Leica LTM Benefit of collapsible lens?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
I liked IIf and I-22 in neoprene case for GPS. I'm not skinny to have space in the "back" pocket, but having Leica or even copy of it in small flat case gives some special feeling. No digital gives it, were is no digital like this.
 
The benefit of collapsible lenses? They collapse.

My black Leica is a tiny, unobtrusive pocketable tool, almost "spy camera" sized. My M3 in comparison is like carrying a brick around the neck, it feels like it weighs twice as much and is twice as big.

19050707568_7458dece74_b.jpg


8203339860_5fb24c476f_b.jpg
 
Richard G said:
My silver M9-P with the collapsed recent version 50 Elmar M, capped, is a very neat compact package to carry about, large only when next to the M6 and version 4 35 Summicron, or of course the Leica II and the completely collapsed f3.5 50 Elmar.
Click to expand...

It's neat and compact compared to a Nikon D4. :) But it's fat and bloated compared to original historical Leicas
 
photomoof said:
The "new" Elmar however has a serious flaw. When collapsed without a hood, it is almost impossible to pull out. http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/images/50mm-f28-m/D3S_8489-1200.jpg

It will not fit in a M6J case without removing the hood.
Click to expand...

The lens is easy to pull out without the hood, and I don't need to use fingernails. Perhaps Ken found a particularly stiff one. Yes, the hood does not reverse and so won't fit in the M6J case. It is a neat little hood and I use it on the collapsible 90 as well. I am wondering how necessary the hood is on the 50 Elmar M. I am usually without it now. Its chief advantage is keeping fingerprints and rain off the front of the lens. I haven't had any flare with this lens.
 
Richard G said:
The lens is easy to pull out without the hood, and I don't need to use fingernails. Perhaps Ken found a particularly stiff one. Yes, the hood does not reverse and so won't fit in the M6J case. It is a neat little hood and I use it on the collapsible 90 as well. I am wondering how necessary the hood is on the 50 Elmar M. I am usually without it now. Its chief advantage is keeping fingerprints and rain off the front of the lens. I haven't had any flare with this lens.
Click to expand...

How necessary? Don`t know , but it protects so I put it on. I don`t use my Summicrons much any more . The Lux ASPH for when I need 1.4 to 2.8. I have compared bokeh against current Summicron and the Lux puts it to shame. Don`t know about APO 50.

Rockwell needs to get his coll repaired.
 
Pocket portability is their only advantage. If you don't need that, you might want to go for the same lens design in a rigid mount. Most Leica (and Contax) collapsibles will appear to lock in any wrong position and do not alert you to being unlocked. Until the proper lens alignment has grown into your subconscious, you'll lose a fair amount of shots to a misaligned lens.
 
As to pocket portability, many of the lenses were made for and sold with the early LTM cameras - pre-IIIc. Those are somewhat smaller than the later - IIIc-IIIg - cameras, making them easier to put in your coat pocket. They might also work well in the leg pockets of cargo pants. Some of those lenses, including the Summar, are common in collapsible mounts and rare in fixed mounts, so that's also a factor. There's also the cool factor - something collapsibles have IMHO.
 
Out of curiosity, I compared a IIIc with an Elmar 50/3.5 and a Rollei 35, the latter of course noted for its compact dimensions. The Leica is within a millimeter or two of the Rollei in height and depth; it is 40mm wider. Similarly, the depth of the Leica is virtually identical to that of a Voigtländer Vito folder in the closed position.

With that lens (or a non-collapsible Elmar 35/3.5), a screwmount Leica is remarkably small and easy to carry; I would argue this is primarily due to the shallow depth of the package. The collapsible feature is less of an advantage in the larger lenses due to the greater depth, which has a large effect on the ability to comfortably carry the camera in a pocket.
 
The biggest advantage to a screwmount Leica with a collapsible lens is that I actually bring it with me.
 
A Barnack with a collapsible Summicron, collapsed with all that glass inside the body, is probably one of the most satisfying things to hold in one's hand.
 
SteveM(PA) said:
A Barnack with a collapsible Summicron, collapsed with all that glass inside the body, is probably one of the most satisfying things to hold in one's hand.
Click to expand...

But the photographs it takes are all out of focus. It would be more satisfying if it could alert you that it is not expanded... ;)
 
photomoof said:
I did not read Ken's review, I was only referring to my own lenses.

My lenses were not stiff at all. I owned two of them, and found it very "fussy" to pull them out since the surface is not only set back, the exposed part one grips very was narrow, and there are groves just to help your fingers slip, rather than a cross hatch. Mine were both black paint matching serials to cameras. I owned two snub nosed cases.

Of course if you mount the lens hood then they are easy to pull. Are you pulling it out with or without the hood? I personally never use lens hoods much.

On the classic lens there is no lip hiding the front of the lens. I had one on an M3, pushed in the camera, it would fit in my jeans back pocket.
Click to expand...

I guess the UVa filter on mine is what makes it easy.
 
grouchos_tash said:
Who are these people putting cameras in their pockets?
Click to expand...

Maybe clowns, or people who stole their clown pants? :D

I think the collapsible lens was simply a hangover from the days of folding cameras. Nice cameras folded up. Cheap ones didn't. So naturally a nice Leica should "fold". Sure it is a little bit smaller when collapsed, but not really usefully smaller. How I see it, extending the lens is just one more thing between you and getting the picture in time.
 
tunalegs said:
Maybe clowns, or people who stole their clown pants? :D

I think the collapsible lens was simply a hangover from the days of folding cameras. Nice cameras folded up. Cheap ones didn't. So naturally a nice Leica should "fold". Sure it is a little bit smaller when collapsed, but not really usefully smaller. How I see it, extending the lens is just one more thing between you and getting the picture in time.
Click to expand...

I like the folding cameras theory! How about the idea that items that fold away or fit neatly away is just good engineering? German industrial design is like that.

In any case I can fit my IIIf + Elmar combo into a small hard briefcase. I really do appreciate the extra portability, allowing me to take the camera at time when I otherwise wouldn't.
 
Not only is collapsed great and compact, but the silver uncollapsed Elmar M on the most modern silver film or digital M still looks like some curious toy or gizmo or historic relic and not a serious camera. That too is an advantage.
 
traveler_101 said:
I like the folding cameras theory! How about the idea that items that fold away or fit neatly away is just good engineering? German industrial design is like that.

In any case I can fit my IIIf + Elmar combo into a small hard briefcase. I really do appreciate the extra portability, allowing me to take the camera at time when I otherwise wouldn't.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to say it is bad engineering in a technical sense, but it does go against the engineer's mantra of KISS - introducing extra complexity and manufacturing expense, which ultimately outweighs the benefit of the feature.

I have borrowed a friend's collapsible summitar on a IIIf, and it's of negligible advantage. Even stranger I have a Super Baldina with a collapsible lens that saves maybe 2cm at most, on what is otherwise a very large camera.

Yes the camera is a little smaller. But it's not like it's going to allow you to fit an extra pair of socks in your luggage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom