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
Used to own an M6TTL, M2 and iiifRD. With the collapsible Summicron, the iiifRD was by far the smallest package, and I really liked that about the camera. But even after having it service by Leica Solms to try to brighten up the viewfinder and rangefinder, I finally gave up as it just took me too long to focus and frame with the camera. It kind of killed the idea of capturing spontaneous moments.

Incredibly well made camera though, and seemed to be very durable.

Best,
-Tim
 
I bought on RFF classifieds a II with the totally collapsible 50 Elmar. With the 1950s Brightline external finder attached I find it a great, easily useable, compact package, and the slight haze behind the front element produces such dreamy pictures, sometimes. It needs the hood, and changing aperture is a pain. For my next project everything will be taken with this. The Monochrom and the M9-P don't produce the same character. I might try a Lightroom emulation of an uncoated Elmar.....
 
The Leitz LTM camera I owned was a very pretty and extremely well kept little 111a which at some point in its life (most likely the 1950s) had been sent back to Leitz where it was given an upgrade with a flash sync port and a flash collar around the shutter button. (The latter was identical to that on the 111f and was used to adjust the moment at which the flash fired because unlike electronic flashes, different chemical flash bulbs took more or less time to fire up to full brightness. You can see it in the attached photo if you look closely.) On its sojourn the Wetzlar, it also had lens coating added on its Elmar 50mm f3.5. A truly lovely camera to look at and to but I have to say it was a bugger to load. I could add that I have also owned a couple of Canon LTM cameras but my comments here are limited to the Leica one.

The thing I really did not like about it was how loud the shutter was. A very loud and unsophisticated clatter-clunk sound quite unlike that on an M3. As a total aside it always amused me that someone once described the sound of the Hasselblad's shutter as being "a gentle wheeze, like that of an elderly member of the aristocracy". Made me laugh.

But the point is the sound of the 111a did bug me a little even though I very much enjoyed using the camera otherwise. I assumed all LTM cameras were the same but later after selling mine a friend showed me his 111c and its shutter was a soft and gentle click. Much like an M3. I was shocked. I am still not sure if that is because the shutter design improved over the years in LTM cameras or whether the shutter / shutter brake on mine just needed servicing.

In any event mine is now sold and gone and while I still own an M3 I only get it (or any film camera, for that matter) out occasionally. It is still a matter of sadness for me that while I still own a Leica M - an M8 in fact, its shutter sounds not that much better than that bloody 111a. A serious retrograde step that any Leica designer who understands why people are willing to pay such a huge amount for thier cameras should have bloody well understood!!!!!! But that's another story.

A photo of my LTM camera sitting with its cousin, my M3 which I still own. Both with long lenses on this occasion. I wish cameras were still as pretty as these two.

 
I don't consider a Leica with a long lens specially beautiful, not to mention the ugly VIOH or Leicameter or GRIP, frankenstein cameras.

A black or chrome with a single lens, small one 35 or 50, that's the beauty of Leica.
 
I have two cameras that have survived decades of buying and selling, a Graflex Super D and a Leica IIIa. The Leica often goes on trips with just a 15mm and collapsible Elmar--both fit in a tiny hip pack, along with a couple of rolls of film. For any wide angle where I need a finder, the IIIa is the camera I prefer to carry. For longer lenses, I prefer a Nikon FG, so my M4s aren't getting a whole lot of love these days.
 
I've had almost every M and will never go back since I got a IIIG and Canon VL: Why? Multiple exposure capabilities! As for the M5, though Leica claimed it was possible in the manual, it was really a difficult, three-handed operation and I would still get overlapping and blank frames anyway. (Such a lovely camera otherwise.) Not to mention losing count of how many frames remain on the roll. Same for double exposures with any other M, Bessa, ZM, CL, CLE, or even Hexar (RF). Even if one doesn't use this feature for artistic effect, I can't imagine why no one included a multiple exposure feature on a 'modern' rangefinder. Even the best photog. accidentally takes a shot with the lens cap on, so why have to waste a precious frame over it?
More praise of the IIIg--something no M has-- bright frames (50 & 90) with real, sharp CORNERS, not just broken lines on four sides, or curved corners as on the M3. For me it really aids in composing dynamically within the full frame.

IIIg with Summicron collapsible (2 layers):
Griffith Park Horses by Timoleon Wilkins, on Flickr

IIIg w/ Nikkor s.c 5cm/1.4 (4 layers)
Bank grid #2 by Timoleon Wilkins, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Agreed. The IIIg is a very fine camera and actually fits the majority of my use to a T.

But the M3 comes pretty close with an even nicer viewfinder.
 
I'm new to the rangefinder market, and while I've never owned or used an M (hopefully this changes someday) I currently think my IIIC is the best camera I've used. It has its quirks and is certainly a little bit slower to use compared to other cameras, but it feels perfect in my hands. Sometimes I pick it up and practice empty shots with it when there's no film inside just to hear the shutter click and hold it.
 
I voted that I like the LTM (IIIF) better than my M3. The IIIF is a gift from my son and made in my birth year, so it is special: lovely to look at and use. The M3 has shot more film in the same time, so that tells a different story. I guess it is faster, more flexible and efficient. But the IIIF has the romance of a Barnack.
m3_iiif.jpg
 
Luddite Frank said:
I am an admitted LTM devotee, whether that is rationally justifiable or not, but I have to say that the M-Leica's VF / RF is mighty nice...
Click to expand...
As far as rangefinder accuracy goes, the Leica IIIG and M3 have it all when it comes to using the 50mm Lens. I have the later IIIf from Canada, but the IIIG is a standout among the screws, as per the following list:
www.cameraquest.com/leica.htm
 
oltimer said:
As far as rangefinder accuracy goes, the Leica IIIG and M3 have it all when it comes to using the 50mm Lens. I have the later IIIf from Canada, but the IIIG is a standout among the screws.
Click to expand...
And if you're really bold (and a little foolhardy;)) you can file a few millimeters from the inside of the lens flange (where the roller rests) on the IIIg/IIIf and get accurate focusing on the close-focus Nikkors down to about 2.4ft/0.6m!
 
Yes to the Bessa R!

Yes to the Bessa R!

Why not the Bessa R? It's a proper LTM camera, and it focuses down to about 0.8m without filing the lens mount.
It has great TTL metering which is extremely accurate.
The viewfinder is as good as the one on the M7 (coated viewfinder glass too). Unlike the M6, M7, MP, it has a real spring wound self timer. I don't need to attach one of those Kopil self timers when I want a family picture.

I shoot with the humble Bessa R far more than with any other camera, including my SLRs, the IIIF, IIIG, and Canon 7s rangefinders. The only downside is the short rangefinder base, which limits the longest lens to a 90mm f/4. (My Canon 85mm f/1.9 pushes the envelope with the Bessa R).
 
Robert Lai said:
Why not the Bessa R? It's a proper LTM camera, and it focuses down to about 0.8m without filing the lens mount.
It has great TTL metering which is extremely accurate.
The viewfinder is as good as the one on the M7 (coated viewfinder glass too). Unlike the M6, M7, MP, it has a real spring wound self timer. I don't need to attach one of those Kopil self timers when I want a family picture.

I shoot with the humble Bessa R far more than with any other camera, including my SLRs, the IIIF, IIIG, and Canon 7s rangefinders. The only downside is the short rangefinder base, which limits the longest lens to a 90mm f/4. (My Canon 85mm f/1.9 pushes the envelope with the Bessa R).
Click to expand...

I use a 50 or 90mm lens a lot, and a 35 occasionally. I have found that the Bessa R does just fine with those three lenses. Not quite as nice to fondle as the LTM but very nice to actually shoot.
 
It was a good question to ask, and the answers have been quite interesting to read.

For myself, I have a IIIf and the M6, with three lenses for each. I probably use the M6 a little more for traveling, because of the built-in light meter. But otherwise, and for nature shots I feel more at home with the screw knobs.

If I only had room for one - I expect I would keep the IIIf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom