Leica M or Leica IIIF?

[cliveh]

Which do you prefer between the Leica M models and the Leica IIIF? I can't decide, as although the M gives a more precise viewfinder framing, the IIIF is a Barnack smaller camera with greater tactile feel.

 

[Bruce Butterfield]

I love my M2 and M3 but I end up shooting my 1936 iii model F much more often; it’s smaller, lighter and stealthier with a beautiful black finish and warm nickel knobs. I also have a iiic and a iiif but I really prefer the older camera. Go figure.

 

[cliveh]

I am fast coming to the conclusion that the Barnack Leicas are best film cameras ever made and have never been surpassed.

 

[Paul Howell]

I had a IIIG and a Canon 7S, and in the Air Force used a M2 and M3. I really liked the feel of the IIIG, I used the Canon 7 much more than the IIIG, despite the feel, loading the IIIG is just a pain. The only drawback to the 7 was no internal bright line finder for a 28, had to use an external.

 

[RJ-]

Which do you prefer between the Leica M models and the Leica IIIF? I can't decide, as although the M gives a more precise viewfinder framing, the IIIF is a Barnack smaller camera with greater tactile feel.

Leica IIIF/G & M6TTL user. The M6TTL just fails with one handed composition holding. It's too heavy for one handed use. It's superior viewfinder and slick mechnanis means very little for a 21mm wide angle mostly shooting style. As beautiful as it is with its built in meter (mine works- perhaps due to my use of incident hand held meters always and having it switched off without batteries),it just sits untouched on a shelf. Its lenses are the only reason I find putting up with it.

The IIIF squinting viewfinder is less comfortable than the IIIG and perhaps there's no reason not to love the IIIG more. Yet I find the IIIf is my favourite. Pete Grisaffi restored it and resilvered the rangefinder beam and it's all the pocket 35mm miniature format camera!

 

[Besk]

I have both an M6 and a IIIF and have had M2's. I enjoy using the IIIF much more for some reason.
At this point in my life, it is the only 35mm camera that gets me enthusiastic about shooting 35mm film.

 

[chuckroast]

Which do you prefer between the Leica M models and the Leica IIIF? I can't decide, as although the M gives a more precise viewfinder framing, the IIIF is a Barnack smaller camera with greater tactile feel.

I have a IIIf and an M2, M4, and M5. I bought the M2 because I always wanted an M, the M4 as an investment, and the M5 because it was the dream camera of my youth.

The IIIf is a delightful travel camera (be sure to have it CLAed) but it suffers from two things: You have to use finders for anything other than 50mm. The other thing is that you either like the look of those old LTM lenses or you don't. I don't, I find them very low contrast. So, I found a few really clean Voigtlander Color Skopars in 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm, and I much prefer that more modern look. You just have to watch, because the glue they used to hold the elements in for that generation of Color Skopars can outgass and etch the glass. So, you want do very thorough inspection any lens you're thinking about buying. There are, of course, also, Canon and Zeiss lenses for the LTMs that are highly thought of.

Oh, and you'll quickly discover that you want to replace the takeup spool in the IIIf with a later version they made that acts more like an M2 spool. Or at least, I did, because I have large fingers and had a hard time getting the original one out of the camera.

Finally, you do have to cut film leaders longer for the Barnacks, but that's kind of not an issue. Leica made a template,
but you can eyeball it just fine.

The Ms have a longer rangerfinder baseline so they are going to be more accurate to focus, generally, especially for longer lenses where that's important. There's also a way bigger stable of lenses available in that mount, though you can - and I do - use LTM lenses on an M body with adapter rings. Most importantly, they have much bigger, and brighter viewfinders than the IIIf. Then again, that only matters for 50 mm lenses on an LTM, since you're using auxilliary finders for all other focal lengths.

I love all these cameras, but if cost is a concern, start with a IIIf and a Color Skopar. As you grow into the system, you can always buy an M body and use the same lenses with adapter rings.

WARNING: A IIIf is a gateway drug into buying way too much Leica equipment. DAMHIKT

The IIIf is still my fave 35mm travel camera - it's small, quiet, and does a bangup job. Here's a couple if scans of prints made IIIf negatives shot on with a 21mm and 50mm Color Skopar respectively in Italy a few months ago:

 

[Two23]

The M series are much larger and more expensive. I have a IIIc and a IIIf with lenses 28/35/50/90mm. Because they cost less I can afford more lenses with the IIIc. I like their small size too. If you have the $$ for an M, do consider getting a IIIG instead. The viewfinder on them is between an M and the IIIf.

Kent in SD

 

[Besk]

The magnified rangefinder of the IIIf gives is an effective base longer baseline than that of the the M2, M4 and M6. Not much difference in practice. My two lens set up for travel consists of the 28/3.5 and 50/2.5 lenses.

The 50/3.5 collapsible Elmar makes the IIIf a nice pocket camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Are the II and III hard to see through? The view finder windows look very small.

 

[mshchem]

I love all Leicas. A Wetzlar made M4 or a super clean screw mount III. Personally I would buy the M4.

 

[chuckroast]

I love all Leicas. A Wetzlar made M4 or a super clean screw mount III. Personally I would buy the M4.

You would love the M4 I found this year. Absolute cherry condition in the original box with matching serial number. Just overhauled by Sherry Krauter.

