Leica LTM Leica IIIg

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
N

Nick De Marco

Well-known
Local time
11:30 AM
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
902
An enjoyable blog post, Nick. I really like the look from the Summarit. You mention you don't like it quite as much as the IIIf, and I'm curious as to why is this?
 
What a coincidence, I picked up a 3g just last month and it's only 16 away from your serial number. It's my second 3g and was purchased for pure nostalgia as was the 3f bought 4 years ago.

I'd stupidly sold all my Barnack gear during the nineties and regretted it. My first 3g had an f/3.5 Elmar, the new one has the f/2.8. In 1971 I made an around the world trip with the 3g and it produced some of my best images. I had M gear at the time but did not feel like exposing it to harsh conditions while traveling. My first 3g (used) only cost $125 with lens, current camera about 9 times more.

Glenn
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for your comments

Siracusa: I think I said I like the IIIg, but I think I prefer the IIIf to it. That is because it is slightly smaller and I love these LTMs for their size and stealth. But the IIIg is in many ways an improvement on the IIIf, especially the finder which makes it easier to focus with 50mm + lenses, like the Summarit.

As for the Summarit lens, I do like it a lot, but still find its low contrast wide open something I have to get more used to. Stopped down it is flawless, but them so is my 50 Summicron LTM and tiny 50 Elmar LTM. If I want a lens for day to day walking around on an LTM I think the 50 Elmar wins for me because it is so small and sharp. The Summarit's advantage is I can use it for low light or portraiture (in low contrast) too. I took both the Elmar and the Summarit to Singapore recently, using them both (usually the Elmar on the IIIf and the Summarit on the M3).

Glenn - I am looking forward to seeing some photos of and by your IIIg so closely related to mine.

Nick
 
Glenn2 said:
... My first 3g (used) only cost $125 with lens, current camera about 9 times more.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind in 1971 that was about $714, in today's value.

These are great looking cameras, I've never handled one. I was leaning towards getting one, but got a lever wind, rear film door Tower which I think will fill the need for a barnack size, but more featured camera.
 
nice post, am enjoying mine too.

it would be interesting to know true reasons for why IIIg was made at all, M3 being already available. perhaps it was to satisfy grumpy traditionalists (at that time) who were refusing to upgrade to suspicious M line :p
 
My experience echoed yours. I only ever had one, in the early 80s: mint, boxed, case, instruction book, original invoice... To be honest I was afraid to use it, because it wasn't really that great a camera compared with either an M (features) or an earlier screw-mount (size), and it was silly-valuable. I put a few rolls through it and then outed it in exchange for something a lot more usable. I've forgotten what. My M4-P?

Cheers,

R.
 
jarski said:
nice post, am enjoying mine too.

it would be interesting to know true reasons for why IIIg was made at all, M3 being already available. perhaps it was to satisfy grumpy traditionalists (at that time) who were refusing to upgrade to suspicious M line :p
Click to expand...
Hard to think of any other reason!

Cheers,

R.
 
jarski said:
it would be interesting to know true reasons for why IIIg was made
Click to expand...

There are prototypes of the IIIg with an M-bayonet. Maybe they tried to make a smaller, lighter and cheaper M-camera, but later decided to produce the M2. To compensate the efforts that went into its developement they marketed the IIIg with a screw mount.

Erik.
 
One good reason for the manufacture of the IIIg whilst the M3 was in production was, I understand, a commercial pragmatic one. Many people had already bought into screw lenses, and obviously did not own M lenses. They wanted a new body for their lenses and not necessarily a new system. The IIIg was in many ways an advance on the IIIf. The problem for it was the M3 was a much more important advance that soon killed it.
 
In the past I have used IIIa, IIIc and IIIf (regret selling all of them), all great cameras, it was only when i got my M2 (recent purchase), did I realise how compact the LTM bodies are. Significantly, I also did not realise how 'big' the M2 dody is by comparisson. Nice IIIg by the way
 
Nick De Marco said:
One good reason for the manufacture of the IIIg whilst the M3 was in production was, I understand, a commercial pragmatic one. Many people had already bought into screw lenses, and obviously did not own M lenses. They wanted a new body for their lenses and not necessarily a new system. The IIIg was in many ways an advance on the IIIf. The problem for it was the M3 was a much more important advance that soon killed it.
Click to expand...
Hardly a new system, given that ALL screw lenses could be used on both the M3 and (later) the M2. I'm not quite sure what your argument is.

Cheers,

R.
 
It's OK Nick, I understand what you're saying and agree. AT THE TIME, the M was a new system and LTM diehards were suspicious of it. With time, the system proved itself and the diehards accepted it. There were as many self-proclaimed experts then as there are now.
 
dmc said:
It's OK Nick, I understand what you're saying and agree. AT THE TIME, the M was a new system and LTM diehards were suspicious of it. With time, the system proved itself and the diehards accepted it. There were as many self-proclaimed experts then as there are now.
Click to expand...
In what way was the M3 NOT an extension of the same system, 'self proclaimed experts' or not?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger - maybe you are correct - I had read the reason for the continued production of the III was because people with LTM lenses wanted to keep their system. I have no idea whether LTM-M adapter were avaialble at the time or later - but it seemed a rational reason for the production of the III. Maybe Leica was just doing then what it did when it made the MP more recently? And if so, all power to them - both nice cameras
 
I remember my Dad had both a M2 and the IIIG and tossed the M3, preferring the two window setup. Why, I don't know. That IIIG is sitting in my cabinet as we speak, very pretty camera I must say. Me, I'm more an M guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom