What is is the best USED film Leica M camera for the money?

[38Deardorff]

As it happens, I have owned a IIIf for many decades and within the last few years got an M2 (because I wanted an M body), and M5 (because I wanted one of these from the day they were announced and I got a gorgeous 50 Jahre Jubilee edition) and an M4 (just overhauled by Shery Krauter and made available at a very competitive price).

Do I need them all (or any of them)? No. But I wanted to try them all out. Frankly, notwithstanding it's absolutely pristine condition and operation, the first one to go is going to be the M4. It's a really nice machine, but it lacks the character of both the M2 and M5. Of course, everyone's mileage varies ...

I had a Leica lll model F, for a while, lovely engineering, build & svelte size..... but never stuck with me like the M series

 

[chuckroast]

Certainly, the IIIf isn't as convenient to use as an M, but its size makes it particularly well suited as a pack-and-go travel camera:




It may be hard to see here, but the LTM Leicas are quite small by comparsion to the Ms:

 

[DownUnder]

Summed up in one sentence - it's the Leica you can afford to buy. Ha!

I've had an M2, an M3, and I'm now the proud owner of a restored either iif or iig. Some say it's the first, other say it's the latter. So not sure. I could check the serial number but I'm told even that can be iffy, if the camera was spiffed up by Leitz at some time in its life then the number could be misleading. So yes, it's a mystery...

Not sure anyway why anyone would get a iif upgraded to a iig. Mine doesn't seem to have the improved viewfinder you find in the g. And if the owner coughed up the cash for imrprovements, then why not add the slow speed dial?

For the first few months I had my Barnack I hated the viewfinder. Until someone sold me a universal viewfinder, which changed everything. It still amazes me that one small accessory will make such a fast difference in using a camera, but that viewfinder did. I can see things clearly now, and if as many say a problem with LTM rangefinders is you don't see why will end up on the film, I'm very much in favor of the comment by, I think, Elliott Erwit, that with rangefinders you aim the camera and you accept what you get. Which is very much the case with mine.

That camera pried me out of my lifelong mannered style of photography and into a sort of nether world of imprecision. Which I've grown used to and I enjoy.

I used my iif/g a few weeks ago in Semarang (Central Java, Indonesia) when photographing at the largest Chinese temple in that city. Side by side with my Fuji XE2 which looks and handles a lot like a Leica M. I had the two cameras around my neck and wandered around the site, visited all the temples, sneaked around corners and behind pillars and took many candid shots of people just doing what people do at Chinese temples. A few older men commented on the Leica, older Chinese Indonesians who grew up with those two generations of Leicas and knew the cameras. The iif/g looked great with the universal finder.

I took about 200 images with the Fuji and one roll of Tri-X - almost the last of my expired film supply of that wonderful film, which I now cannot afford and so will no longer be buying or using unless The Universe takes it on itself to shower me with a plentiful supply of that great emulsion. As nobody processes B&W film in Indonesia now I have to wait until I return to AUS in August or September to soup that film, one of several I have in my fridge here, and see what results I have. Then the scanning, which is another story entirely...

It's good for me to return to my old cameras and relive aspects of my past life, when I was young and the world looked to be my oyster and I thought I would go on forever. Now everything has changed and not always for the best and I know better anyway, so I don't waste time mourning what is now history in my life. I'm having too much fun with my Leica LTM and my two Fujis, also my Nikon DSLRs when the mood strikes me and I want good quality color images to show my few remaining stock image clients.

Life's fun and our cameras make it even more so. What more do we need or want?

 

[Richard G]

M4-2 is a strong contender for the precise question. Light and quick.

 

[38Deardorff]

M4-2 is a strong contender for the precise question. Light and quick.

RG, At one time the M4-2 was a good deal, priced below the M4 and sometimes even below the M2.....but of late prices have risen a lot and on Ebay for example there are many M4-2 priced higher than M4.

 

[Jonathan R]

I was once tempted to go for a Barnack, and from time to time I still am - they are cute. But I really appreciate having a big viewfinder window and a meter on-board, and with that as the starting point, the M6 Classic seemed to me the best buy. That was 20 years ago, and I have absolutely zero regrets.

 

[38Deardorff]

I was once tempted to go for a Barnack, and from time to time I still am - they are cute. But I really appreciate having a big viewfinder window and a meter on-board, and with that as the starting point, the M6 Classic seemed to me the best buy. That was 20 years ago, and I have absolutely zero regrets.

👍 Any Leica M bought 20 yrs ago is a good deal!

 

[raid]

I chose over the years the M3 first, followed years later by a M6 0.85. Somewhere I also got a IIIf and a Standard Leica. In the end, I also bought my digital trio; M8, M9, and M10.

All of my Leica cameas are excellent cameras and I enjoy using them whenever I can.

 

[raydm6]

So far, the M2 is a clear winner. Matched with a 35 Summaron-M, it’s a great combination for B&W.

 

[Pioneer]

Leica makes very good cameras, period. If you are in the market for a Leica M just buy the one you can afford. I don't think you can go wrong.

For me I have finally settled on the Leica III as my one and only Leica. It has always been my favorite and you can only use so many cameras. It had reached the point where it was the camera I always reached for when I wanted to shoot a Leica. Right now I have my LTM Sonnar 50 mounted and I am really enjoying the form factor and the size, but I also use the Elmar 50 a lot as well. Sometimes I feel that Barnack got it right from the start.

It got to the point where even my M-A was just sitting around unused so I sold it. One thing nice about Leica is you can usually get your money back when you decide to sell it, or at least very close.

When you are traveling it is very hard to ignore a camera that you can easily pack along in your shirt pocket. 😀

 

[chuckroast]

So far, the M2 is a clear winner. Matched with a 35 Summaron-M, it’s a great combination for B&W.

I wouldn't discount the 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH which I find to be superb as an every-day shooter.

 

[chuckroast]

Leica makes very good cameras, period. If you are in the market for a Leica M just buy the one you can afford. I don't think you can go wrong.

For me I have finally settled on the Leica III as my one and only Leica. It has always been my favorite and you can only use so many cameras. It had reached the point where it was the camera I always reached for when I wanted to shoot a Leica. Right now I have my LTM Sonnar 50 mounted and I am really enjoying the form factor and the size, but I also use the Elmar 50 a lot as well. Sometimes I feel that Barnack got it right from the start.

It got to the point where even my M-A was just sitting around unused so I sold it. One thing nice about Leica is you can usually get your money back when you decide to sell it, or at least very close.

When you are traveling it is very hard to ignore a camera that you can easily pack along in your shirt pocket. 😀

The IIIf mated with some Voigtlander Color-Skopars has certainly has become my travel kit. Even though the M is small, it's not that small 😉

You will often hear the argument that the M has a larger baseline for more accurate focus especially for longer focal lengths and that that lack of framing for anything other than a 50mm is a real drawback.

Obviously, everyone works differently but for me at least ...

1. I shoot 90% of monochrome with either a 21mm or 35mm focal length. Both of these can be well zone focused so as to make the focusing question moot.
2. Even my in-camera framing on the M bodies is only really approximate. Up very close, it might matter, but for most things, an aux finder is more than good enough. If I really want precision framing, I use an SLR.

The thing I have found is that zone a focused camera with an aux finder gets the equipment out of the way and encourages me to engage spontaneously with the subject. So much so, I use that 21mm Color Skopar on my M bodies with an adapter ring and ... aux finder 😉

As always, YMMV...

 

[38Deardorff]

The IIIf mated with some Voigtlander Color-Skopars has certainly has become my travel kit. Even though the M is small, it's not that small 😉

You will often hear the argument that the M has a larger baseline for more accurate focus especially for longer focal lengths and that that lack of framing for anything other than a 50mm is a real drawback.

Obviously, everyone works differently but for me at least ...

1. I shoot 90% of monochrome with either a 21mm or 35mm focal length. Both of these can be well zone focused so as to make the focusing question moot.
2. Even my in-camera framing on the M bodies is only really approximate. Up very close, it might matter, but for most things, an aux finder is more than good enough. If I really want precision framing, I use an SLR.

The thing I have found is that zone a focused camera with an aux finder gets the equipment out of the way and encourages me to engage spontaneously with the subject. So much so, I use that 21mm Color Skopar on my M bodies with an adapter ring and ... aux finder 😉

As always, YMMV...

I'm with you on zone focusing. I also use 21/28/35.....but as elegant as the lll is, switched over the the CL (& meter works). It's a little more square...but still very small....& reliable