Leica LTM Would you??

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
colyn

colyn

ישו משיח
Local time
3:19 AM
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
4,532
I'm thinking about trading one of my good user M3's for a IIIg..

I have several M's and have wanted a IIIg for some time now.

What would you do?? :dance: :dance:
 
sitemistic said:
Do what makes you happy!

While the IIIg is a beautiful camera, I've always seen it as more a "not quite" camera - not quite an M, not quite a III. That finder is great, though, if you like the body style and handling.
Click to expand...

See, I see it as the best of both: small like a Barnack, but with a much better viewfinder (though not as good as an M, right? I've never touched one.)
 
sitemistic said:
While the IIIg is a beautiful camera, I've always seen it as more a "not quite" camera - not quite an M, not quite a III. That finder is great, though, if you like the body style and handling.
Click to expand...

I have several screw Leicas and M Leicas but have never used a IIIg and have been kicking around the idea of getting one.

I've always liked the screw body style and handling..
 
sitemistic said:
While the IIIg is a beautiful camera, I've always seen it as more a "not quite" camera - not quite an M, not quite a III. That finder is great, though, if you like the body style and handling.
Click to expand...

I'm with sitemistic here. It would round out your collection, but to my hands it seems almost as big as an M3. Are you looking to use it alot? The parallax adjusted finder would be an advantage over an external one on your IIIs.

I've been using a III with a SBOOI, and when I handled a IIIg the bigger size was noticeable, which surprised me.
 
MikeL said:
Are you looking to use it alot? The parallax adjusted finder would be an advantage over an external one on your IIIs.
Click to expand...

I plan to use it alongside my other M's so it would get plenty of use..

The parallax correction is another reason I'd like to get the IIIg..
 
I have a fellow that might trade his IIIf with a summitar 5cm f2 for my F100 with a 28-70 tamron. I am paying he decides to go though with it, I have wanted one of these cameras for years, but have never seemed to get around to saving for one.
 
Last edited:
I'd like a IIIg but I've only seen one or two users; most are more than I'd like to spend cuz they are pristine...
 
NO

The Leica IIIG ?

Twenty years after Zeiss gave us a combined range/viewfinder . . . (not a particularly BRIGHT range/viewfinder . . . but there it is. )

I'm supposed to get excited over THIS?

NO

I just bought a Leica IIIc body - because I used one in the mid 1960's. Can't accuse me of being anti-Barnack.

I bought a black M-2 in 1971 becaise it was CHEAP and because the viewfinder matched my intention - to use the fastest glass I could afford with this body. I've tried using the magnificent 50mm F:1.5 Sonnar on both a Contax II and a IIa . . . and the viewfinders were not up to the challenge. . . Jeez! That was 40 some years ago!!!

I use/have used

35mm F:1.8 Nikkor
35mm F:1.5 Canon
50mm F:1.20 Summitar
50mm F:1.5 Summarit
50mm F:1.2 Canon
100mm F:2.0 Canon

How the devil can one use a LTM body with M-series bodies (?) unless you do what I'm going to try . . . using a Leica IIIc with a 25mm Canon or a 15mm Ultron - leaving the M2 to handle 35mm -50mm - 100mm stuff.

The Leica IIIg is kinda' like the Datsun 280Z. . . very long in the tooth.

Just my opinion. . . as I pull the armor plate over the door of my hootch!
 
Do it if you'd like to shoot with a IIIg or to have one in your collection but not to have a camera that is easier to actually use.

I have both A IIIg and M3's and the M's are hands down easier to use. With a 40mm Summicron C, the M3 is about the same size as the IIIg with a collapsible Summicron and can be carried in a pocket or in a belt pouch.
 
There may or may not be any advantage in having a IIIg: but there certainly will be no loss. Like the M3, it has no 35 mm frame in the finder.

Dr. Perkins, yours must be the fastest Summitar in the world.
 
Personally, no, and I've had both. Admittedly my only IIIg was so immaculate (box, case, receipts, etc.) that I was afraid to use it, so I quite soon swapped it for a black paint M3. Although I did put a few rolls through the IIIg, I have to agree that I'd far rather use an M.

Then again, I'm seriously thinking of outing at least two other Ms in order to get another MP. The black paint M3 was the smoothest Leica I've ever owned, but the MP is the best.

Cheers,

R.
 
Colyn,

I'm quite happy with my IIIg. I don't know that I would want it as my primary rangefinder, but it makes a good companion to an M.

This past summer, it was the only camera I took on vacation to Italy. For lenses, I took a 35mm 2.8 Serenar, a collapsible Summicron, and a 90 Elmar. It made a very nice small package. Even if my wife did complain about the length of time it took me to change film.


Why I like it:
I'm left eyed and I can keep my eye on the finder while I wind even though it is a knob winder. Can't do that with my M2.

For a III series, I like having the 90 and 50 framelines with the vertical paralllax correction. I have heard some people complain about the lack of any horizontal parallax correction. In practice, I have never had any issues with that.

Its beautiful. Maybe not a good reason, but I don't care.

​
I got mine relatively cheaply, because the shutter was stuck and the vulcanite was falling off. I had it CLA'd by DAG, so now it looks and works great.

I have even been using the IIIg with a Viso II and the Tele-Elmar I got from you quite happily.

Maybe the only downside is that my IIIa and IIIf don't get used much anymore.
 
No, I would not. The M3 is an improved IIIG. The only think the IIIG offers is the LTM mount, for which I would seek out a good late Canon IVSB2 which is as good as a IIIG and better than any other Leica LTM body because of it's combined VF/RF. Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom