Leica LTM Anyone prefer their LTM to their M?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses

Anyone prefer their LTM to their M?

  • I had/have both (M and LTM) and prefer the LTM

    Votes: 78 14.7%

  • I had/have both (M and LTM) and prefer the M

    Votes: 158 29.7%

  • I have both (M and LTM) and like them equally

    Votes: 161 30.3%

  • Only ever had an LTM and need look no further

    Votes: 77 14.5%

  • Only ever had an M and need look no further (was just here by accident or curiosity)

    Votes: 53 10.0%

  • I have no interest in either (M or LTM) - either prima facie or a priori

    Votes: 5 0.9%
  • Total voters
    532
I have a IIIg in addition to my M3. My M3 has come out with me daily for the past 5 years or so and I rarely use the IIIg mostly because the only LTM lens I have is a Nikkor 50/1.4 SC. Kind of defeats the purpose of that camera when the M3 does the exact same thing a lot better. I really want to get a 50/3.5 Elmar collapsible for it or even better get a Miyazaki converted Yashica T4 35/3.5 converted to LTM mount for it. Then I could just toss it in my coat at least during the winter when I'm wearing big jacket with big enough pockets. The IIIg looks brand new and it also needs a CLA because some of the speeds are off. No point in spending money on that now till I can afford the lens as well so it just sits on my desk :/ Love the way it looks and handles though.
 
While I do like the 0 series, I vastly prefer the M body. I had a IIIc for a while, but found it too fiddly with the tiny viewfinder. Might have had an easier time of it had I not had an M first, but I don't think so.
 
radi(c)al_cam said:
Elmar chrome 3.5/50mm aren't that an expense, at least in Europe; in Vienna, you pay for a pre-war ca. EUR 170, for a post-war ca. EUR 240.
Click to expand...

I actually just got my IIIg back from a CLA. I picked up a Jupiter 12 for it for $70 as well haha. That Nikkor 50/1.4 SC I have for it is just slightly too big to throw in my jacket.
 
I like my IIIf a lot, especially with collapsible lenses (Summitar, Summicron and even the Elmar). But I also like my film Ms :)

traveler_101 said:
So if you were stepping into a Leica M for the first time, what would you try first a M6 or M2?
Click to expand...
Not sure if your question was directed at everyone, or just the previous poster, but for me, neither :). My first dip in the M pool was an M3 paired with a DR Summicron; the handling and results are very satisfying to me. My next M was the M5, which I like for its handling, and even its anti-Leica-M design aesthetic. I've handled M2, M4, M6, and the digital versions, but none of them please me (in terms of handling or aesthetics) as much as the 3 and 5. (I must say that I am tempted by a digital M, but only for the convenience of the digital format in a rangefinder system.)
 
Loved my M2, but never became friends with the eyepiece/viewfinder. I wear glasses. Loved the shutter sound and the mechanical feel. Settled for a FED2 instead just because the diopter adjustment possibility. Use it with a black industar and a black J12. I never bothered that the viewfinder doesn´t show the 35mm frame..I just shoot :)
 
I'm really going to get out and use it in the street this coming Saturday. I've been carrying it around in my pocket for a few days and it's really not too bad if you zone focus or just know your distances well. I could see myself having issues shooting below f/4 with a 50mm though in times I don't have time to think about it.
 
Well as the OP, I've finally come back to read this thread in its entirety so far. What an absolute gem of a read. Seriously if your eyes have little to do while having a nice brew then I'd strongly advice another perusal.

The reason I revisited this thread was a little while ago I found myself so time-starved because of work that I took the 'initiative' to go digital only....and so every serious film camera was sold to fund a full Fujifilm digital line-up. Recently I've been on leave and had the opportunity to go over my image library and found myself pining very seriously for film again. So I'd resolved a return to film and a readjustment of work priorities (or more accurately where work fits within my hierarchy of values).

But which camera? (hence my revisitating this thread)

In the context of RFs I've been fortunate enough to own the XA, M2, R3A, IIIf, M4-P, so I had the benefit of their experience. Knowing this I thought back on which camera I most enjoyed shooting, which engaged me the deepest and got me 'into the zone' and got out of the way...and then the choice was crystal clear.

In short, over the next few days I look forward to the arrival of a IIIf.
 
Since you have mentioned cars, may I add a little to the discussion? The old control tower at Goodwood is used as a cafe at the moment and you sit there surrounded by the original Crittall windows and, between them, beautiful black and white photographs of motor racing. Anything from the earliest days of the circuit would have been shot on Leica or Contax, wouldn't it? The wonderful pre-war photos taken by Robert Fellowes were also likely to be on one of those. No long lenses then, but I am old enough to just remember photographers standing on the apex of corners with their screwmount Leicas. They got the shots! The famous pictures of the pre war Singer team cars crashing includes a sequence of three very rapidly taken shots. Perhaps a new challenge here: photographs of the vintage races at Goodwood taken with III and IIIa cameras, later LTMs, M3s and M2s for the fifties cars... how about it? Can we still use the cameras as they once were used to record high speed action? (From the spectator side of the fence these days.)

And to keep this relevant to the thread, I am happy with III and IIIc/f, but would like an M2.

Stuart
 
Welleyes said:
Since you have mentioned cars, may I add a little to the discussion? The old control tower at Goodwood is used as a cafe at the moment and you sit there surrounded by the original Crittall windows and, between them, beautiful black and white photographs of motor racing. Anything from the earliest days of the circuit would have been shot on Leica or Contax, wouldn't it? The wonderful pre-war photos taken by Robert Fellowes were also likely to be on one of those. No long lenses then, but I am old enough to just remember photographers standing on the apex of corners with their screwmount Leicas. They got the shots! The famous pictures of the pre war Singer team cars crashing includes a sequence of three very rapidly taken shots. Perhaps a new challenge here: photographs of the vintage races at Goodwood taken with III and IIIa cameras, later LTMs, M3s and M2s for the fifties cars... how about it? Can we still use the cameras as they once were used to record high speed action? (From the spectator side of the fence these days.)

And to keep this relevant to the thread, I am happy with III and IIIc/f, but would like an M2.

Stuart
Click to expand...
Not sure mate. We used to fight with broad swords, and even earlier hunt and gather. Likely we're not made of the stuff to wield these weapons any more or fend for ourselves in the wilds. Seems the better we make the tools the further we get from being able to perform the essential intended task...in terms of motor-sports, we'd likely not be able to double-shift synchro the gears even ;)

But I know the rejoinder here would be with practice, repetition, muscle-memory, we could again do anything, so I think after a time and serious application we could shoot like this again.
...but can we be bothered (is the consequent and sadder question)?.
 
"Not sure mate. We used to fight with broad swords, and even earlier hunt and gather. Likely we're not made of the stuff to wield these weapons any more or fend for ourselves in the wilds. Seems the better we make the tools the further we get from being able to perform the essential intended task...in terms of motor-sports, we'd likely not be able to double-shift synchro the gears even"

Hmmm! I have no trouble with 'crash' boxes or even transmission by multiple chains so an LTM Leica seems fairly normal not to say modern. Perhaps if I ever buy an M2, I will know if my screwmounts are obsolete or difficult. The serious point is that if old cars, cameras or aeroplanes work and give pleasure, then they have a place in our world. In the end, my III and IIIc/f are the nicest cameras I can afford. I run a modern car as well as Barnack age cars so I am only half way to being a Luddite: a later Leica would go down very well, I think.
 
Welleyes said:
"Not sure mate. We used to fight with broad swords, and even earlier hunt and gather. Likely we're not made of the stuff to wield these weapons any more or fend for ourselves in the wilds. Seems the better we make the tools the further we get from being able to perform the essential intended task...in terms of motor-sports, we'd likely not be able to double-shift synchro the gears even"

Hmmm! I have no trouble with 'crash' boxes or even transmission by multiple chains so an LTM Leica seems fairly normal not to say modern. Perhaps if I ever buy an M2, I will know if my screwmounts are obsolete or difficult. The serious point is that if old cars, cameras or aeroplanes work and give pleasure, then they have a place in our world. In the end, my III and IIIc/f are the nicest cameras I can afford. I run a modern car as well as Barnack age cars so I am only half way to being a Luddite: a later Leica would go down very well, I think.
Click to expand...

I agree the notion that which technology we land on is an attempt to to find something that works and "gives pleasure" - or provides a form of satisfaction in creating images that is missing in the most modern technology. The problem with the argument that the M cameras are better than the Barnacks is evident: if technological superiority is the criteria we could easily find new technologies that are "better" still than the M. If that were the logic there would be no reason to shoot old film cameras at all.

Of course for some the Barnacks are 'primitive', meaning too slow to work with; so use a M then. For others there is nothing to replace the experience of the Barnack and the renderings of LTM lenses.
 
I have two M cameras and several of what I would consider to be some of the best examples of Leica glass in M mount. These are surely better tools than my Barnacks. However selfishly I mainly photograph for my own pleasure and I love using my SM cameras and try to give them plenty of exercise. If you consider the cost vs pleasure ratio for me it is not even close


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have a IIIb and its a great little camera. Well built and fits right into my pocket. Great for a carry around camera.

Id love an M2 though.
 
I have 2 LTM and there's no reason to get an M.
My level of photography could be satisfied with a Polaroid Swinger.
I probably will fall again though and get an M2 but not yet. But I don't need it. Really.
 
I use or used several Leicas: IIIc, IIIg, M3, M2, M4 and CL.
The M3 finder is better than everything else, but for everything else than the finder, I prefer the Barnacks or a Contax II/IIa.
 
I had an interesting occurrence last week on vacation. I was carrying the Leica Standard with Summitar in my blue jeans pocket, and I found in several instances that the camera would wind on the film advance as I pulled the camera out of my pocket.
 
I had an M2, before that a Nikon F3. I shot with the M2 for a few months and never really got into it. I sold it and went back to my F3 and Rolleiflex.

Picked up a IIIc and fell in love with the small size and the Elmar 5cm lens. I bought another IIIc with a 13,5cm lens and another IIIc an Elmar for my girlfriend who was eyeballing mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom