Advice on LSM purchase

[traveler_101]

I am contemplating buying a Christmas present for myself, though I have no good reason for buying a Leica. i shoot with a Bessa-T now with Voigtlander lenses and love it; it a much better-equipped modern camera than a LSM: easy to load, TTL metering, easy rewind.

Still there is the attraction of a well-made Leica that keeps drawing me back. I will buy one sooner or later. I have thought about a M mount, but the cost of the camera and the lenses puts me off--at least for now. Pay a 1000 bucks for a M2 without metering--and with no idea how I will do shooting without a meter? Pay $1500 for a M6 and be left wondering how much of the frame I will be able to see with my glasses on? Besides, I like the portability of a screw mount equipped with period-compatible collapsible 50mm lens.

My question is which model, as I would like to avoid as many problems as possible. I am looking for a camera I can use, but also keep as a family heirloom. I welcome any and all comments. Here is what I have found


1. Sprocket marks showing on your prints as a result of film moving vertically when loaded. Affects especially the IIIc and earlier models. Solution:


"You can put a small spacer between the film magazine and the bottom cover. Just so long as it doesn't have too much friction.
Or you can use the Leica bulk-load magazines, which are longer than a standard 135 magazine."

I don't want bulk magazines and don't like the other solution either. So i read this:

"Keep in mind that both versions of the IIIf will accept modern preloaded film cassettes without any of the off center framing issues that results in sprocket holes appearing in the image."

2. Overlapping frames

Then I read this:
"For some reason, the later ones (LSMs) seem to have frame spacement problems. sometimes frames are stuck or overlapping. Also, the frame window is larger than what you are used to. that means more frame-position related issues. Next framing issue: with wides, the frame gets even bigger, so even more spacing issues, more difficulties to cut your film etc.
For some reason my 1933 III don't have frame spacing problems (the winding mechanism is different and has no slack - rougher to advance but apparently more precise). . . .
Also, the frames in the III are better spaced, and less difficult to cut."

I have noticed a huge escalation of prices on the IIIc when I had read that it was the cheaper option. Actually it seems like IIIFs are cheaper now. I like the looks of the IIIa but have been warned off because it lacks unibody construction. I have been thinking a IIIf RD, but am no longer so sure. Any thoughts?

 

[pschauss]

I have a IIIa and a IIIf and have not had any vertical or horizontal framing issues with either camera. If all other things are equal, I would go for the IIIf although the differences between that and the IIIa are minimal in normal use.

I use a VC Meter with by Leicas and find that I get good consistent exposures with it. I actually like it better than a TTL meter because I can set the aperture and speed before raising the camera to my eye.

If you wear glasses you will have to move your eye around a bit to see the full frame in the viewfinder. Both cameras have and adjustable dioper so that you can focus without your glasses if you prefer. At times I find it difficult to focus these cameras in low light or if there is bright light behind me. Removing my glasses helps in those cases.

 

[Bingley]

First of all, you can find a user M2 in good condition for between $500 and $600 USD. Check out KEH (and don't be afraid to look at bargain - grade samples), or follow Classifieds here.

Second, I just sold a Leica IIf red dial in Classified here for $240 USD. Prices perhaps aren't as high as you may think. A IIIc that's been serviced, and used w/ an external finder, can make a very nice, compact shooter.

Third, don't ignore the old Canon RFs, like the IVSB2 or the Canon P. They go for a song these days, but were just as well (if not better) built than their Leica counterparts.

 

[batterytypehah!]

Hi "Traveler,"

Don't over-analyze this! These are minor issues and you read about them on the Internet... It's not necessarily all true.

My IIIf with 35mm lens has never shown any frame spacing issues at all.

My advice: Go for the best one you can get where you are, and don't worry about IIIa versus c/f. Recently overhauled and with return privilege would be ideal, but unless you overpay initially, small issues can be fixed without breaking the budget. Also, while not as sought after as M Leicas, there's a stable market for Barnacks as well, so you can expect to get about what you paid if you find they're not for you after all.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi "Traveler,"

Don't over-analyze this! These are minor issues and you read about them on the Internet... It's not necessarily all true.

My IIIf with 35mm lens has never shown any frame spacing issues at all.

My advice: Go for the best one you can get where you are, and don't worry about IIIa versus c/f. Recently overhauled and with return privilege would be ideal, but unless you overpay initially, small issues can be fixed without breaking the budget. Also, while not as sought after as M Leicas, there's a stable market for Barnacks as well, so you can expect to get about what you paid if you find they're not for you after all.

Seconded -- though if other things are equal (which they seldom are) a IIIc often offers the best price/quality ratio, in a very old camera.

Cheers,

R.

 

[traveler_101]

Thanks guys for the responses! Ok, I will look at various cameras then and not over-determine the result. Steve, I saw that you sold the IIf but I missed it. I also labor under a handicap: I have a rather narrow buying window that corresponds with my short trips back to the States. I haven't been home for a year now, but am coming soon.

As for buying a M mount bargain user, thanks for the KEH suggestion Steve, I realize the advantage of having a unified RF/VF but I am a bit skeptical about whether I will be able to focus with it very well. I wear glasses, suffer from myopia. Isn't a 1.5 magnification RF better than a .72 or even .91 magnification on a M? The 1.5x rangefinder on my Bessa-T works fine for me so I thought to get the same sort of apparatus on the Leica screw mount.

 

[Bingley]

Thanks guys for the responses! Ok, I will look at various cameras then and not over-determine the result. Steve, I saw that you sold the IIf but I missed it. I also labor under a handicap: I have a rather narrow buying window that corresponds with my short trips back to the States. I haven't been home for a year now, but am coming soon.

As for buying a M mount bargain user, thanks for the KEH suggestion Steve, I realize the advantage of having a unified RF/VF but I am a bit skeptical about whether I will be able to focus with it very well. I wear glasses, suffer from myopia. Isn't a 1.5 magnification RF better than a .72 or even .91 magnification on a M? The 1.5x rangefinder on my Bessa-T works fine for me so I thought to get the same sort of apparatus on the Leica screw mount.

I have several thoughts on your last point.

1. I wear glasses, too, but have had no problem focusing my M2. Sample quality plays a part, here, but an M Leica vf in good shape will be bright, and the rf patch will be sharp and distinct. The likely problem will be flare in some lighting situations (some M models are more susceptible to flare than others). Magnification is nice, but not essential to focusing, IMO.

2. Why not try it and see? You could get an M2 in good shape for under $600 USD, and if you find it doesn't work for you, sell it for what you paid for it. Leica M bodies hold their prices pretty well. I'm not pushing the M body option (I like using my IIIc too), only pointing out that it may be less expensive to you than you think.

3. If you do want adjustable vf magnification, consider the late model Canon bottom loaders like the IVSB2, or the later V or VI series (but not the P). The Canon IVSB2 looks very much like a Leica IIIf but it has an integrated vf and rf, with adjustable magnification to (I think) 1.5x. The vf on the IVSB2 is still squinty (like on a Barnack Leica) but you may find it convenient to frame and focus through a single vf.

 

[John Shriver]

The advantage of the Leica screw-mounts is the built-in diopter adjustment for the rangefinder on the III and up. The high rangefinder magnification is a plus, but the M models have a longer baseline to make up for it.

The Canon rangefinders do not have adjustable diopter, only magnification.

 

[traveler_101]

I have several thoughts on your last point.

1. I wear glasses, too, but have had no problem focusing my M2. Sample quality plays a part, here, but an M Leica vf in good shape will be bright, and the rf patch will be sharp and distinct. The likely problem will be flare in some lighting situations (some M models are more susceptible to flare than others). Magnification is nice, but not essential to focusing, IMO.

The advantage of the Leica screw-mounts is the built-in diopter adjustment for the rangefinder on the III and up. The high rangefinder magnification is a plus, but the M models have a longer baseline to make up for it.

The Canon rangefinders do not have adjustable diopter, only magnification.

Thanks for your feedback. It's a tough call, and i'm tempted by the M2 (really tempted and I am still looking at them) . . . but I'm leaning toward a Barrack for now. As far as the Canon is concerned . . . and I know this probably sounds lame, but I really want a Leica and am not tempted by Canon, even if it is a fine camera and I'm sure it is.

By the way, in terms of sellers . . . anyone have experience with Igor camera? I am looking for a camera that has already been CLA'd and he seems to be selling them.

Thanks, Mark

 

[Sparrow]

In use the light and smooth shutter release of the M2 is well worth the difference in price when compared to the more agricultural one on the Barnacks ... and look for a camera owned by a Dentist i.e. spotless with no internal brassing or wear on the pressure plate, cheaper in the long run

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

My 2d worth is to add that, if you wear glasses, then you will probably swear at the screw thread models view-finders and swear by the M2's. And the clip on MC meter is easy to obtain in good working order.

The screw thread models can be a lot of fun but they are not the easiest to get on with and are best seen as a hobby camera. They are also lovable and addictive...

Regards and the best of luck, David

 

[traveler_101]

Hi,

My 2d worth is to add that, if you wear glasses, then you will probably swear at the screw thread models view-finders and swear by the M2's. And the clip on MC meter is easy to obtain in good working order.

The screw thread models can be a lot of fun but they are not the easiest to get on with and are best seen as a hobby camera. They are also lovable and addictive...

Regards and the best of luck, David

Thank you David for reminding me that the viewfinder on the Barrack is difficult to use, which means that if I buy one I would have to buy an auxiliary 50mm viewfinder as well. That must be taken into calculation when comparing a IIIf and M2. Between that and Stewart's point about shutter operation, you gentlemen are pushing me toward a M2. 😱 I am not quite there yet, though.

 

[Simon Bruxelles]

There is a huge difference between a Barnack and the M2/M3: with the collapsible Elmar 5cm lens you can slip a Barnack into your pocket and hardly notice it's there, the M2 is a brick whichever way you look at it. In terms of performance the M2 is, almost, a modern camera, certainly a modern Leica. The Barnack feels like a creation from a different age. With the M you can use the latest lenses and your results will be indistinguishable from photographs from an M6 or M7 or even an M9. With a Barnack using Leica lenses your pictures will look like they were taken in 1948. If you are going to put yourself to the extra cost and aggravation of using film, a completely unnecessary inconvenience, you might as well have something to show for it. Look on the squinty viewfinder, the fiddly film loading and the often unpredictable results as part of the charm and you will get a lot of satisfaction out of a Barnack

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thank you David for reminding me that the viewfinder on the Barrack is difficult to use, which means that if I buy one I would have to buy an auxiliary 50mm viewfinder as well. That must be taken into calculation when comparing a IIIf and M2. Between that and Stewart's point about shutter operation, you gentlemen are pushing me toward a M2. 😱 I am not quite there yet, though.

Another shove towards the M2. It's true that the relatively small difference in actual dimensions feels far more important than the numbers suggest; but equally, with a collapsible Elmar on it, an M2 is remarkably small too.

Quite honestly, given the need for auxiliary finders, I treat my Leica IIIa as a fixed-lens camera: I find the built-in finder perfectly adequate, and by the time you've clagged a SBOOI on top of the camera, I find it less pocketable than an M. But if I'm only going to use a 50mm lens, my Retina IIa is arguably a better pocket camera.

Yes, the IIIa has more 'cool' than the Retina, and for most of my time at university, it was the camera I carried every day, but that was pure historical accident: I had a Leica, and I didn't have a Retina.

As a device for taking pictures, I'd back the M2 every time. But if you want some sort of quasi-mystical link with the past, by all means buy a screw-mount. Or a Retina.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Nomad Z]

I started with a IIIf with 50mm Elmar, and got an M2 a few months later. The main reasons for getting the M2 were a finder that suits 35mm, combined RF and finder, and the more straightforward shutter speed dial and lever film advance.

In use, the IIIf is quirky. I don't wear glasses, and the squinty finder is okay for me. Things got more inconvenient when I got a 35mm Jupiter-12 - I found the need for a separate finder a bit of a pain. I used the FSU turret finder at first, which has quite a big distance from the RF eyepiece. I later got the FSU dedicated 35mm finder, which is better, but still not as good as switching between the RF and VF eyepieces when using a 50mm. By comparison, as mentioned above, the M2 is essentially a modern camera in terms of its handling. To me, it's faster and more intuitive to use, and the viewfinder is far better.

I disagree with the notion that using a Barnack entails only being able to produce images that look like they were taken in 1948. There are plenty of very good CV lenses in LTM that have a modern look, and they tend to cost less than their M-mount equivalents. Since the OP is on a budget, an M2 with a modern M-mount lens may not be within reach. LTM CV lenses with M adapters are well worth considering. Another advantage of the M2 is the ability to use both M-mount and LTM-with-adapter - a Barnack is LTM only, so limits the options for lenses that might be acquired in the future.

A Barnack with a collapsible Elmar is certainly smaller than an M2 (even with the same lens), but it's not that small. My IIIf lived in my jacket pocket for several months in a zip pouch, but has long-since been repalced with a Rollei 35S. The Rollei is much smaller, and I prefer its 40mm lens to the 50.

I still use the IIIf occasionally, but tend to stick to a 50mm lens (usually a Jupiter-3 at fairly wide apertures). One exception is the CV 15mm with external finder, but this doesn't suffer from the RF/VF eyepiece distance because it's not RF-coupled and has huge depth of field - I just set to hyperfocal distance and snap away. Overall, I would say the IIIf is fun to use. There are few cameras that are more steeped in photographic history, and, to me, the IIIf is the pinnacle of the original 35mm Barnack form factor - best of breed.

For serious picture taking, however, it's the M2. All the bits are in the right place and it's very fast and slick to use - the nearest I can get to not thinking about the camera. I happen to like the 35mm focal length, and the M2 with a 35mm lens is a near-perfect combination for me.

If I was starting out again, I would go straight to an M2. I'd probably still use LTM lenses and adapters on cost grounds (I have no M-mount lenses).

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I don't know how your budget will work where you are and how much of a hurry you are in but I'd go for a good looking M2 and assume that they will lie to you about its mechanical condition.

They may not be lying; my M2 went downhill very slowly and it wasn't really noticed until the shutter started playing up and everything was checked and so on. The result was a camera as good as new and a shock for me. I just couldn't believe so much could happen and not be noticed...

You've also a terrifying decision process ahead; the lenses go like this one super standard lens (dear to very very dear), the not so super on paper but brilliant "B" team lens (I'm thinking collapsible f/2.8 standard lens) or instead of a dear standard lens a middle of the road 35mm and 90mm. To Leica that means not f/2 but f/2.8 or even f/4 for the portrait lens. I've always found a 35 and a 90 (or 85mm) a good choice for lightweight travel etc. The portraiture lens for people and the 35mm for places.

Apertures like f/2 and bigger look good on paper but wide open mine only get used for 2 to 3% of my shots. And I use 125 B&W or 200ASA colour all the time. So going to 400 ASA for colour etc would cut that 2 to 3% figure a lot.

You can get the Barnack experience on the cheap with a FED or Zorki 1, btw. Blindfolded and handling the cameras or only looking at the prints, few can tell the difference between the Leica II and the Fed 1... And you can get the lenses coated on a FED 10 and the standard apertures etc on a FED or Zorki. The mental arithmetic needed with 30's apertures and shutter speeds on a Barnack meant I had to get an early (1933) meter completely refurbished to use. (A Weston Master II is cheaper and more practical.)

And I'll confuse the issue by adding that what you can get out of a 30's Leica and a Summitar will blow your mind. Usually we end up with them all and ignore the expense. (And I've not mentioned the C3, mini, C11 or Minilux yet!)

Regards,

 

[traveler_101]

There is a huge difference between a Barnack and the M2/M3: with the collapsible Elmar 5cm lens you can slip a Barnack into your pocket and hardly notice it's there, the M2 is a brick whichever way you look at it. In terms of performance the M2 is, almost, a modern camera, certainly a modern Leica. The Barnack feels like a creation from a different age. With the M you can use the latest lenses and your results will be indistinguishable from photographs from an M6 or M7 or even an M9. With a Barnack using Leica lenses your pictures will look like they were taken in 1948. . . .

Hi Simon

Nice posting. Do you use an uncoated Elmar to get a old-fashioned look? Good point about the portability of the Barracks. I have a Bessa-T which is similar to the Barrack in size and it is exactly perfect in my hands. Is the M2 really a brick (lol) . . .!

 

[traveler_101]

Another shove towards the M2. It's true that the relatively small difference in actual dimensions feels far more important than the numbers suggest; but equally, with a collapsible Elmar on it, an M2 is remarkably small too.

Quite honestly, given the need for auxiliary finders, I treat my Leica IIIa as a fixed-lens camera: I find the built-in finder perfectly adequate, and by the time you've clagged a SBOOI on top of the camera, I find it less pocketable than an M. But if I'm only going to use a 50mm lens, my Retina IIa is arguably a better pocket camera.

Yes, the IIIa has more 'cool' than the Retina, and for most of my time at university, it was the camera I carried every day, but that was pure historical accident: I had a Leica, and I didn't have a Retina.

As a device for taking pictures, I'd back the M2 every time. But if you want some sort of quasi-mystical link with the past, by all means buy a screw-mount. Or a Retina.

R.

Ah, the LSM gives one a "quasi-mystical link with the past": exactly the reason many of us going traveling about the continent or even move there (?). Fascinating post: I now have metaphysics to consider as well! 😉

 

[traveler_101]

I started with a IIIf with 50mm Elmar, and got an M2 a few months later. The main reasons for getting the M2 were a finder that suits 35mm, combined RF and finder, and the more straightforward shutter speed dial and lever film advance.

In use, the IIIf is quirky. I don't wear glasses, and the squinty finder is okay for me. Things got more inconvenient when I got a 35mm Jupiter-12 - I found the need for a separate finder a bit of a pain.

Well meant to use the IIIf with a 50mm lens and the built in finder (if I can manage to see through it). I have been shooting with a Bessa-T (similar to the Barrack RF + auxiliary finders) with Voigtlander 35/2.5.

QUOTE NOMAD: I used the FSU turret finder at first, which has quite a big distance from the RF eyepiece. I later got the FSU dedicated 35mm finder, which is better, but still not as good as switching between the RF and VF eyepieces when using a 50mm. By comparison, as mentioned above, the M2 is essentially a modern camera in terms of its handling. To me, it's faster and more intuitive to use, and the viewfinder is far better. [/QUOTE]

TRAVELER: Well in this case, then, even a IIIf would be an improvement as I am now used to switching between the RF and the auxilairy 35mm viewfinder on the Bessa. This presumes, of course, that the VF is usable for me. David Hughes says it will drive me to drink.

QUOTE NOMAD: I disagree with the notion that using a Barnack entails only being able to produce images that look like they were taken in 1948. There are plenty of very good CV lenses in LTM that have a modern look, and they tend to cost less than their M-mount equivalents.[/QUOTE]

TRAVELER: I have three of them already 15, 25, 35--all screwmount.

QUOTE NOMAD: Since the OP is on a budget, an M2 with a modern M-mount lens may not be within reach. LTM CV lenses with M adapters are well worth considering.[/QUOTE]

TRAVELER: I always took this exorbitant cost of M lenses as reason to get a screw mount camera, but of course you are right that an adapter can be used, as in fact I am doing with my Bessa-T which is actually a M mount to which I have more or less permanently affixed an adapter.


QUOTE NOMAD: Overall, I would say the IIIf is fun to use. There are few cameras that are more steeped in photographic history, and, to me, the IIIf is the pinnacle of the original 35mm Barnack form factor - best of breed.[/QUOTE]

TRAVELER: Sounds good to me!

QUOTE NOMAD: For serious picture taking, however, it's the M2. All the bits are in the right place and it's very fast and slick to use - the nearest I can get to not thinking about the camera. I happen to like the 35mm focal length, and the M2 with a 35mm lens is a near-perfect combination for me. [/QUOTE]

TRAVELER: Do you a lot of street shooting with that combo?

QUOTE NOMAD: If I was starting out again, I would go straight to an M2. I'd probably still use LTM lenses and adapters on cost grounds (I have no M-mount lenses).[/QUOTE]

TRAVELER: Noted. Thanks.

 

[ray*j*gun]

All Barnacks that have had service will work well.....as Roger said above, the IIIc is the best price value (except K's), I have 3 and none of them have ever had any issues what-so-ever. Its all about condition with these old beauties.