Leica LTM Leica IIIc, IIIf ?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
M

mike goldberg

The Peaceful Pacific
Local time
12:29 AM
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,148
Hi All,
I've been to Karen Nakamura's Photoethnography site to get a sense of the various m39 models. I'd like to hear from owner/users here... I'm especially interested in knowing, which are good shooters? Further, I've read that some models provided for R/F adjustment without body disassembly.

There may be a good III series Leica in Tel Aviv at a reasonable price... and I've got some learning to do. So, let's hear.
Thanks, mike
 
Last edited:
Not counting the rare IIIb, Mike, any III before the IIIc will have R/F and V/F windows an inch or so apart. IIIc and later have them close together, although they remain separate. Easily the best (and also the most expensive) is the IIIg.

I have -- plug, plug -- a IIIc and stuff in the classifieds.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
The Post War IIIc is probably the best shooter if you do not need a flash. The IIIf added flash sync. The Post War Leica's had an improved shutter mechanism. The IIIc was produced in large numbers, and is on the lower end of the price scale.

My 1946 IIIc was factory converted to a IIIf. Added Flash Sync and the film speed remonder.
Click to expand...

I agree with the above and would add that rangefinder adjustment is as simple as removing the small screw next to the front viewfinder window. Use a small blade screwdriver to turn the adjusting screw one way or another.
 
Hi... and yes, I found the CQ page on Leica screwmounts. It is a bit daunting at first, IIIc, IIIf, and IIIg. And they are pricey! So thanks for the info. As for now, the Fed-1g that my son brought back from Yerevan is quite clean, everything works, and it's in obvious need of CLA. For $40- plus postage, Oleg will do the job, and I'll have a
"Russian pre-war Leica." ok-ok... copy :D
Cheers, mike
 
While the IIIc and the IIIf Black Dial are very similar except for flash synch, I have read that the IIIf Red Dial has an improved shutter mechanism, which is supposed to be lighter and quieter than the earlier models. To be honest, I have a IIIa and a IIIf RD, and can't tell much difference in the two except for the distance between the RF/VF windows.

Jim N.
 
What Brian said - if you need flash the IIIf is the one, otherwise the IIIc is fine. If you want a true "Barnack" designed camera, you need the IIIa, but you do potentially sacrifice something in long-term stability as the earlier cameras were built up from many separate pressed parts, where the IIIc and later made more use of castings.

I recently came across a late Standard and find that it is the ltm body that I pick up most, compared to my IIIa, IIIc, and even M3 and MP, so I guess it is all down to personal taste at the end of the day. I suggest you try to handle as many tyoes as you can - visit dealers, talk to friends, etc, and then decide.
 
A later model Canon IVsb2 or any model ending with a 2 is a better shooter than any Leica Barnak, but the Leicas are very nice. I simply think the slightly larger and most importantly, combined RF/VF makes a world of difference.

Of course Leica made 10x more cameras in the time period of the late 1940s and early 1950s so the Leica cameras are easier to find.
 
I believe the IIIf has ball bearings on both sides of the shutter "axle" vs 1 for the IIIc.
 
Rico said:
John, what are the key attractions of the Standard?
Click to expand...

Well, you could say it is purely personal appeal, but I like the compact nature of the camera, and the fact that there are absolutely no frills. There is just nothing to get in the way of making pictures - no RF to fiddle with, no slow speeds to worry about, just a quality shutter unit that will accept a huge range of lenses. Just set the shutter, scale focus and shoot :D

I seem to choose one of two lenses - a 1935 uncoated 50mm f3.5 Elmar, or a CV Skpar 25mm f4. For pocketability, I don't think you can beat the Standard / Elmar combination, and the Skopar doesn't add all that much bulk. Given that the body and Skopar are both black, I have hardly noticeable street combo too :)

OK, the IIIa is the same body, with the addition of RF and slow speeds, it just feels different somehow - in a way that I'm not sure I can really articulate, but one that pulls at my soul.

I'm sure you would get other opinions from other users, each of whom would defend their favourite camera far more eloquently.

I'm off for a week's withdrawal from my Standard next week as I will be in Barcelona with a MP and 35mm 'cron (so it will be allright really!).
 
I love them all, but the plain III is my favorite. It's the oldest (circa 1933-1939). The one I owned just "screamed quality" (to quote RFF member darkkavenger).

I would not get too hung up about the need to use one of these cameras with a flash. Any decent modern SLR will pummel a bottom loader in terms of flash capability, reliability, and convenience. If you need convenient and practical strobe work with a rangefinder I suggest a Bessa R.
 
Last edited:
Dralowid said:
Don't discount the IIf which is quite common and correspondingly less expensive than IIIf/g.

Michael
Click to expand...
Good point, Michael. If you don't need the slower shutter speeds, check out the IIf. (The later IIf models also have the faster 1/1000s shutter speed.)

Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom