is, a technical device of higher complexity than a hammer or a frying pan) from 2024 will be useable and serviceable in 70 years‘ time… JP