Love the M2 as well. I think there are 4 or more versions of the M2. Both of mine have no self timer. Which I think looks cleaner and feels nicer in the hand. I also prefer the viewfinder over the M3 and the advance lever over the M4 and M6. Also Love shooting original Nikon F's.
The M2 came after the M3 and was my camera of choice back in the day. Most photographers only used 35mm 50mm and 90 mm lenses. So the 135mm frame in the viewfinder was not needed. No professional photographers used the delayed action either so choose the version without it. Which is what I did.
The best line in the video is to quote,”I’ve had this cameras for four years” and that partly sums up the attraction of film. The expression buy cheap buy twice doesn’t relate to digital because the constant arms race to improve digital sucks you in to buying more often than need. G.A.S. I believed. The interesting challenge of film with it’s wonderful film stock drives me with the classic film look. Currently I am putting my first roll of film though my Canon Canonet QL19 which was a rip-off of the Leica design of the day. First sold in 1965 with a fixed f 1.9 lens with a top shutter speed of 1/500. It comes in at 680 gram, looks like a Leica and missing only the red dot. The quality and glass will be better on the the Leica but how interesting is that. The QL19 only lasted in this form for 1 year being updated with a smaller version. Great video.
I had a QL19 as well, but it broke, however they are quite fun to shoot, I would have had it fixed if I did not have my M2. I had a Canonet GIII QL-17 as well, and it was much lighter, at yet the only camera I think that I have had stolen from me. I had a lot of fun shooting that camera.
i had this overhauled and leather changed by yeoxin only to be sold less than a year after i got it. its a good rangefinder camera. minimal. gets rid of nuisance. good way to learn photography.
Thanks you very much for this honest and open-minded 'love declaration' for the M2 - !! Well - your enthusiastic statement 'comes home' with me - having had nothing else than M-cameras since I was seventeen, back in 1964...! It was a gleaming & new M2 (number 1 087 860), of course (...alll my savings and a hefty rebate from 'friends' at the importers).. for the very same reasons as you outlined (thus, NOT the M3) - and of course, it had the set of the f:2,8 lenses for the three frames: the Summaron, the Elmar and the Elmarit. I never deviated from the M - and, although there is now an M240P, the film-cameras are still very much there - and, I'll never part with them. There are also 'more lenses', now - though in the 'collection' (as it were...), 'every member is indeed there for a reason' - Do take a look further, though - all the while the short and the 'really short' lenses sort of prevail naturally in a Messsucher system, don't shy away from more remote parts of the M system, like the Visoflex - the long lenses going with it - and all the macro equipment. It is all matched up with great care. But - again - there is nothing ever coming close to the M2 ... with a 'matching', eight-element Summicron 35.... even if it will cost you 'an arm and a leg'... :-))))
Just bought one with 50mm Elmar collapsible. Put a test roll of Provia100F through it and am waiting for it back to see if I have any issues. It does feel so much nicer than the M4-P that I had.
Hi, thanks for the video. Just a couple of things. First, the M backs (or the center portion) does swing up to help facilitate film loading, though you have to load through the baseplate. The door only allows you to see if the film is straight. Second there IS a quick loading version of the M2 called the M2-R (or M2-S for the ones the army actually bought and called the KS15-4). That version loads like the M4 and is much easier. But the Ms are a lot easier than the screwmounts and don't require special cutting of the leader. Third, the m2 has 35-50-90 mm frame lines where the M3 has 50-90-135. The M3 also has more magnification on the rangefinder so that that 135 can be focused more accurately. I prefer 35-50-90 too! They are great cameras. Note that it's possible for older lenses to have their rangefinder cams not quite calibrated correctly, and more likely they might have some fog or haze that requires cleaning (by Leica or a professional). And older lenses aren't going to be as sharp, especially wide open, as modern Leica lenses. You can take a picture of a ruler and focus on a particular point and then see where the focus was actually set to see if you're focusing properly or not (or if the lens is doing so). The M2 was my first Leica camera and I've been using them ever since.
I love the viewfinder , I dislike how easy the frame counter can roll forward from where it should be; I accidentally click it forward when grabbing from my bag by reaching into to grab it.
The m3, m2/m2-r , and m4 are amazing. I also enjoy a good slr, like my Nikon f2 with 55mm macro lens We used to use cameras because that’s all we had, no one noticed. Now unless you’re using a phone for photos, you are drawing attention yourself, period. If you shoot street a phone is the stealthiest thing you can use.
Rangefinders aren't for everyone, I have an M2 (currently away for CLA) plus 3 M9s I love them but still use Fuji GFX 50S for my landscape photography. Horses for courses.
after shooting my m9 for several years, I realised my iphone 11 pro now can actually take comparable pictures and much less intrusive. But again, the experience is differnt.
In the old days we used cameras everywhere and no one cared because everyone had a camera . Now if you don’t use a phone you are different and everyone will notice you. You want to get really stealthy street photos, use a phone
I hope my english serves me well and sleeves are the archiving folder where you can store your negatives. so the one I get is made by Kaiser, I think it's German, it holds 7 times 6 frame pieces.
