Leica M or Leica IIIF?

[darinwc]

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.

The M cameras are more advanced and better in almost every way. Larger brighter viewfinder, better rangefinder, bright frame lines, easier loading, bayonet mounting, better and modern lenses, can take all the screw mount lenses with fully coupled rangefinder. Some have metering.

The only advantage of the iiif and similar cameras is the size. But the need for separate view finders reduce that advantage.

BUT the barnack cameras are just plain fun. They have a great tactile feel. And taking out a $600 kit is less stressful than a $3000 kit.

 

[Hassasin]

You run the risk shredding bits of film if you don't trim the leader. There's also the slight possibility of getting the corner of the film in the shutter track or poking a hole in the shutter itself. That corner is typically round but not necessarily if you're loading bulk (for which the camera was originally designed).

The last time I absent-mindedly put film in one without trimming it, the film tore and ended up wound in the shutter curtain. After rewinding (because the shutter stopped working), I eventually pulled 2 inches of film out of the shutter. No damage, luckily.

I do trim and I don't condone not-trimming. Just that after a few times I don't see the need for template, just care to cut between sprocket holes and rounding off end corners. The whole idea is to remove one side of sprocket holes along an approximate length that can be measured on camera body (find your convenient reference from one side to whichever feature on body).

Out in the field using knife to trim is most of the time not convenient, but small scissors have what It takes to make clean curvy cut.

 

[Don_ih]

I was a working photojournalist, the IIIG and Canon 7 were by second bodies with a 35 or 28mm. On the run, sometimes running short of film, buying whatever was available, not always possible.

It makes sense you couldn't precut film you didn't have, of course. And it's not like there's anything wrong with a Canon 7 - especially when they were newer.

IF you can pull up the spool. Those of us gifted with larger hands have trouble with that.

People without thumbs would have difficulty, as well.

 

[JerseyDoug]

I bulk load all of my 35mm film because I prefer using shorter rolls. The leaders have to be trimmed for both the Nikon F's and the Barnacks. Since I am handling the film anyway it is not particularly inconvenient to do so.

For the Barnacks I use an ABLON and a Stanley utility knife. My father bought the ABLON before WWII so whatever he paid for it has been well and truly amortized by now. For the Nikons I use a pair of lineman's scissors. A straight cut in from the edge between two sprocket holes and a straight cut in from the end to complete the trim. No curve needed.

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

I suppose it might be also interesting to experiment with uncoated lenses which were available in the era of Barnack Leicas (not for Leica M I suppose). It depends on the actual light, the contrasts etc.

I have not yet been able to use uncoated Leitz lenses but I have started to enjoy very much to use uncoated Zeiss Sonnars on my old Contaxes.

 

[chuckroast]

I suppose it might be also interesting to experiment with uncoated lenses which were available in the era of Barnack Leicas (not for Leica M I suppose). It depends on the actual light, the contrasts etc.

I have not yet been able to use uncoated Leitz lenses but I have started to enjoy very much to use uncoated Zeiss Sonnars on my old Contaxes.

The uncoated 50mm f/3.5 collapsible Elmar is a quite interesting lens as another example.

That lens "glows" around highlights which can be used to considerable aesthetic benefit.

 

[Xylo]

For the Barnacks I use an ABLON and a Stanley utility knife

I got mine on Thingiverse and 3D printed it. Apart from being made out of plastic, it works very well.

 

[mshchem]

I got mine on Thingiverse and 3D printed it. Apart from being made out of plastic, it works very well.

I have both the original and the plastic version. Both work great. The original ABLON is absolutely perfect. It was designed for trimming both ends of the film in the dark when loading the Leica cassettes.

I love the whole trimming and loading. It's what separates men from the boys.

Personally I treasure screw mount and M cameras. But if I could only have one Leica, it would probably be Wetzlar M4 .

 

[Xylo]

I don't blame you, the M4 is pretty darn good.
What I like about the M mounts is that they can use LTM lenses with an adapter. They also have a ton of new Chinese lenses available for them at pretty reasonable prices, something that isn't the case for the old screw mounts.

 

[chuckroast]

I don't blame you, the M4 is pretty darn good.
What I like about the M mounts is that they can use LTM lenses with an adapter. They also have a ton of new Chinese lenses available for them at pretty reasonable prices, something that isn't the case for the old screw mounts.

I have several M bodies, among them a Wezlar M4 that was just overhauled by Sherry Krauter earlier this year. I've never owned, or even used, a non-Wezlar or later film body so I have no point of reference, but I find the Wezlar bodies to be consistently very well made, reliable, and flawless to use. That's kind of amazing considering these range in age from 50-63 years. All it takes is periodic CLAs and a great technician to do the work.

For the one Barnack body I have - a IIIf RD - I switched to Voigtländer Color-Skopars. I have the 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm. They are all tack sharp, and I find their contrast and rendering much more to my liking than the legacy Leica LTM lenses. Leica did make some later, more modern, lenses in LTM but they are nosebleed expensive given their rarity.

The one Leica LTM optic I held on to was the 50mm f/3.5 Collapsible Elmar. It does really interesting things with light sources and specular highlights.

As you say, these lenses can be used on Ms, and I do that regularly with the 21mm.

 

[mshchem]

We are having a holiday get together at one of my nephews place today, I loaded up my 1932 Leica with a 24exp roll of TMY-2. using a 1933 5cm f2 Summar. Takes wonderful pictures. 500th second top speed, 20th slowest.

In 1932 must have seemed like a miracle, of course it would be a few years before Kodak would debut the 135 pre-loaded cartridge. Pre-loaded cassettes must have seemed pretty extravagant.

 

[chuckroast]

We are having a holiday get together at one of my nephews place today, I loaded up my 1932 Leica with a 24exp roll of TMY-2. using a 1933 5cm f2 Summar. Takes wonderful pictures. 500th second top speed, 20th slowest.

In 1932 must have seemed like a miracle, of course it would be a few years before Kodak would debut the 135 pre-loaded cartridge. Pre-loaded cassettes must have seemed pretty extravagant.

Insofar as 24exp loads are thin on the ground around here, I've resorted to bulk loading my preferred emulsions, as I am typically shooting only 10-15 exposures per outing, unless I happen to be on holidays.

It really IS astonishing how well made these old Barnacks are and how they've held up over time. My IIIf is a bit newer than yours - early 1950s if memory serves - but after a bit of CLAing, it's works like silk. Even the vulcanite on mine is pretty much flawless. I suspect it was someone's shelf queen before I got it. I remains my favorite film travel camera.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

It really IS astonishing how well made these old Barnacks are and how they've held up over time. My IIIf is a bit newer than yours - early 1950s if memory serves - but after a bit of CLAing, it's works like silk. Even the vulcanite on mine is pretty much flawless. I suspect it was someone's shelf queen before I got it. I remains my favorite film travel camera.

I agree. They are well made. I regularly take out my dad's 1949 IIIC and it's Summitar along with a Jupiter-8:

Good Things in Small Packages: Leica IIIC Camera

worldofdecay.blogspot.com

 

[chuckroast]

I agree. They are well made. I regularly take out my dad's 1949 IIIC and it's Summitar along with a Jupiter-8:

Good Things in Small Packages: Leica IIIC Camera

worldofdecay.blogspot.com

Great read. It very much parallels my own experience.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Great read. It very much parallels my own experience.

Thanks! LTM Leicas are reasonable cost. Anyone who is curious about whether they might like a thread mount Leica should buy one and try it out for a year or two. It's an inexpensive and rewarding experiment.

 

[Axelwik]

Picked up a beautiful iiif red dial with self timer yesterday basically for free. Came with a 3.5 Summaron, of which I already have an example, so I'll sell one of the Summarons for likely more than I paid for the camera and lens together.

Good deals are out there.

My friend who also happens to be a watchmaker and really good at camera repair came with me to look and gave it his blessing. He'll go through it when I get back from a trip. He got a 90 Elmar for himself at the same time.

 

[cliveh]

Is there any camera more tactile than a Barnack Leica?

 

[Axelwik]

Is there any camera more tactile than a Barnack Leica?

Might be many answers to that question. It's smaller and more involved than my M2 and I find that I use it more than the M.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

Looks like I'll be the contrarian on this one.

Several years ago, I bought a IIIc with a 35mm Summaron, 50mm Elmar, and 135mm Elmar. Even though I appreciated the quality of it, and really made an effort to like it, there was just too much I disliked. Among those was needing an external finder with anything other than a 50mm, needing to trim the leader to load it, and the separate viewfinder and rangefinder. I kept it a while, but finally sold it.

About a year ago, a friend convinced me that I should give Leicas another chance, so I kind of went all in and bought an M3, a dual range Summicron, a "goggled" 35mm f/2.8 Summaron, a 90mm Collapsible Elmar, and a few other assorted cheap lenses. For probably the first month, I couldn't put it down-it was the only camera I wanted to use. A little later on I bought an M2, which I find I actually like a little better(the 50mm framelines are easier to see for someone who wears glasses, which I do).

It's such a step forward and seems like so much less of a chore to use than my IIIc ever was. The viewfinder/rangefinder with different framelines is such a nice step forward. All of the operation and handling of the camera is more like a modern camera since you have all the speeds on one dial and don't have to worry about changing the speed without the shutter cocked(or keeping your fingers away from the spinning dial). The film just loads-yes it's a LITTLE more fiddly than a swing back SLR, but not too bad and I think actually a bit easier than something like a Nikon F(at least the bottom plate will fit in my pocket if I'm trying to load without somewhere good to set it down).

I don't see myself getting out of M mount any time soon. I also wouldn't rule out getting another Barnack some day, especially since I've picked up some nice LTM lenses, but it's not a top priority. I do have a Canon 7 to use my LTMs without an adapter(epsecially since the only LTM-M adapter I have only brings up the 50mm lines).

 

[Axelwik]

Looks like I'll be the contrarian on this one.

Several years ago, I bought a IIIc with a 35mm Summaron, 50mm Elmar, and 135mm Elmar. Even though I appreciated the quality of it, and really made an effort to like it, there was just too much I disliked. Among those was needing an external finder with anything other than a 50mm, needing to trim the leader to load it, and the separate viewfinder and rangefinder. I kept it a while, but finally sold it.

About a year ago, a friend convinced me that I should give Leicas another chance, so I kind of went all in and bought an M3, a dual range Summicron, a "goggled" 35mm f/2.8 Summaron, a 90mm Collapsible Elmar, and a few other assorted cheap lenses. For probably the first month, I couldn't put it down-it was the only camera I wanted to use. A little later on I bought an M2, which I find I actually like a little better(the 50mm framelines are easier to see for someone who wears glasses, which I do).

It's such a step forward and seems like so much less of a chore to use than my IIIc ever was. The viewfinder/rangefinder with different framelines is such a nice step forward. All of the operation and handling of the camera is more like a modern camera since you have all the speeds on one dial and don't have to worry about changing the speed without the shutter cocked(or keeping your fingers away from the spinning dial). The film just loads-yes it's a LITTLE more fiddly than a swing back SLR, but not too bad and I think actually a bit easier than something like a Nikon F(at least the bottom plate will fit in my pocket if I'm trying to load without somewhere good to set it down).

I don't see myself getting out of M mount any time soon. I also wouldn't rule out getting another Barnack some day, especially since I've picked up some nice LTM lenses, but it's not a top priority. I do have a Canon 7 to use my LTMs without an adapter(epsecially since the only LTM-M adapter I have only brings up the 50mm lines).

The M is certainly easier to use and I still use an M2, but I really enjoy working with my hands and thinking things through - was an aircraft mechanic for 21 years and then became a geologist and hydrogeologist - always had to figure out complex problems. The LTM is a fun camera for me and the way my mind works. It was a camera for a different age when nothing was "automatic" and there was some quirkiness to most mechanical things. Not for everyone nowadays I suppose.

I rather enjoy the quirkiness, and a lot of that enabled them to fit a very capable device into a very small package given the state of technology when they were made. A well kept, serviced, smooth operating LTM camera with clear optics is a joy to use for me.

On the other end of the format spectrum I punish myself with view cameras too (there's seems to be a trend here!). Despite all the extra steps with both the LTMs and view cameras however, I'm still able to make good enough photographs to sell in galleries.

I have to thank you and those like you for helping keep the price down on these great little cameras. If everyone liked them they'd be much more expensive!

 

[chuckroast]

The M is certainly easier to use and I still use an M2, but I really enjoy working with my hands and thinking things through - was an aircraft mechanic for 21 years and then became a geologist and hydrogeologist - always had to figure out complex problems. The LTM is a fun camera for me and the way my mind works. It was a camera for a different age when nothing was "automatic" and there was some quirkiness to most mechanical things. Not for everyone nowadays I suppose.

I rather enjoy the quirkiness, and a lot of that enabled them to fit a very capable device into a very small package given the state of technology when they were made. A well kept, serviced, smooth operating LTM camera with clear optics is a joy to use for me.

On the other end of the format spectrum I punish myself with view cameras too (there's seems to be a trend here!). Despite all the extra steps with both the LTMs and view cameras however, I'm still able to make good enough photographs to sell in galleries.

I have to thank you and those like you for helping keep the price down on these great little cameras. If everyone liked them they'd be much more expensive!

I hope you also indulge in the intermediate step of handheld 4x5 via a Bushman, MPP, or Graphic. It's kinda like shooting with a IIIf except you don't have to fiddle with threading a leader ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Now I see well laid out and explained pros and cons for the Leica II & III and Leica M cameras, however those cameras are limited to 20mm to 90mm lens, and I would miss using the 15mm to 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, . . . even 800mm lenses and the "what you see is what you get" focus of slr cameras. So after reading this complete thread multiple times, I will stick with slr cameras and not range finder cameras for now. Still the future is not cast in concrete.

 

[chuckroast]

Now I see well laid out and explained pros and cons for the Leica II & III and Leica M cameras, however those cameras are limited to 20mm to 90mm lens, and I would miss using the 15mm to 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, . . . even 800mm lenses and the "what you see is what you get" focus of slr cameras. So after reading this complete thread multiple times, I will stick with slr cameras and not range finder cameras for now. Still the future is not cast in concrete.

Voigtlanders go as wide as 15mm, and Leica Ms can handle up to 135mm natively, perhaps more with a Visoflex, I dunno.

But I think the analysis looks more like this:

• Use an SLR if your need long lenses
• Use an SLR if you need exact framing
• Use an SLR if you need macro

For all other use cases:

• Use a rangefinder if you want stealth
• Use a rangefinder if you want light/compact
• Use a Leica, specifically, if you prefer their cooler color balanced lenses compared to the Japanese
• Use a rangefinder if it makes it more likely you will carry it with you (try hiking with a 5 lens, 2 body, 3 back 'Blad bag for four or five hours - it's most instructive)

Or ... save your shekels and own a bit of both.

Cameras and lenses are paintbrushes and no one brush does everything well.

 

[Don_ih]

perhaps more with a Visoflex

Yes. There are longer lenses with the Visoflex.

Now I see well laid out and explained pros and cons for the Leica II & III and Leica M cameras, however those cameras are limited to 20mm to 90mm lens, and I would miss using the 15mm to 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, . . . even 800mm lenses and the "what you see is what you get" focus of slr cameras. So after reading this complete thread multiple times, I will stick with slr cameras and not range finder cameras for now. Still the future is not cast in concrete.

It's necessary to consider the main use of these cameras. They're not for bird watching or surveillance. They're for taking photos with the camera up to your eye (not on a tripod), wherever you happen to be, to record the scene as you see it (so most appropriately having a 35 or 50mm lens), nice and silently. No mirror slap. No huge lump of plastic with a 3" diameter lens sticking out blocking your face, no tripod for people to trip on, no huge camera bag to worry about.

 

[Axelwik]

I hope you also indulge in the intermediate step of handheld 4x5 via a Bushman, MPP, or Graphic. It's kinda like shooting with a IIIf except you don't have to fiddle with threading a leader ...

I have a couple of rangefinder LF and MF sheet film cameras, but don't use them much. I think LF is wasted handheld because even at higher shutter speeds you're introducing a slight amount of motion blur which negates the resolution advantage of LF.