Leica LTM Best user Barnack

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Before I owned a zillion cameras I was a photographer with a Leica IIIc with Summar. It replaced a Rollei B35 as the “family” camera and I felt it a step upward. The prints seemed warmer and lower contrast.
 
Erik van Straten said:
No, a Contax IIa is a problem camera. A Nikon S2 is a never problem camera. I've been using them for about 25 years.
Click to expand...

I have seen and hold in hands Contax IIa in Moscow, which was returned to working order by DIY CLA in 2016. Another RFF (Russian rangefinder forum) has collective thread for it, based on old Yahoo groups information and their own experience. But half Leica, half Contax S2 has FED-5D 50mm framelines. Big plus as well. :)
I just prefer SBOOI on Leica LTM.
 
I'm flexible. What do I think of when someone says Barnack?
1. Leica cameras similar to the original Barnack through model IIIg.
2. Above cameras plus clones that (particularly at a distance) look similar.
I'll accept whichever definition you use. No arguing.
Anyway, by definition 1, I like the IIIf. The more complicated finder on the IIIg just means more to go wrong. By definition 2, I'll choose the Tower/Nicca 45/46. I like the lever wind, back door, and focusing rangefinder; however, for a large 50mm lens I'd prefer the offset finder on a Canon IVSb2 or just put an auxiliary finder on the Tower.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I have seen and hold in hands Contax IIa in Moscow, which was returned to working order by DIY CLA in 2016. Another RFF (Russian rangefinder forum) has collective thread for it, based on old Yahoo groups information and their own experience. But half Leica, half Contax S2 has FED-5D 50mm framelines. Big plus as well. :)
I just prefer SBOOI on Leica LTM.
Click to expand...

Strange story, because an S2 has a different image size, not 24x36mm, but 24.3x36.5mm. To understand this one has to study the history of the Nikon. The early Nikons had "Nippon size" images: 24x32mm. The later cameras (Nikon S) had 24x34mm and finally the size became 24x36mm. But not the S2. The S2 has 35.5mmx24.3mm images (approximately). You can see this when you compare an Nikon S2 image with a Leica image (prints of the whole negatives). The 35.5mmx24.3 format has huge advantages: a different ratio of length and width (more classic; Leica images are too long) and ... it is much easier to cut the images from the film strip because the space between the images is wider!

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Strange story, because an S2 has a different image size, not 24x36mm, but 24.3x36.5mm. To understand this one has to study the history of the Nikon. The early Nikons had "Nippon size" images: 24x32mm. The later cameras (Nikon S) had 24x34mm and finally the size became 24x36mm. But not the S2. The S2 has 35.5mmx24.3mm images (approximately). You can see this when you compare an Nikon S2 image with a Leica image (prints of the whole negatives). The 35.5mmx24.3 format has huge advantages: a different ratio of length and width (more classic; Leica images are too long) and ... it is much easier to cut the images from the film strip because the space between the images is wider!

Erik.
Click to expand...

I have no problems to cut negatives from Leica. I use them not because some water under the bridge.
 
I throw the negatives away along with the CDs, keeping only the edited scans on my hard drives.

I used to think that I'd want to go back and rework old images when I get old. Well I'm older and I can't imagine anything worse. I want to be making new images.

My kids can't and won't edit for me so why burden them? I have my dead Father-in-law's mountain of slides that will never be touches in the basement, I'm not going to tackle that and neither will anyone else.
 
s-l1600.jpg

Mine. It's in the mail. Extraordinary camera, had to have it. Sold some top class Canon FD glass and bought it.
Prewar Ia with a post-1955 II upgrade and a III viewfinder. And an engraving error.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Cutting the negatives from a Leica III is extremely difficult. The distance between the images is about 1 mm!

Erik.
Click to expand...

I put my reading glasses on and cut while it is still hanging.
Scissors are from haircut kit. Sharp, not too small, not too long and slick.
 
I'm defining a Barnack as a bottom loader styled more or less like a leica iii.


My favorite is the Leica iiig, decent viewfinder, and all of the other usual Leica attributes. The Canon IVSB-2 is a close second, and might be equal if mine didn't have a pinhole in the shutter. Gotta do something about that.
 
My favorite Barnack is the IIIa, a beat up copy that takes good pictures use it mostly with Summar and Canon 50 f1.8.
Also use Canon 7 occasionally but the ghostly rangefinder patch is a pain to focus.
Canon P when shooting outdoors 1:1 finder and large rfdr patch is easy on the eyes.
 
I started with a 3f and then bought a couple of 3g’s I would not get rid of the 3f. It is a jewel of a camera with a great story, but the 3g’s have better rangefinder and viewfinder, which helps me much at my age.

Truth be told, I would love a 30’s camera in black of course.

Ken
 
I would use my M2 more if it were a bit lighter. So I tend to grab the IIIa with either a Summar or 21 mm skopar everytime I head outdoors. But indoors I would not touch a Barnack. Too hard to focus in the low light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom