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
pete hogan said:
As the Summaron 35mm f/3.5 came along, Leica suggested in a '54 ad that it could be set at f/11 and 11 feet and that everything from 5-1/2 feet to infinity would be in sharp focus. Seems they had "fast focusing" in mind.
Click to expand...

Yeah . . . there is nothing faster than hyper focal shooting, but I never think about that with a 35mm lens; thanks for pointing that out.

sanmich said:
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "fast focusing".
When shooting a Barnack, focusing is not really what slows you down.
recomposing, rewinding, changing film is.

I am down to two 50mm lenses in LTM: a summicron and a Summar.

I used to have a CV 28mm which is a killer lens for hyperfocal shooting on the streets when coupled with a IIIf.
Click to expand...

Well, recomposing isn't much of an issue if you are shooting hyper focal or scale focusing.

No, I wasn't referring specifically to the Barnack versus M issue; it just seems to me that some lenses focus faster than others. Maybe it's illusionary, but I have found the CV 35/2.5 Color Skopar to be particularly fast.

Thanks for the tip on the 28mm! I have the CV 25mm "Snapshot Skopar" but i've never tried it for street shooting, thinking you have to get awfully close and when you do you have too much distortion of faces. But you say the 28mm was a great shooter for street?
 
I sold my Bessa R to fund the purchase of a Bessa R2.
I didn't take to the R2 so I sold it and bought another R.

Chris
 
I think the M2 is great much better than my new 111F BUT the M is to big to heavy,therefore i always put the 3F or 3C in my pocket depending which has the collapsible

If i use the voigtlander lens i mostly take the M

The 111F would be the absolute best if it had frame .......etc
 
Well I've put myself in a precarious situation. Following advice from this very thread, I went and got me an R3A to complement the IIIf. Now I'm torn again. Once I got the R3A I also 'had' to get the CV40/1.4 S.C. Well I got to say, this CV combination is outstanding!!! I now find myself reaching for the R3A over the IIIf. I've had an M2 in the past and (cover your ears Leicaphiles) I find the R3A far, far better. I think it might be the 1:1 finder, but it must be more than that as I also had my time with a Canon P and the R3A is so much nicer again.

So now I am at a cross-roads.

bodies: R3A and IIIf (rd)
lenses: CV28/3.5, CV40/1.4, Cron50 (ltm)

I could live with just the R3A and lenses - or 28 and 40mm if pushed. If I were pushed on the lenses I could keep the 40mm on the R3A and the 28mm on the IIIf. But then the rendering on the first Summicron is just so unique and beautif….

…see what you've done Juan! (see Page 1 members of the jury) ;)
 
As I have gotten older I like the IIIc a lot more than my M3. I still use the M3 but mainly around the house or visits with friends and family..
 
stillshunter said:
. . .
I could live with just the R3A and lenses - or 28 and 40mm if pushed. If I were pushed on the lenses I could keep the 40mm on the R3A and the 28mm on the IIIf. But then the rendering on the first Summicron is just so unique and beautif….
Click to expand...

So now you have two good cameras . . . Keep what you have, but also acquire a Voigtlander Super-Wide Heliar 15mm f/4.5 Aspherical Screw Mount lens. When you go out with two cameras, you have the 40 on the R3A and the 15 on your IIIf. Great combo. And even if the R3A-40mm combo is your main squeeze, it will be nice on occasion to take out your IIIf with the Summicron.

By the way, does anyone know if you can use the 35mm Nokton on the the R3A/R3M-shooting with the 40mm framelines?
 
traveler_101 said:
So now you have two good cameras . . . Keep what you have, but also acquire a Voigtlander Super-Wide Heliar 15mm f/4.5 Aspherical Screw Mount lens. When you go out with two cameras, you have the 40 on the R3A and the 15 on your IIIf. Great combo. And even if the R3A-40mm combo is your main squeeze, it will be nice on occasion to take out your IIIf with the Summicron.
Click to expand...
I'm maintaining a minimalist philosophy and after 'rigorous' testing, the R3A w/- 28 and 40mm will stay and the IIIf and Summicron 50 have just been listed on the Classifieds.

traveler_101 said:
By the way, does anyone know if you can use the 35mm Nokton on the the R3A/R3M-shooting with the 40mm framelines?
Click to expand...
No problem. Framelines on the Bessa are dial selected only - mount machining does not come into play (which is cool when buying adapters). So you can have 90mm lines with your 50mm mounted or 50mm with your 90mm upfront…or even a 40mm frame for your 35mm. Actually many just use the outer edges of the viewfinder to approximate 35mm - sort of like WYSIWYG….all with 1:1 goodness.
 
My first Leica was the IIIc. I still own it and love it. The size of the viewfinder bothered me a bit, but I added a SBOOI viewfinder and wow! Totally a different animal now. Zone focusing with the Summitar 50mm works great with that combo. I can compose faster than with my M4-P, assuming I don't have to refocus. The camera is very small and handy. Here it is next to my Pentax for size:



I do use my M4-P more but it is mostly because I prefer the 35mm focal length to the 50mm on the IIIc, and of course the viewfinder is faster to use than the IIIc/SBOOI combination when focusing is needed. The IIIc is not collecting dust however. Sometimes I carry both in a small F8 bag. I might get an LTM wide angle and viewfinder to use with zone focusing. Here in Florida it's 1/500 f16 all day, every day. So using the IIIc is pretty simple. When it gets dark, I switch to my X100S anyway.

For the price ($225) how can you go wrong? I got the Summitar 50/f2 for $350. For a Leica lens, that's pretty affordable. Ok, I spend a bit on a CLA with a new beam splitter, but now my IIIc is ready for another 20 years.

Gil.
 
Hi,
Years ago I traded in my Leica IIfs on an M4, which I still own. Later I bought an M2 as a second body; the M2 has become my favorite.
JustPlainBill
 
I voted for the LTM. I have owned my IIf RD 1/1000 for about three + years now and acquired an M2 about a year ago. Although I love the M2, I must say that since I use a CV 28/3.5 almost exclusively... I prefer it on my Barnack. I just prefer the size and weight of my IIf especially when I have to use a lens that requires an external finder. The bottom loading, and knob film advance does not bother me at all. The separate VF/RF is no problem when I am using a lens that can be scale focused in decent light and little problem otherwise. The only thing that I wish were different on my Barnack is having to lift up on the shutter speed dial to change settings. Bottom line (for me) is that if I could only own one or the other, it would be the M. However, since I own both, I find myself with the Barnack in my hands +80% of the time. If I used longer or faster lenses on a regular basis, I would probably feel differently. YMMV.
 
I now have 2 M bodies (M3 and M4) and 2 LTMs (Leica II and IIIf). I really enjoy them all. At one time I got rid of almost all my screwmount stuff, only to re-acquire a bit later. Now, if I really had to keep only one… it might just be the IIIf, after all. The small size is a joy to carry and I have way more LTM lenses than M mount, actually.
 
The Barnack cameras are "real Leica" cameras in my opinion. This is just in the sense that they convey to me a feel of classical cameras with history. I have a IIIF and a Standard Leica to enjoy as pieces of history.
 
I couldn't pick between them. I travel a lot, and the IIIa gets more use because it fits in my briefcase a little more easily. On the other hand, the M3 with an f/1.1 Nokton is just amazing.

With the IIIa
7738409282_afd01d62a9_b.jpg


With the M3
8545771015_e986b01c22_b.jpg
 
Hi,
I once had a pair of Leica IIfs . Read the review for the M4. Didn't know how shooting both cameras would work out, so I traded my IIfs in on the M4. Later I bought an M2 and then another M2. I'm happy with my Ms, but might buy another LTM camera.
JustPlainBill
 
I use early Leicas because they are comfortable to use and easily fit into a pocket, even a shirt pocket. Comfortable is a strange thing at times. I have used I's through IIIf but ceased using anything later than a IIIb because the rest of them, though only a couple of mm larger and grams heaver than the early ones simply seemed 'to big'.
 
Totally!

I do prefer my Ltm to M

After long years of owning almost every film M camera and using them extensively i still consider a better shooter the IIIf

Having lots of great m glass (all gone) I still regard (and use) the elmar 5cm f3.5 redscale to be unbeatable.
I left my wides in favour of an orion 15 Ltm and couldnñt be happier!

Nevertheless i´m the happy owner of an m9 which i have since there is no ff ltm digital camera available yet.

Also i must admit there are two pieces of equipment that i find superbe, that is the ZI camera and the ZM 50mm sonnar.

I made this conclusion not only because optics, but also about performance/size relation which i consider crucial.

As you can imagine i don´t like to shoot hydrants nor benches at night @ f1.:bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom