traveler_101
American abroad
Thanks, David. I am in accord with your logic: a camera and a lens ought to be period specific, but in that case I am better off for now with a more affordable SM camera. If I opt for the M2, I will have to save up until next year to buy an 50mm M-Elmar ($800), or I could wait until I get my inheritance to buy a 35mm Summicron (LOL). In the meantime I would use the VC 35/2.5 lens I already have. In short, buying a M2 means all the money would go into the camera.
I tend to mail order rather than use stores (shops). If I were going to New York it might be different, but not on this trip.
Red Robin
It Is What It Is
I 've given up buying a camera with that high priced name on it. The Canons I own are plenty good enough for my skills. I've collected a number of the Canon RF's , a Canon III, IIs2, VI-t, P. and 7. With an inexpensive Bessa R, all of my needs are met. The LTM lens are affordable, so what elce is needed? (maybe a strap& 1/2case) Anyway they work for me. Red
traveler_101
American abroad
Traveler, this could be you... the M2 is calling to you...
Travel Companions by bingley0522, on Flickr
Great kit, Steve! Gossen digital meter eh . . .
traveler_101
American abroad
Finally, a Leica question I'm almost qualified to answer
When I unwrapped my IIIf, all I could think was "Oh my God, this camera is sooooo tiny!" Holding it, then the P, is a dramatic difference (The P is close to an M2, I've been told). I've been an SLR guy most of my life, and the difference is extraordinary. It will make your Bessa T (which is actually an SLR with the mirror ripped out) look like a behemoth.
There are some quirks with the IIIf. ...
It's an interesting camera. Just don't expect it to be anything more than it is: a basic picture-taking machine designed to be the top-of-the-line miniature camera...
Thanks for relaying your experience Bobbo. Nice to hear. The size . . . it must be like a little jewel. Yes, mechanical quirks . . . well so long as I can master the camera it is o.k. that it takes more time to use. Do you still use the IIIf or finding yourself relying more and more on the Canon?
traveler_101
American abroad
Hola Juan, your enthusiasm is infectious. Yes, there is much to be said about being very deliberative with the camera. You make a good case for that. Youxin, I would like to purchase a camera from him if the right one comes up. Do you plan on acquiring a M mount at some later point? By the way do you find that the Russian lenses focus accurately on a Leica?
traveler_101
American abroad
I can only relate my own experience. I had two IIIf's. A BD and a RD. I didn't intend to have two - thought I'd make a good one out of two but ended up with two good ones to start with. They are magical, mystical, fondle-able cameras and you'll find yourself stroking it and saying "My Precious". They're more compact than the Bessa (if they have the collapsible Elmar lens) and heavier. I took mine wherever I travelled including many trips to India. But with a Summitar 2/50 they're a weight and not pocketable. I used a VCII meter in the accessory shoe.
And the viewfinder and focus is "squinty". Things did improve after the 50's.
I have neither today. Whilst they are wonderful things to admire and look at they are not all that convenient or fast in use and I decided to get an M6 instead because to me the image is the thing that counts more. Not quite as fondle-able as a IIIf but superbly designed and built - and heavy! What I've found interesting is the comparison with the Bessas. I had an R3A and still have an R4A. I like wide angle and I like the fact that the M6 has framelines for 28mm but I quite often shoot wider than that at 25 or 21.
In general, the Bessa's are lighter, well enough constructed to withstand normal use, the A- type models have AE which can be very useful in so-called "street" photography or even family situations. Both my Bessas had/have a little window which reveals the film cartridge so you are never in doubt about what film you have loaded, and they have a shutter lock so you don't get accidental exposures while the camera is in your bag.
The M6 does not have any of these three features.
Don't get me wrong - I love the M6 and there's an emotional element to having a Leica - but in practical terms if I was starting again and limited to one camera I'd get a Bessa R2A. It has framelines for 35mm through to 90mm and for anything wider than 35mm I'd be quite OK with slipping the appropriate viewfinder into the accessory shoe. As you go wider the focus becomes less critical anyway.
So, my opinion. If you want something to fondle and admire and are prepared to put up with the inadequacies of 60-70 year-old design features as part of that experience, get a IIIf.
If you want something that functionally is better and easier to use, get yourself an R2A and whatever lenses and viewfinders you need if going wider than 35mm FOV.
Or get both!
Thanks Leigh for your thoughtful posting. I am not unhappy with my Bessa-T; the only thing I don't like is the plastic parts, including dials and levers; if only it were better built. I realize that later Bessas are better built but for now I am stuck on getting a Leica before I get so old that my eyes fail me altogether. Actually you do a pretty good job contributing to my Leica-lust: "magical, mystical, fondle-able cameras and you'll find yourself stroking it and saying 'My Precious'"
. Seriously, I think we are all looking for a technology that develops and responds to human potential, otherwise we would be buying the latest auto-everything DSLR, but you are right to remind that the replacement technology must be more than magical; it must be usable.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
Its all been said but I have to add, .......... I also thought I would buy one good Barnack and I now own 4 good ones. IMO there is no other camera like it and consider that its a full frame 35, its TINY and the design goes back to the 30's. Unreal engineering.
