Leica LTM First time with a Barnack

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
nice portrait of the artist. but, where are Helen's Barnack's??? That wall looks to be in Lorelei's. Hoping to make it to the next RFF NYC meet-up, but it's on the same weekend as the Rally to Restore Sanity. Decisions, decisions. Perhaps the availability of a cheap hotel in DC via Hotwire will decide for me where to be next weekend.

Dog Star said:
IIIrd / Summar
Click to expand...
 
I love my M2 and BP MP, but look how small the precious Barnack is. M2 feels like a BRICK after carrying IIIf and II for several weeks. :p

17d2adca99dd44248b8d1f832a2e98ba_7.jpg
 
Hello SUG
Really Do LOVE the Way that 28 draws...

and its STYLISHLY 'Black' for the Blk Barnack
I WANT a Black Lens!!!
 
Last edited:
Robert: very Kind of YOU to Notice Moi
Is there a 'meetup' this weekend ????
knew nothing about It
 
Last edited:
Thanks Helen.

Yes, I LOVE the black Color-Skopar 28/3.5 on the II. 28/3.5 is made of brass so in time, the "golden edges" will match up with the II. :)

IMG_8966.jpg
 
If you can't find a black Leica II now, a less expensive option would be a black barnack copy.

DSCF0871r.jpg


Having and using both the real and the copy, I don't see how the copy can't be able as the original. The copy will do just about anything the original can do, and maybe more...
 
ZorkiKat said:
If you can't find a black Leica II now, a less expensive option would be a black barnack copy.

Having and using both the real and the copy, I don't see how the copy can't be able as the original. The copy will do just about anything the original can do, and maybe more...
Click to expand...
True they are less expensive but, they feel it as well. Both in build quality and operation. To me only dimensions and shutter speeds can be the same. If you are going to do it, you have to do it right. That is just my opinion of course. No offense intended.
 
chris7521 said:
True they are less expensive but, they feel it as well. Both in build quality and operation. To me only dimensions and shutter speeds can be the same. If you are going to do it, you have to do it right. That is just my opinion of course. No offense intended.
Click to expand...

Operation-wise, I don't see (is there something that I am missing?) how a Leica will "do it right" more than a copy. How is this so?

Viewing is the same. Focusing is the same. Loading is the same. Handling is the same. Same dimensions, same weight. Fits the hand, goes over the eye in pretty much 100% the same way. Assuming both cameras are properly working right, the results should be the same. Just my personal conclusion, which may not be universal. But this conclusion comes after years of using Leica and its copies alternately.

Indeed there may be build differences. I don't see any old FED coming apart simply because its build quality falls short by 10% of an equivalent Leica.

Some people will find it as important that their tools operate smoothly,and that is a valid point. But any 60 year camera won't likely be so unless it had been properly restored. Or at least it had been used with fair frequency through the years.

From a mechanical point of view, do you know that a Leica II and its FSU copies are about 95% similar in design and function? It is even likely that a late production Zorki-1 would outclass a Leica II in the durability and stability departments? The Zorki-1 used die cast bodies with die cast shutter crates, which are far more stable and won't distort, than the stamped chassis and folded assembly shutter crates of the Leica II.
 
Last edited:
ZorkiKat said:
Operation-wise, I don't see (is there something that I am missing?) how a Leica will "do it right" more than a copy.
Click to expand...

I have this problem too, but I judge cameras by the pictures that they take. This seems to be a problem for some. I dare not mention what I manage with the APS ones and so I usually lie and say they are half frame.

And I can think of ways our ex-USSR ones got it more right. You don't have to hunt down and buy a 1930's after market "lavatory seat" shutter release guard and the lenses are coated.

Regards, David
 
Juan,
Congrats on coming of age in Barnacks! Lovely gear, IMHO. See my gallery for some I shot with a IIIF RD, Summitar,
John
 
ZorkiKat said:
Operation-wise, I don't see (is there something that I am missing?) how a Leica will "do it right" more than a copy. How is this so?

Viewing is the same. Focusing is the same. Loading is the same. Handling is the same. Same dimensions, same weight. Fits the hand, goes over the eye in pretty much 100% the same way. Assuming both cameras are properly working right, the results should be the same. Just my personal conclusion, which may not be universal. But this conclusion comes after years of using Leica and its copies alternately.

Indeed there may be build differences. I don't see any old FED coming apart simply because its build quality falls short by 10% of an equivalent Leica.

Some people will find it as important that their tools operate smoothly,and that is a valid point. But any 60 year camera won't likely be so unless it had been properly restored. Or at least it had been used with fair frequency through the years.

From a mechanical point of view, do you know that a Leica II and its FSU copies are about 95% similar in design and function? It is even likely that a late production Zorki-1 would outclass a Leica II in the durability and stability departments? The Zorki-1 used die cast bodies with die cast shutter crates, which are far more stable and won't distort, than the stamped chassis and folded assembly shutter crates of the Leica II.
Click to expand...
To me I don't own these old cameras for function only. Even though they have copied the cameras in in size and design they are not the same as my 1932 original Leica. They are "clunky" is the word that comes to mind when using one. That's why they are so inexpensive. It's not because they don't have the Leica name on it. I've owned a couple that functioned fine and now, I don't own them. There are plenty of cameras that have shutters that open and close but obviously some are better in hand then others and that is why I prefer the real thing.
 
David Hughes said:
I have this problem too, but I judge cameras by the pictures that they take. This seems to be a problem for some. I dare not mention what I manage with the APS ones and so I usually lie and say they are half frame.

And I can think of ways our ex-USSR ones got it more right. You don't have to hunt down and buy a 1930's after market "lavatory seat" shutter release guard and the lenses are coated.

Regards, David
Click to expand...


Same point here, David. I have a few "real" Barnacks myself. I would sometimes take the original and the copy for those two-camera forays. When the negatives get processed and negatives get mixed it is quite difficult to say which came from the original and which were made by the copy. I don't (and can't) really see which one is inferior or superior in as far as the end-products are concerned.

The copies are appreciated in the sense that they are able to fulfill what the originals are quite famed for- small, compact, and unobtrusive. Doing just about everything that Mr Barnack had in mind.
 
Have to say I completely agree with Jay (ZorkiKat).

I've seen little difference in actual use between my
two Barnack copies (Zorki 1d & 1e) and the real things.

If you want the Barnack experience, at a discount,
why not try an early Zorki or FED first? You can always
use the lens later on your real Leicas.

Despite the horror stories you may have heard, some
of us have been using these old Rooskis for years
without any problems. Just buy one from someone
trustworthy like Oleg or Fedka
 
Last edited:
I've had some trouble with FEDs and Zorkis early in my photography career (read: 5 years ago), but when they work they do their jobs.

Mine do not wind on as smoothly and the shutter might not sound so crisp on release as with my real Leicas; I've had some pretty good results from them anyway.
 
II or its copy, the form factor, size, and operation are just great.

A few more shots with II x Color-Skopar 28/3.5 combo. Trix@400 in Rodinal 50:1

Scan-101018-0001.jpg


Scan-101017-0015.jpg


Scan-101018-0012.jpg


And the shooter herself.
IMG_9078.jpg
 
I have a 1938 IIIa w/ Summar, and find the lens nothing short of astonishing. It's got the usual number of cleaning marks on the front, and flares like crazy because I discovered it has fungus in both the front and rear elements. Monday it goes off to Focal Point to be cleaned and that should fix the flare. It's really sharp, and more importantly has more character and 3D effect than any Leica 50 lens I've ever used, including the DR and Rigid Summicrons. Very happy w/ it.

The IIIa I'm not so sure about. Of course I love it's small size and smooth controls, and the double viewfinders don't bother me too much, but after running half a roll through it and then loading the film into a Bessa R2 I saw right away that the R2 negs were better exposed. Granted, this IIIa hasn't been in for a CLA, but I wonder if that will ever give me speeds as accurate as the Bessa.

What w/ the Bessa's unified finder w/ parallax correction, an in camera meter, and it's more reliable and dead accurate shutter, it may turn out to be the better camera to shoot. But this Summar lens may go w/ me to the grave. I love it.

Usual Kodak fake B&W film w/ Walgreens scans.

5109406426_75647d4b82_b.jpg


5109406434_58a9620584_b.jpg


5109406440_be7d8bd05c_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Man I'm lovin all these barnacks, & the photos you all have posted are outstanding! Makes me wish I had one but I can only do the next best thing. Load my Zorki 2c with some bw400cn. Now going to mount my 50/3.5 elmer (yes it's real) a post war 45 to be exact, & have a blast. Thanks to all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom