Roger Hicks
Veteran
Beautiful, but an even worse rust-bucket than the early 911. Why do so few 356 Porsches survive outside California?
Cheers,
R.
Anyone prefer their LTM to their M?
- Thread starter stillshunter
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 273
- Views 6K
Cheers,
R.
MaxElmar
Well-known
No, you're beautiful, Roger. 🙂 I knew with that analogy you would understand, even if you do not agree.
Alas, you are also very right about the 356. "Tinworm" has taken so many 356s - I almost never see one here on the east coast. And they are so valuable now. For me, a late 356 with four-wheel disc brakes and a sunroof? It would be heaven.
Cheers to you, sir.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
The Barnacks are beautifully crafted machines. I really love them and have owned quite a few. They are slow to use if course especially film loading. I have had film loading down to 45 seconds but neede a table and a place to sit. Loading film while standing in some street corner with the bottom plate somewhere is an experience in frustration. When I sold my IIIF last year I tried demonstrating to the buyer on how to load film but for the life of me couldn't get it to load. At that moment I was glad to be rid of it but then sort of regretted it later on.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
IIIa's have been my Favorite
I have alwys preferred a Barnack to an M
However since wearing glasses its just too fiddly trying to focus so I'm back into M bodies
Oddly though I could finish a roll faster with my Barnack than an M....go figure
Barnacks are truly Magnificent in Design & 'look'
I have alwys preferred a Barnack to an M
However since wearing glasses its just too fiddly trying to focus so I'm back into M bodies
Oddly though I could finish a roll faster with my Barnack than an M....go figure
Barnacks are truly Magnificent in Design & 'look'
raid
Dad Photographer
Ltm lenses can be used on ltm and M bodies.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Yes exactly. Why limited yourself with a body that can only take some of your lenses?
raid
Dad Photographer
They often are also less costly.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Again you summed it up nicely.
ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
I like them equally but I prefer to use my M's only.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I don't really like the Barnack leicas. They look pretty and they're made well, but they are to rangefinders what Exaktas are to SLRs. Functional and attractive - but fiddly and slow - and weird.
The biggest problem is the tiny viewfinder which works fine if you just need something to help you point the camera in the right direction, but is basically hopeless if you want to actually compose an image with some thought put into it. I thought maybe the IIIg would solve this problem, but while it is better, it's still not good enough. I spent a long time looking over a IIIg at a shop agonizing over whether it would come home with me or not. Then I remembered I already had a Zorki 4, and that it had a much better viewfinder and rangefinder. There was no point to the IIIg going home with me. To me, being able to see the photo I am going to take is more important than such frivolous qualities as how smoothly the wind knob turns or how well the brand name is engraved.
Canon made a series of LTM cameras which also knock the socks off any of the LTM Leicas (or soviet clones). Of course the M2 and M3 knock the socks off those too, so I suppose my answer would be the M series wins hands down.
Of course one can take perfectly good pictures with all of them. It just depends on how much you're willing to put up with and how much you're willing to compromise.
The biggest problem is the tiny viewfinder which works fine if you just need something to help you point the camera in the right direction, but is basically hopeless if you want to actually compose an image with some thought put into it. I thought maybe the IIIg would solve this problem, but while it is better, it's still not good enough. I spent a long time looking over a IIIg at a shop agonizing over whether it would come home with me or not. Then I remembered I already had a Zorki 4, and that it had a much better viewfinder and rangefinder. There was no point to the IIIg going home with me. To me, being able to see the photo I am going to take is more important than such frivolous qualities as how smoothly the wind knob turns or how well the brand name is engraved.
Canon made a series of LTM cameras which also knock the socks off any of the LTM Leicas (or soviet clones). Of course the M2 and M3 knock the socks off those too, so I suppose my answer would be the M series wins hands down.
Of course one can take perfectly good pictures with all of them. It just depends on how much you're willing to put up with and how much you're willing to compromise.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
I have had screw-mount Leicae now for almost seven years ( hardly a fort-night ), and they have become my go-to film camera.
My user kit is a 1934 chrome III, with: 3,5 cm Elmar, 35 mm Canon f:1.8, 50 mm Summicron, 90mm Elmar, and 135 mm Hektor. All except the Elmar 35 are coated. Also in the kit are: Nikon Varifocal finder, barn-doors for the 50 mm, FIKUS for everything else, manicure scissors for leader prep, and a light meter.
Last year, a good and trusting friend loaned me his mid-1950's M-3 DS kit so that I could experience that aspect of Leicadom.
I have shot several rolls with it, with good results, but so far have not liked it enough to seriously consider buying one of my own.
Pros:
> open back for easier film loading
> Single, large, bright VF/RF with internal frame-lines.
> Lever-wind
> Integrated meter connection with shutter speeds
Cons:
> large size
> heavy
> expensive
> lenses are larger and heavier
That said, I'm VERY used to my Barnacks by now.
The M is an all-new camera, and takes some getting used-to.... folks complain about the LTM being "fiddly"... the first couple times out with the M-3, I found that damned Leica-meter to be pretty darned "fiddly" and cumbersome.
I will say that the combined VF/RF is beautiful, and probably the single biggest advantage, as far as I'm concerned.
For the price of the M and M-lenses that are not duplicates of LTM, I think I'm happier with my Nikon S-2 kit: I bought a nearly-mint body with 50/1,4 and 135 lenses, hoods, and cases, Varifocal finder, and some sundries all for less than I could buy just an M-3 body in similar condition.
But then, the Nikon S was the very first "real camera" I ever saw / used.
For what all that is worth... I also like and use Exaktas, in spite of having Canon FTbQL, Pentax Spotmatic, Minolta XG-1, and Olympus OM-10 kits...😱
My user kit is a 1934 chrome III, with: 3,5 cm Elmar, 35 mm Canon f:1.8, 50 mm Summicron, 90mm Elmar, and 135 mm Hektor. All except the Elmar 35 are coated. Also in the kit are: Nikon Varifocal finder, barn-doors for the 50 mm, FIKUS for everything else, manicure scissors for leader prep, and a light meter.
Last year, a good and trusting friend loaned me his mid-1950's M-3 DS kit so that I could experience that aspect of Leicadom.
I have shot several rolls with it, with good results, but so far have not liked it enough to seriously consider buying one of my own.
Pros:
> open back for easier film loading
> Single, large, bright VF/RF with internal frame-lines.
> Lever-wind
> Integrated meter connection with shutter speeds
Cons:
> large size
> heavy
> expensive
> lenses are larger and heavier
That said, I'm VERY used to my Barnacks by now.
The M is an all-new camera, and takes some getting used-to.... folks complain about the LTM being "fiddly"... the first couple times out with the M-3, I found that damned Leica-meter to be pretty darned "fiddly" and cumbersome.
I will say that the combined VF/RF is beautiful, and probably the single biggest advantage, as far as I'm concerned.
For the price of the M and M-lenses that are not duplicates of LTM, I think I'm happier with my Nikon S-2 kit: I bought a nearly-mint body with 50/1,4 and 135 lenses, hoods, and cases, Varifocal finder, and some sundries all for less than I could buy just an M-3 body in similar condition.
But then, the Nikon S was the very first "real camera" I ever saw / used.
For what all that is worth... I also like and use Exaktas, in spite of having Canon FTbQL, Pentax Spotmatic, Minolta XG-1, and Olympus OM-10 kits...😱
raid
Dad Photographer
People here are mixing up ltm cameras and ltm lenses. Which did the OP mean for this thread?
Pioneer
Veteran
Took it to mean camera...certainly could be wrong though.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Well, having an M-mount camera opens-up the options of using the later M-mount lenses, most of which are faster than their LTM predecessors, if nothing else.
While it is true that one can use any Leica RF lens on an M, Barnack users are limited to LTM lenses.
I don't know if that detail alone is enough to push folks into spending more for the M...
While it is true that one can use any Leica RF lens on an M, Barnack users are limited to LTM lenses.
I don't know if that detail alone is enough to push folks into spending more for the M...
raid
Dad Photographer
The real issue is why choose an M mount lens when there is a near identical but less expensive ltm version of the lens on the market.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Traveled from Mpls. to Houston.
Left the M camera home.
Used only IIIf.
Worked great.
I like the LTM cameras!
Left the M camera home.
Used only IIIf.
Worked great.
I like the LTM cameras!
deldridg
Member
This thread has the potential to cause me a little anxiety. 🙂 Some days ago I purchased a near mint IIIf/Summicron 50/2 from a German camera shop having never shot with one. It should arrive on Monday (currently Friday here in Sydney). Hmmmm, have I done the right thing???
At the same time I've been musing over a Titanium Non-TTL M6 but chose the IIIf really on its small size. The M6 will happen another day...
I have a number of cameras - film/digital and a couple of rangefinders, no Leicas and my rationale on this purchase (as far as rationalism comes into it...) was/is:
- I love to be 'closer to' or more immersed in the shooting experience (I love using my 4x5 a lot more than my D700, depending on the situation) and the little Leica will certainly slow things down,
- it's physically tiny and will probably spend a lot of time in a jacket pocket on my travels (out with the little Fuji X10),
- it represents what I consider to be quite a technical achievement in its day and
- it is, to me a thing of great beauty - rather like an old Patek Philippe, but that's probably more emotional than rational. Perhaps I'm a little drawn to quirkiness.
No doubt I'm a bit of a sentimental fool but I suppose I can sell it if needs be. I'll put a few rolls through it asap and report back on my experiences in the appropriate thread.
Great read and great insight - many thanks! Fingers crossed I'll get some sleep between now and Monday.
Cheers,
David
At the same time I've been musing over a Titanium Non-TTL M6 but chose the IIIf really on its small size. The M6 will happen another day...
I have a number of cameras - film/digital and a couple of rangefinders, no Leicas and my rationale on this purchase (as far as rationalism comes into it...) was/is:
- I love to be 'closer to' or more immersed in the shooting experience (I love using my 4x5 a lot more than my D700, depending on the situation) and the little Leica will certainly slow things down,
- it's physically tiny and will probably spend a lot of time in a jacket pocket on my travels (out with the little Fuji X10),
- it represents what I consider to be quite a technical achievement in its day and
- it is, to me a thing of great beauty - rather like an old Patek Philippe, but that's probably more emotional than rational. Perhaps I'm a little drawn to quirkiness.
No doubt I'm a bit of a sentimental fool but I suppose I can sell it if needs be. I'll put a few rolls through it asap and report back on my experiences in the appropriate thread.
Great read and great insight - many thanks! Fingers crossed I'll get some sleep between now and Monday.
Cheers,
David
Joe Jesus
shaggy nurse
I've never used an M, but I had a Leica IIIf for awhile. I loved using the camera, I had to sell it to cover some unexpected expenses. I'd absolutely love to have another. The LTM cameras offer something in the shooting experience that most other cameras don't, and one considers that when choosing the camera. For me, personally, I prefer SLR's for 'normal' photography, so I would probably prefer a nice LTM w/ collapsible 50mm over any Leica M. With an LTM, I get something that my SLR can't give me. With an M, I think I would miss the WYSIWYG view. But, having never handled an M, I can't say for sure...
Anyone want to lend me one so I can find out for sure? Hehehe.
Anyone want to lend me one so I can find out for sure? Hehehe.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
The LTM Leica pretty-much pioneered 35mm "miniature photography"... they did a decent job then, and they still do a decent job today, so long as the lenses are clean and the camera is functioning properly (true for any optical device).
Henri Cartier Bresson did well with them, as did Edward Steichen and Alfred Stieglitz, to drop a few big names...
Your Summicron lens should be a safe investment, as long as the glass is in decent condition...
Enjoy your III-f... it's a quality camera; if you decide it's not the machine for you, sell it and move-on... at least you will have had the experience of owning and shooting one.
🙂
Scrambler
Well-known
The poll shows that 60% of people are as happy or happier with an LTM. That gives you pretty good odds 🙂
Mind you it also shows that 70+% are as happy or happier with an M.