Attachments
Last edited:
Brian Legge
Veteran
If eye sight is an issue, I'd definitely try handling the camera first. Some of the Barnack style cameras of different sorts have finders that can be a bit squnity.
Is the finder for the later Canons like the IVSB2 better than the IIIc? Or is it just an improvement over the earlier Canons?
Is the finder for the later Canons like the IVSB2 better than the IIIc? Or is it just an improvement over the earlier Canons?
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
I think you're on the right track; there have been a few posts here that make it sound like Barnack versus M2 has no budget implications. Fact is an M2 will easily be two to three times the price in similar condition. You already have a good lens, so a Barnack body plus 35 finder would get you started. There are plenty of IIIc and IIIf bodies available under $300, even under $200 when in need of a tune-up. Just look at completed auction listings. Have it sent to Youxin, or buy directly from him, and get a VIOOH finder ($50 and up) if you want to be period-correct, or a Helios ($50-ish) or Petri (if more than $20 you're getting ripped off) if you want something cheap that does the job.
I think this recent thread may also be a good read for you: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111559
(Disclosure: I haven't bought anything from YY personally.)
Bingley
Veteran
Traveler, it sounds to me like you really, really want a Barnack. You should get one. No question it will be less expensive than an M2, and your existing lenses will work fine on it. Yes, the vf will be squinty and they're fiddly to load, but they're also little jewels and make pocketable shooters. Get it CLA'd, and it's a fun camera to shoot with. And you can find a Leica Elmar 50/3.5 to go w/ it for around $200 USD (they're relatively inexpensive b/c Leica made a lot of them, but if you get one in good condition they're wonderful lenses and make your Barnack reasonably compact). I find I use an external vf even w/ a 50 on my IIIc. I recommend the CV brightline finder:
IIIc and Summitar by bingley0522, on Flickr
IIIc and Summitar by bingley0522, on Flickr
Bobbo
Well-known
I use the Canon a bit more than the Barnack, but I still use it (of the two, only the Barnack has a roll of film in it right now). I must admit, however, I use the D90 I took used for the attached photo far more often
.Mastering it isn't a problem. It's just a little different, but took me very little time to get used to.
Now, to go change my band-aid, hehe (I've gotten worse injuries from making meatloaf or re-soldering guitar cable plugs, though...).
Attachments
Bingley
Veteran
Brian, the vf on the Canon IVSB2 is just as squinty as the vf on the IIIc. The only advantage to the Canon is that you don't have to switch windows to focus and frame, and you can magnify the vf in the Canon for more precise focusing (or using a 100mm lens). As John Shriver mentions in a post above, the Barnacks have a diopter adjustment, which the Canon does not.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Thanks Bingley, I was curious about that.
I've had a chance to use a Canon with the earlier, smaller finder. Workable but I found I had to have it much closer to my eye than some of the other Barnacks but had no experience with the later finder. I don't know if I'd recommend the earlier camera to someone with eye problems or glasses as I had to get very close to it for the finder to work for me. Otherwise it looks like an excellent camera and priced between the FSU and Leica rangefinders.
I've had a chance to use a Canon with the earlier, smaller finder. Workable but I found I had to have it much closer to my eye than some of the other Barnacks but had no experience with the later finder. I don't know if I'd recommend the earlier camera to someone with eye problems or glasses as I had to get very close to it for the finder to work for me. Otherwise it looks like an excellent camera and priced between the FSU and Leica rangefinders.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
No, I have no M plans by now... I use four cameras developed after Leica Ms, designed by people who used and loved Ms and wanted to go further, and made for M mount: two Bessas T, one Bessa R3A and one Bessa R4M.. I can't think of great new things any M could offer me, but I know what I'd miss if I used an M instead of my Bessas... For an older shooting style I preferred a Barnack over an M2... But I'd also play with a black M2 if I had some extra cash for that! During the last year I have wanted two things only: first, to be able to have fun with selective focus and a classic bokeh rendering with my Barnack, so I got the Jupiter-3, and this week, to get a cheap (Colombia) camera for fast (street) selective focus and with AE, so all I have to do is focus: for that, yesterday I bought a Yashica GTN: it's a black camera, goes to ISO 1000, and with its 45 1.7 lens, it will be discrete and fun outdoors (I won't have to take care of it in any way) and indoors too: in both cases for isolating subjects...
Some Russian lenses won't focus properly on Leicas, and some will, because they were made to different specifications depending on factory and year of manufacture... I think they were done in several different factories, and for close to five decades... My I-50 focuses properly on my IIIF (always) from 1 meter to infinity and from 3.5 on... My Jupiter-3 was optimized for focusing at 2-3 meters wide open... For great information on how Russian lenses behave on Leicas, you can explore the really enjoyable Brian Sweeney's threads, on his forum here on RFF...
Oh, talking about Barnacks, I'm about to receive an accessory I've been thinking about for a while, deciding which model to buy... I ordered this week from cameraquest.com a metal (silver) 28mm external viewfinder for my IIIF, just to be able to use my beloved and flat CV 28 3.5 on it: pocket size set! So now my Barnack basic set is complete: a flat 28 and a collapsible 50, both making a pocketable camera, and inside another pocket, the incredibly light (and small) Jupiter-3 (50 1.5) just in case I need speed or selective focus... That's what I'll bring with me to my US trip to Florida for the rest of this November... Oh, and the new toy, the Yashica GTN, for faster "bokeh" snapping...
Good luck with your decision!
Cheers,
Juan
Red Robin
It Is What It Is
Classic Rangefinders
Classic Rangefinders
Classic Rangefinders
Good choices Juan, Sounds like you're all set for your trip to Fla.. Have a good time as you've picked a great time to visit here the weather is just gorgeous right now and have a happy Thanksgiving also. Red & Ms.Bee
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I don't know what to say! But I often buy from the USA (I'm in England) and get some bargains. It's mostly a matter of checking the feedback and the postage service. Even after paying tax and duty I'm usually happy. And for mail order there's far more available.
Regards, David
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
rogerzilla
Well-known
Just load it and shoot. I did this with a IIIa and a Summar (literally full of dust bunnies at the time, but turned out to be a peach after cleaning) and even in that state, the results were so good that I sold all my other cameras.
traveler_101
American abroad
Steve, I've been back and forth on this, but I have finally decided for a SM. Thanks everyone for all your advice and perspectives.
Question now is which SM? How do you get the film cartridge to sit correctly in your IIIc, Steve?
Thanks for the suggestion on the CV finder. Looks real nice on the camera. Yeah I want a Elmar 50/3.5 as opposed to a Summitar 50/2 right?
Bingley
Veteran
Which LTM: I think your best bet would be a IIIc or a IIIf, although some members here swear by (instead of at) the pre-WWII III or IIIa. Check out the Head Bartender's article on Leica LTM camera bodies. The IIIc may be the most bang for the Barnack buck: Leica made a lot of them during the 1940s, and they incorporated improvements to body construction over previous models. I read somewhere that there were problems w/ the chrome on some IIIcs immediately after the war. My IIIc is from 1949, and the chrome is in great shape. If you can find a IIIf Red Dial in good condition and w/in your budget, that would be a good option too; the Red Dial and the IIIg share an improved shutter mechanism.
Getting the film cartridge to sit correctly: practice, and patience. There are a number of write-ups on how to load a Barnack (including a sticky on the LTM forum here). Many of these discuss whether you really need to trim the film leader or not. What I do these days is to take the lens off, set the shutter to T and open it, and gently work the film down so that it lines up correctly (I'm sure some more experienced hand will post a response saying this method is ridiculous, and one should just trim the film leader, but I had to send my IIIc back to Youxin Ye for a shutter repair recently after a piece of trimmed film broke off and caused one of the shutter curtains to jam). YMMV.
Which 50: The Summitar is historically correct for the IIIc, and many IIIcs were sold w/ this lens. It's a wonderful optic, particularly for a vintage look, but it flares very easily and is quite soft wide open (you may want that effect for dreamy portraits). I recently sold the one pictured on my IIIc above. I'm keeping the little Elmar 50/3.5: it's just a wonderful lens, and makes the IIIc coat-pocketable when collapsed. Bottom line: I don't think you can wrong w/ either lens. All other things being equal, the Elmar 50/3.5 will be cheaper; again, Leica made a lot of them. Another option would be to look for a collapsible Summicron, although those are more expensive these days.
Good luck! And post some pix of the camera.
Getting the film cartridge to sit correctly: practice, and patience. There are a number of write-ups on how to load a Barnack (including a sticky on the LTM forum here). Many of these discuss whether you really need to trim the film leader or not. What I do these days is to take the lens off, set the shutter to T and open it, and gently work the film down so that it lines up correctly (I'm sure some more experienced hand will post a response saying this method is ridiculous, and one should just trim the film leader, but I had to send my IIIc back to Youxin Ye for a shutter repair recently after a piece of trimmed film broke off and caused one of the shutter curtains to jam). YMMV.
Which 50: The Summitar is historically correct for the IIIc, and many IIIcs were sold w/ this lens. It's a wonderful optic, particularly for a vintage look, but it flares very easily and is quite soft wide open (you may want that effect for dreamy portraits). I recently sold the one pictured on my IIIc above. I'm keeping the little Elmar 50/3.5: it's just a wonderful lens, and makes the IIIc coat-pocketable when collapsed. Bottom line: I don't think you can wrong w/ either lens. All other things being equal, the Elmar 50/3.5 will be cheaper; again, Leica made a lot of them. Another option would be to look for a collapsible Summicron, although those are more expensive these days.
Good luck! And post some pix of the camera.