David Hughes
David Hughes
HI,
Interesting where-do-you-draw-the-line problem isn't it?
I'd go for Barnack designed but that might include the Reid & FED... And excludes the IIIb, perhaps. Perhaps we'd better leave it vague.
Regards, David
Interesting where-do-you-draw-the-line problem isn't it?
I'd go for Barnack designed but that might include the Reid & FED... And excludes the IIIb, perhaps. Perhaps we'd better leave it vague.
Regards, David
Bill Clark
Veteran
I own a III A that i'm using quite a bit.
goamules
Well-known
If the average photographer thinks "is that a Leica?", OR it takes an expert staring at the camera (ignoring the lens) front several minutes to know what manufacturer it is, it's a Barnack!
It's really a symantics game that is irrelevant. The OPs question could have been, "Which early, very small, removable M39 mount lens, 35mm rangefinder with 2 - 3 windows on the front, bottom loading, and knob winds on the top is the best user?"
It's really a symantics game that is irrelevant. The OPs question could have been, "Which early, very small, removable M39 mount lens, 35mm rangefinder with 2 - 3 windows on the front, bottom loading, and knob winds on the top is the best user?"
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not really. It would take any "expert" at most a few seconds to see what sort of camera they were looking at, and to determine whether it was a screw-mount Leica. Why use the meaningless and pretentious term "Barnack"? Especially when it comes to "average photographers" who've probably never even heard of Oskar?
In other words, it's not semantics. It's wooly phraseology or wishful thinking or both.
Cheers,
R.
goamules
Well-known
Either that, or fanatical worship of The Only One True Rangefinder....
I suppose.
I suppose.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hardly.
A screw-mount Leica is one thing.
A Canon is another. Likewise a Tanack, a Fed, a Zorkii, a Reid, a Kardon... In the same way, a Ford is one thing, a Peugeot another, an Opel yet another... You don't need to "worship" Fords to understand this simple analogy.
The term "Barnack" is, as I have said before, a pretentious term for a screw-mount Leica, widely adopted by would-be experts. Its sole merit is that it's shorter than "screw-mount Leica". Well, that and the fact that it includes fixed-lens (A and B) Leicas. Why would anyone want to use it as a generic term for "camera"?
Cheers,
R.
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃı&
I'm with Rob on this. I only have one, a II (which received various updates over time), which I like a lot (understatement).
I have considered the III (black of course) only because of the speeds, but so far - into, what, 3-4 years into ownership and regular use? - I haven't been in even one situation where 1/500 or 1/20 wasn't sufficient. So it's only G.A.S. talking
With a flat or collapsible lens the II is very small. And speaking of small lenses, the largely ignored 2,8cm Hektor is a great point and shoot lens with Tri-X and zone focusing.
best
Philip
(FP4+ HC-110)
goamules
Well-known
I think you misunderstood the intent of this thread, and of how 99% of the forum uses the word "Barnack" to mean "pre-M Leica and their clones." Placing "pretentious" from your emotions about it onto others that use the term their way is, well, I won't label you. To us, "Barnack" means "Leica clone" just as "Kleanex" means "nose tissue." You can try to change the world's language, but it doesn't work.
But I'm not going to wrestle with a pig here.
My point was the clones like Canon and Nicca are better than Leica, to me. In quantitative ways like features, chrome and vulcanite longevity, need for maintenance (less often) and much more. All a Leica has going for it is the name, and some ambiguous, qualitative "feel."
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but it doesn't look to me as though it's working. Which of us is trying to change "the world's language"?
I think I'd probably prefer wrestling with a pig.
Cheers,
R.
Red Robin
It Is What It Is
I own and use many different kinds of LSM cameras . Like them all but this thread is about our personal favorite kind of "Bottom Loader". Most are older than my 65 years but a great joy to use. We all have our own way to assign points to each, just reread this thread! Kinda wish I'd focused on an old Leica purchase but hey! "Love the one yer with".
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Agree completely. See Post 4:
Whatever you have, and works.
But a Canon isn't a Leica, let alone a screw mount/Barnack Leica.
I've had several Canons, and lots of pre-M Leicas: A, Standard, II, III, IIIa, IIIb, IIIc, IIIf, IIIg. Apart from the lens mount after the earliest ones, there isn't really much comparison.
And I have indeed read the entire thread all the way through. As you might guess after posting as #4.
Cheers,
R.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
I wonder how far along the Leica lineage Oskar's direct influence extended ?
Perhaps the only "true Barnack camera" might be the UR Leica ?
( Or one with his portrait on the back ? )
Perhaps the only "true Barnack camera" might be the UR Leica ?
( Or one with his portrait on the back ?
)
David Hughes
David Hughes
I wonder how far along the Leica lineage Oskar's direct influence extended ?
Perhaps the only "true Barnack camera" might be the UR Leica ?
( Or one with his portrait on the back ?
Hi,
Interesting; I've often wondered too. And I wonder if there was a "we should look at what CZ are doing" group at Leitz.
Regards, David
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Why this is in the Leica LTM sub_forum?
We have forum for Canon RFs. Respect the forum and true "Barnack" users.
Thank you, Roger!
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Q. What is the best user Barnack?
A. The one you have with you.
Less snarky answer: IIIa or IIIg
A. The one you have with you.
Less snarky answer: IIIa or IIIg
dave lackey
Veteran
In the 60s, it would be like calling the Camaro or Firebird a Mustang. A big no-no. Or, closer to home, a Ural, a BMW. Just not that same, IMO. The only reason I am here is to think about another real Barnack camera and find a completely different discussion based on liberties of phraseology. No big deal but not quite right either... I learn a lot about others' tastes sometimes by accident.
I must admit that I would like another IIIF now that I have a Summar. But then, I would have to buy another lens for the M3.
The money pit never stops with addiction, I suppose.RichL
Well-known
Random thought while reading this thread. Who remembers when cameras were 'Brownies' (never mind that it was clearly labeled Agfa) and snap shots were 'Kodaks'?
Red Robin
It Is What It Is
Well I sure shot myself in the foot with this thread . I originally wanted to justify my deciding not to purchase a Leica bottom loader thread mount . Drats! !! !!! After a third reading I now find myself on the receiving end of a Leica IIIf . Happy with my Canon III, nary a complaint of my Canon IIF. Now I wait for the mystery to be revealed : which will I prefer. Lenses (?), I seem to have enough to determine which will be my personal favorite. In the end I suppose that's the only way. Which one do I like best, which works best for me. Thanks everyone for your help. Who knows, maybe there's a "One camera, one body, one lens in my future!
Martin Carone Santos
Member
I like the IIIa with Elmar, for all-around shooting. For street photos usually I take the IIc - no use for the slow speeds. Then usually I take the Elmar 3,5cm or Summaron 2,8cm.
Leica made Barnacks: Leica A, Leica III, Grey Leica IIIC K, Leica IIIg
Copycat Barnacks: Nicca 5L, Canon L-1, Canon VL,
Copycat Barnacks: Nicca 5L, Canon L-1, Canon VL,