The M4 is probably the most iconic M film body ever made, but most of the ones you see in the wild show a lot of use or look outright beat up. To find one in this condition with a recent CLA was a real bit of luck. It's why I bought it, even though I absolutely did not need it. That kind of deal shows up only very occasionally.

 

[Hassasin]

Never expected how solid a II or III would feel until I got one, before I got another 2. That lead to an M5 and ... MD2. MD2 goes with Vogitlander Heliar Super Wide. But have to agree, Barnack is one of a kind in every way. Before IIIG finders are tiny and may be a distraction for confident composing, kinda depends how one uses it.

 

[baachitraka]

kicking the GAS up now...no no is the call.

 

[mshchem]

Never expected how solid a II or III would feel until I got one, before I got another 2. That lead to an M5 and ... MD2. MD2 goes with Vogitlander Heliar Super Wide. But have to agree, Barnack is one of a kind in every way. Before IIIG finders are tiny and may be a distraction for confident composing, kinda depends how one uses it.

Leica screw mount cameras are fabulous. They need to be kept in good condition. I have a 1932 Leica, the II, has 500th top speed and lowest it goes is a 20th. I bought a box of stuff at a junk store for $30 US. This camera was in the box. I put a 50mm I have on it. It works great. The feel of the screw mount cameras is fabulous such a lovely thing. Still romance aside I would go for an M4 or a new M6.

 

[Laurent]

For me it depends on the lens.

My 21 color Skopar is a perfect match for the IIIa, for exemple.

Also depends on what I'm doing. For street, the M4 is much more usable and does not get in the way ( I don't use scale focusing).

If I had to keep only one I'd be very hard pressed to decide.

 

[250swb]

I have two IIIF's and yes I will admit they handle very well and are a perfect size, especially with one of the Voigtlander LTM lenses fitted. But then all but one of those great LTM lenses need an accessory viewfinder and it's a two stage job focusing and composing the photo, then there's the palaver of changing films and you'd better to have remembered to cut the leader, then switching between 'fast' and 'slow' shutter speeds and all in all I can see why Leica decided the M range was the way to go.

I've used both Barnack and M cameras in theatre photography for their quietness and the M was far superior for the speed of the shot (but when the actors admitted they zoned out anyway and concentrated on their own work I changed to Nikon SLR's). And for Press work the need for speed in changing a film always pointed to an M. And now I'm to old to be bothered about the whole performance with Barnack cameras and accessory viewfinders and would rather make photographs without all the fuss involved, so I still use M cameras (but usually something else). I bring a IIIF out once a year to remind me what a pain they are to use, but an M2 is a more beautiful camera and an M6 or MP is a more practical camera, so screw the LTM.

 

[Don_ih]

@cliveh -- I prefer the Leica III and IIIa and b. The IIIc, f, g - they're all bigger. I don't think I've ever used the 1/1000 shutter speed. I've used a Leica III more than any other camera.

 

[btaylor]

From reading the responses here it seems clear there is no choice- just buy both.
I prefer to shoot with an M generally, but the IIIf feels awfully good in the hand.

 

[Axelwik]

Are the II and III hard to see through? The view finder windows look very small.

Not hard in my eyes. It's a matter of getting used to it. The rangefinder window has more magnification than any of the M cameras, so focus is more precise, and a properly cleaned viewfinder (only good for 50mm) is brighter, but smaller than those on an M camera. Also the rangefinder has built in diopter adjustment for those of us who wear glasses, so no screw in diopters to buy. The earlier cameras have some distance between the rangefinder and viewfinder windows, but the later ones are very close together. It's a matter of adapting to a different machine - we humans can be very adaptable with the right attitude. They're very functional cameras in the right hands.

 

[JerseyDoug]

Anyone thinking about getting involved with film Leicas should actually try using an LTM Leica before writing them off.

I have five Barnacks. My favorite setup is my wartime "stepper" IIIc with an SBOOI 50mm viewfinder. I find the 1.5X magnified rangefinder of the III_ cameras easier to use than the M2 I had for a while. And with the 1:1 SBOOI I shoot with both eyes open. I can see the actual scene in 3D with projected 50mm frame lines. I know of no other camera/viewfinder that can do that. My favorite lens with this setup is my postwar 50/1.4 Canon "Japanese Summilux."

 

[chuckroast]

Are the II and III hard to see through? The view finder windows look very small.

I've never thought so, and I've used a IIIf on- and off since the 1970s. It's worth noting, though that everything except the 50mm will require an external finder for framing and these tend to be easy to see through.

My absolutely favorite combo, and thus my street shooter, is the IIIf with a 21mm Color-Skopar and TT Artisan finder. That finder is big and bright and frames the scene close enough. Combined with almost no need to focus moment-to-moment, it's a great little setup.

 

[blee1996]

It is really difficult to beat the early Leica III's with Elmar 50/3.5 in terms of compactness, image character, and funkiness.

The Leica M3 feels much like a modern camera, and quite a bit bigger as well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thank you. All of these post have helped me better understand the love for the Leica II & III in addition to the advantages of LTM lenses.

 

[Arthurwg]

I use both. I appreciate the built-in light meter on the M6, but the IIIF is charming to use and the 50mm Elmar F3.5 is a spectacular lens. Still, for travel and street pictures I prefer my Nikon F6 (or the F100 before that), for AF and P modes.