Leica LTM Anyone prefer their LTM to their M?

[aoresteen]

I currently have a If RD, IIIF RD, M3 MOT, and an M4-P. The If has the 15mm Voigtlander lens on it and the IIIf the 21mm Voigtlander lens. 99% of the time that's what I use the screw mount bodies for. I do have a Industar 55mm f/2.8 and a black Canon 50mm f/1.8 that I do use on the IIIf. The Industar is a terrific lens - after I had DAG CLA & columate it .

The M3 gets the 90mm & 135mm and the 50mm Planar & Canon 50mm 1.2. The M4-P gets anything from 28mm to 90mm.

I like them equally for what they do.

 

[Fadedsun]

If I ever have the luck of holding an M in my hands, I'll let you know In the meantime, I really love my IIIc. The alternate finders never bothered me. I usually try to do some mental guessing for distance so I don't have to bother fiddling with the rangefinder if I see something interesting that might disappear too quickly.

 

[WJJ3]

I voted like both equally because the screw mount body and M bodies I have were the best options for their respective lenses. I use my 21mm on a Leica 1f, and my 35mm and 90mm lenses on Leica M bodies. I'm sure 21mm can be really fun on a M, but I prefer my 1fRD as the body for my 21mm COLOR-SKOPAR for two reasons:

-it's super low profile keeping camera size and bulk to a minimum with the external finder mounted.
-it has the accessory shoe on the lens axis, which minimizes parallax error with the 12002 finder I use with it.

Honestly if Leica made a M6 (or any mechanical M) with the Leica Universal Wide-Angle Viewfinder M built in I would use that instead of my 1f, and probably wouldn't mess with screw mount cameras...

 

[Bar8barian]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Ambro51]

I don't like the look of the M series. I think the m4 tilted rewind knob is out of place, from an industrial design viewpoint. ••••• Leicas "high water mark", was 1938. Anything you could want from a system was honed to perfection then, built by the most skilled sets of hands ever.

 

[Tijmendal]

I've got IIa and have had a bunch of different M's (M2, M4, M4-2, M6 and now an MP) and I gotta say: I much prefer the M.
I've shot around 10 rolls with the Barnack. Mounted is a 50mm Elmar collapsible. The thing I love about it, is that I can just throw it in my backpack and not care much for it. It's over 80 years old and still functions properly. Built like a tank, and super small.
What I dislike is the separated range- and viewfinder and advancing the film with the twist-knob. Other than that, they're great camera's, but M's are even better (or suit my shooting style better at least).

 

[presspass]

Just sending a 'new' IIIa off for cleaning. It works well, but the viewfinder and rangefinder are dirty. My first Barnack since the early 1970s. Now I'm trying to resist the urge to buy a 35 and a 90 to go with the Summar that came with the camera. Bet I don't resist that long.

 

[Ambro51]

By all means get the 35 and 90 lenses.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Thank you, Bar8barian, I think however that it is a pity that it has been conversed into a IIIf. This one looks quite glossy.

Erik.

 

[Jerevan]

Seems I've met my ultimate classic Leica counterpart. And not letting go of it again.

Famous last words, as they say, Johan!

(Lord knows I have, on occasion, been heard saying "that's the last one" ...)

 

[Bar8barian]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[traveler_101]

Over time, I owned an M3, M3DS, M4, M5, M6, M8, M2 and a Minolta CLE.
Also owned a Leica II, III, IIIa, IIIc, and a Tower 46, most of all these several times.

In the end, all were bought and sold over time. But very recently I acquired a very early Leica II, which also was the same model I had last in the long row of cameras mentioned.

Seems I've met my ultimate classic Leica counterpart. And not letting go of it again.

Holy moly - that's a lot of buying . . .and selling. So you are down now to just the Leica II alone? i have a similar inclination to buy and try . . . any advice?

 

[coelacanth]

I also went through many many Ms and several Barracks in the past. Currently just down to one M4-P that has a bit of sentimental value to me, and got a IIIg. Possibly adding a smaller Barnack, likely a IIIa at some point in the future.

Like Erik and Bar8barian said, I like shooting smaller, slower, classic lenses on Barnack, and using M-4P for faster lenses. When I fly, it's easier to fly with M and one fast lens, keeping the shooting ISO of the film low (so I can just keep them in carry-on bag for security). For local walks, I like Barnack with small lens, pushing the film to 800 - 1600.

 

[traveler_101]

I also went through many many Ms and several Barracks in the past. [. . .]
Like Erik and Bar8barian said, I like shooting smaller, slower, classic lenses on Barnack, and using M-4P for faster lenses. When I fly, it's easier to fly with M and one fast lens, keeping the shooting ISO of the film low (so I can just keep them in carry-on bag for security). For local walks, I like Barnack with small lens, pushing the film to 800 - 1600.

This is very useful for me to read as you have worked out what appears to be a workable 'division of labour' between your cameras so to speak. So you only take 100 or 200 speed film through security screening for fear that 400 speed film will be compromised?

Just try them all, sell whenever you find something else you wanna try.

In the end, the camera you miss most will be the one that belongs with you! With me that was the little Leica II, all others went out the door over time. Gotta say I sold most of the Leicas at a profit (result from surfing the internet continuously and buying cheap), it's just that I traded in a perfectly good Nikon kit to get me a new M8 and that was a very silly move so be warned, never trade in but sell!

I take it that you are from the Netherlands. In 17th century North America the Dutch enjoyed a good a reputation for equitable dealing; they managed to both make money and be fair to their Indian suppliers, at least this was widely said. It was the fur trade, you know. So maybe your talent is not an individual as you think.

I live now in Norway. Norway - the Netherlands, what's the difference many Americans and some others often think: relatively small, Germanic, social democratic nations. Well, they're different. Apropos our topic: Norwegians discourage commerce; thus it is very difficult to acquire cameras across national lines without paying exorbitant fees. As long as I am working here it is almost impossible to follow in your footsteps, but I see your point.

So if you were stepping into a Leica M for the first time, what would you try first a M6 or M2?

 

[coelacanth]

This is very useful for me to read as you have worked out what appears to be a workable 'division of labour' between your cameras so to speak. So you only take 100 or 200 speed film through security screening for fear that 400 speed film will be compromised?

I came back from Ottawa last week with a roll of hp5 plus shot at 400 ish then developed at 640-800 ish. I saw no issues. I definitely don't recommend other people doing this, but I am a lazy kind. And also I shoot b/w only. You may start seeing issues with color film earlier.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

My answer is «I have both (M and LTM) and like them equally», but in fact to an extent I agree with this statement:

If I were king of a camera making company then all my RF lenses would be LTM because they are 'universal fit' they will work on both LTM bodies and with a (high quality) adapter will work fine on M mount cameras. If I made a RF body then it would be M mount only, for the same reason, they can take both M mount and LTM lenses.

Perhaps one could add: the Contax-RF-bayonet, the Nikon-RF-bayonet, and the various (Compur) «Deckel»-RF-bayonets would allow more (RF-)adaptations than LTM, so these lens mounts were even more useful than LTM — but of course RF-coupled adapters for the «Deckel» would become more complicated than the Contax-Leica and the Nikon-Leica, if one wants to use the rangefinder option.

It's a huge pity that no lens maker ever offered some kind of a RF-«Adaptall»!

 

[scigeek]

Horses for courses. My M6 has a place for close-up detail and it's a little faster to use than the 111c. The 111c is smaller, lighter, and I find good results more predictable with the 111c, 5cm Elmar, external viewfinder and a handheld meter.

I'll continue to use them both, but really enjoy using the 111c, the M6 less so, but still nice.

 

[Jake Mongey]

A local camera shop lent me a M4 for a week and honestly I still would have my canon 7 anyday. The canon may have been bigger but the rangefinder patch on the canon is just so god damn easy to see. Not that the M4 wasnt good, just the canon was that bit better

 

[hap]

I have a Canon P and several M's. Favorite shooter is M3 and CLE. Don't use the P, at least yet, because all I have is a 50 for it and plenty of those for M. I'd use a 35 and the P if I found one reasonably priced. For now it's the 40mm Summicron C.

The P seems like a very nice LTM camera.

 

[Ken Ford]

I'm Barnackless at the moment, but I'm getting the urge again... I've been idly looking for a black and nickel Standard.