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
Last year I acquired a IIIb with a collapsible Summar, which in the short time they’ve been in my possession, I’ve grown to love.

The IIIb reminds me so much of my first decent camera, a Zorki, though of course, the IIIb is much smoother in use etc.

Rather than sing the camera’s praises here, coincidentally yesterday I put my thoughts about the IIIb on my website, which can be found here:

https://asingulareye.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/the-leica-iiib-briefly/

Do I prefer it to my M? Apart from the M's better viewfinder and lenses, no. The IIIb is of its time, and given this consideration, equally fine in my book. What a wonderful camera… and what a sheer pleasure to use!
 
I have both, but not for a very long time. I like the M a little bit over the III, mainly because it feels more solid. The M2 I have is heavier than the IIIa which is good. Winding the M2 also feels excellent. The viewfinder is also better.

What I like about the IIIa is its compactness. It is a really neat little camera. What I also like is that it still works after 80 years. I cannot imagine my Canon DSLR doing that.

Ow and thumbs up for Brians story!
 
Said that I would prefer the M, but I do have LTM, which I prefer over the M in particular uses: e.g., wide-angle, non-focus, Sunny 16 with wide latitude film
 
fotomeow said:
Said that I would prefer the M, but I do have LTM, which I prefer over the M in particular uses: e.g., wide-angle, non-focus, Sunny 16 with wide latitude film
Click to expand...

this! Barnacks are awesome bodies for wide-angle lenses that need accessory viewfinders.
When it comes to small wide-angle lenses (like the 21 Skopar) I like the handling and form-factor of my IIIf much more then the same lens + finder on my M2 (which feels rather bulky with the big finder on top).

+ people are much less intimidated by the look of a Barnack then by a M Leica if you are getting right into their personal space with such a wide lens :D
 
Brian Atherton said:
Last year I acquired a IIIb with a collapsible Summar, which in the short time they’ve been in my possession, I’ve grown to love.

The IIIb reminds me so much of my first decent camera, a Zorki, though of course, the IIIb is much smoother in use etc.

Rather than sing the camera’s praises here, coincidentally yesterday I put my thoughts about the IIIb on my website, which can be found here:

https://asingulareye.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/the-leica-iiib-briefly/

Do I prefer it to my M? Apart from the M's better viewfinder and lenses, no. The IIIb is of its time, and given this consideration, equally fine in my book. What a wonderful camera… and what a sheer pleasure to use!
Click to expand...

very minor technicality, but the IIIB is not the last of the "Barnacks," they continue on through the IIIG (a rare and expensive beast), and in expanded definition can sometimes be understood to apply to most of the Leica screw-mount copies (Canon's are absolutely beautiful -- arguably nicer than the Leica equivalents), and some of the lesser-known brands' later copies have some improved user functionality like lever wind or swinging film doors (M style opening upwards, not SLR style where the whole back swings sideways). I adored my IIIc, but eventually succumbed to the beauty that is the Canon IVsb2 with its "engineering-genius" finder. Still can't compare to the later RFs with the larger exit pupils, but is probably as good as it gets for those based on the original II/III rangefinder setup w/out projected/reflected lines.
 
If you’re referring to para 6 of my article, Spicy, I did not state that IIIb is the last of the ‘Barnacks’.

Quote: …The IIIb model is the last of the affectionately named ‘Barnacks’ with a body length of 133mm (5¼ inches), about 3mm (⅛ inch) shorter than its successors… Unquote

If this statement is incorrect I will be pleased to correct it.

And I am aware that the 'Barracks' continued to evolve with successive models right up to the IIIg.

I agree with you it is a wonderful model, and absolutely one of my favourites.
 
The Barnacks (my favourite is a IIIb) has a certain "something" that makes me actually use them; put the camera with an extra film in the bag and get out walking.

I gravitate towards the earlier ones now, although I started out with a IIIf few years ago. I am always looking for a second IIIb, but I have the urge to try a III too.

The 50 3.5 Elmar is sometimes a bit fiddly, but given the limitations, they match each other very well, I think.
 
I like the Leica II from 1932 I bought here in the classifieds. I had a conversation with an artist today. She was admiring my little Summaron f3.5 on the Monochrom—1951 lens on a 2012 release camera. I told her that I had a 1932 lens that coupled to the rangefinder just as well. I agree with Stuart above: more than anything it is the compactness of the Barnack that is so marvellous.
 
I tend to make more of a comparison twixt LTM and Nex rather than LTM and M. Have a look at the picture, sizewise they are close. I could have taken the rubber eyecup off the Nex to make it smaller but that's cheating!

IMG_2373 by dralowid, on Flickr
 
Erik,

At least it isn't a figment of Photoshop and if it were a factory job (if such a thing exists) I would doubt it would be gloss, more likely matt.

So it is, I believe, a standard post war chrome IIIc that was stripped and repainted some time ago in high gloss in the style of a pre-war camera. I like the result but the finish is quite delicate.

I have never been able to decide what to do with it. It works well, indeed 100%, but the delicate finish stops me from using it on a regular basis.

By contrast the finish on the Nex appears to be bullet proof. Only time will tell whether the rest of the camera is!

I used to search for a black IIIa but apart from conversions was never able to find one and gave up. The experts seem to disagree as to whether they actually existed even though a batch of serial numbers was set aside for them.

Michael
 
Michael,

A few "Leitz-Eigentum" IIIc's exist in black (with chrome trim and IIIf-synch), serial numbers in the 51XXXX range. I've never seen one, so I can not say it is glossy or matte.

Black IIIa's do not exist, AFAIK, but black III's are easy to find. They are almost the same thing.

Another subject, but interesting, is the Nr. or No indication before the serial number on black cameras from the 1950s. I've always thought that "No" meant original and "Nr." conversion, but recently I discovered that the black IIIf's and IIIg's from the Swedish Army have "Nr." before their serial numbers. Are they conversions?

Erik.
 
Erik

You may have seen this picture before, all Nr., all conversions.

Scan-130412-0004 by dralowid, on Flickr

Then there is this, Nr. and No. both conversions...BUT the No. conversion is using a pre-war moulding to get from a I to a IIIa

Scan-130413-0001 by dralowid, on Flickr

I am not blessed with any Swedish Army IIIf or IIIgs but thought they were factory production and not older cameras modified.
 
Wonderful collection, Michael, I love that 24650 from you. If you want to separate from it, just let me know.


I just checked my own IIIg. Guess what? Nr. 879928. Maybe there is a date on wich Leitz decided to switch from No to Nr. But when and why?

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Wonderful collection, Michael, I love that 24650 from you. If you want to separate from it, just let me know.


I just checked my own IIIg. Guess what? Nr. 879928. Maybe there is a date on wich Leitz decided to switch from No to Nr. But when and why?

Erik.
Click to expand...
Now that is very interesting Erik. Just checked my both Canadain built ones of IIIF 684xxx, and my IIIG 829XXX; and they have (Nr)
 
Got in the game with a Canon LTM ,wanted a Leica for years but now I'm content with my Canons. I have enough different lenses and bodies to cover my needs. I prefer the 'P'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom