GAS Attack: IIIG soon to arrive
- Thread starter lxmike
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 33
- Views 3K
lxmike
M2 fan.
sounds like a great lens to own you are very lucky
jenhao
Established
Mike, is the rangefinder any different on the IIIg versus the IIIf? Always wondered whether it's less squinty or more contrasty.
Thanks,
Mark
lxmike
M2 fan.
bit difficult to tell as my eyes have changed over the years but it seems more contraty
Robert Lai
Well-known
IIIF vs IIIG viewfinders.
IIIF vs IIIG viewfinders.
I have a IIIF and IIIG, so I can make a direct comparison.
The IIIF is a RD-ST made in Midland (though not marked as such, but the serial number blocks are from Midland).
On my IIIF the viewing ports are circular on the eyepiece. The RF image has a slight tint (orange), and the surrounding field has a tint of a complementary color (bluish). When you are in focus, the image in the rangefinder has a neutral tone. My IIIF RF patch has good contrast, but it is the original beamsplitter.
The viewfinder in the IIIF is a rectangular tunnel. No parallax correction is offered. Being uncoated glass, there can be some flare in backlit situations - even if haze free. The IIIF had been overhauled by Youxin Ye prior to being sold to me, and later I had DAG make some tweaks on it, especially to the wind. Now this camera has the smoothest wind of all of my cameras - even more than the IIIG. You can wind it by pulling a finger across the front of the knob.
On the IIIG, the eyepiece ports are enlarged, like round cornered squares. Thus, the F and G eyepiece covers are not interchangeable. The RF image and surrounding image are neutral (no tint) on the IIIG. My IIIG has a very contrasty RF patch, because Don Goldberg replaced the beamsplitter mirror as part of his overhaul 😀.
The viewfinder of the IIIG is fantastic. You see a full frameline for the 50mm lens, with an ample surrounding field. The corners of the 90mm frame are marked out also. There is full parallax correction which consists of the frame lines moving up or down, as the VF is directly over the lens axis. The VF is MUCH brighter than that of the IIIF. My IIIG RF and VF seem much more resistant to flare in back lighted situations. I don't know if Leica coated some of the internal glass.
Comparing other LTM cameras, I must say that the IIIG has probably the best vintage finder.
The Canon 7s has a slightly dimmer view. The RF patch doesn't have as much snap either, as it is about 0.8x (47.2mm effective base length) instead of the Leica's 1.5X magnified RF (58.5mm effective base length).
The best view of all is from the Bessa R, with modern coated VF glass, and a very high contrast RF patch. The image is comparable to that from the Leica M7. The downfall of the Bessa R is the short base length of the rangefinder (25.2 mm effective length).
IIIF vs IIIG viewfinders.
I have a IIIF and IIIG, so I can make a direct comparison.
The IIIF is a RD-ST made in Midland (though not marked as such, but the serial number blocks are from Midland).
On my IIIF the viewing ports are circular on the eyepiece. The RF image has a slight tint (orange), and the surrounding field has a tint of a complementary color (bluish). When you are in focus, the image in the rangefinder has a neutral tone. My IIIF RF patch has good contrast, but it is the original beamsplitter.
The viewfinder in the IIIF is a rectangular tunnel. No parallax correction is offered. Being uncoated glass, there can be some flare in backlit situations - even if haze free. The IIIF had been overhauled by Youxin Ye prior to being sold to me, and later I had DAG make some tweaks on it, especially to the wind. Now this camera has the smoothest wind of all of my cameras - even more than the IIIG. You can wind it by pulling a finger across the front of the knob.
On the IIIG, the eyepiece ports are enlarged, like round cornered squares. Thus, the F and G eyepiece covers are not interchangeable. The RF image and surrounding image are neutral (no tint) on the IIIG. My IIIG has a very contrasty RF patch, because Don Goldberg replaced the beamsplitter mirror as part of his overhaul 😀.
The viewfinder of the IIIG is fantastic. You see a full frameline for the 50mm lens, with an ample surrounding field. The corners of the 90mm frame are marked out also. There is full parallax correction which consists of the frame lines moving up or down, as the VF is directly over the lens axis. The VF is MUCH brighter than that of the IIIF. My IIIG RF and VF seem much more resistant to flare in back lighted situations. I don't know if Leica coated some of the internal glass.
Comparing other LTM cameras, I must say that the IIIG has probably the best vintage finder.
The Canon 7s has a slightly dimmer view. The RF patch doesn't have as much snap either, as it is about 0.8x (47.2mm effective base length) instead of the Leica's 1.5X magnified RF (58.5mm effective base length).
The best view of all is from the Bessa R, with modern coated VF glass, and a very high contrast RF patch. The image is comparable to that from the Leica M7. The downfall of the Bessa R is the short base length of the rangefinder (25.2 mm effective length).
lxmike
M2 fan.
thank you Robert for sharing your experience and knowledge it is both interesting and helpful
jcb4718
Well-known
I have a IIIG and a couple of IIIf's. They are all in good condition but I know little of their service history. In a side-by-side comparison I would say the IIIf's have a slightly more contrasty RF patch. All are eminently useable and I put the difference down to the kind of variation that happens over time (i.e. not due to differences in design). The design differences are
1. the IIIf's are noticeably smaller and lighter. 'Handy' describes them well. Are they pocketable? No, not in my pockets!
2. The 0.5 vs. 0.7 magnification of the VF. Both are classic minimalist Leica designs. The IIIf is just a rectangular black-edged port. It does the job within the 0.5 magnification constraint. The IIIG is just a parallax corrected rectangle for 50mm lenses (there are also inside-the-rectangle 'corners' for 90mm lenses). The ultimate in minimalist design!
3. Larger lenses do not intrude into the IIIG viewfinder rectangle e.g. the Canon 50mm f1.5 and the Elmar 50mm f2.8 do not intrude. I guess the Summitar would not intrude, either. The IIIf VF is really only compatible with the 50mm f3.5 Elmar (i.e. this Elmar does not intrude into the viewfinder). Also the Canon 50mm f3.5 collapsible and the 45mm f2.8 Rokkor do not intrude. If I were to use the Canon 50mm f1.5 on a IIIf, I would use an external viewfinder.
4.the shutter sequence of the IIIG is modern but the difference is not significant (for B&W and colour print film). Setting '100th' for '125th' only results in a 1/3 stop overexposure.
1. the IIIf's are noticeably smaller and lighter. 'Handy' describes them well. Are they pocketable? No, not in my pockets!
2. The 0.5 vs. 0.7 magnification of the VF. Both are classic minimalist Leica designs. The IIIf is just a rectangular black-edged port. It does the job within the 0.5 magnification constraint. The IIIG is just a parallax corrected rectangle for 50mm lenses (there are also inside-the-rectangle 'corners' for 90mm lenses). The ultimate in minimalist design!
3. Larger lenses do not intrude into the IIIG viewfinder rectangle e.g. the Canon 50mm f1.5 and the Elmar 50mm f2.8 do not intrude. I guess the Summitar would not intrude, either. The IIIf VF is really only compatible with the 50mm f3.5 Elmar (i.e. this Elmar does not intrude into the viewfinder). Also the Canon 50mm f3.5 collapsible and the 45mm f2.8 Rokkor do not intrude. If I were to use the Canon 50mm f1.5 on a IIIf, I would use an external viewfinder.
4.the shutter sequence of the IIIG is modern but the difference is not significant (for B&W and colour print film). Setting '100th' for '125th' only results in a 1/3 stop overexposure.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
I've whittled down my collection of Barnacks to two cameras, an early II from 1932 and a IIIg. The older Leica II is more often than not fitted with a SBOOI when shooting people.
The above quote about lens intrusion holds true - when shooting without lens hoods. The lens hood for the Elmar 50/2.8 is the least intrusive of the two lenses mentioned on the IIIg.
The above quote about lens intrusion holds true - when shooting without lens hoods. The lens hood for the Elmar 50/2.8 is the least intrusive of the two lenses mentioned on the IIIg.
bobkatz
Well-known
Congrats.....
Congrats.....
I have in mind sell my dear iiif and someday get the iiig too......i need some patience too...
Regards..
Congrats.....
I have in mind sell my dear iiif and someday get the iiig too......i need some patience too...
Regards..
lxmike
M2 fan.
thanks for all the replies gentleman very interesting
MISH
Well-known
I think I need a IIIG
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
lawnpotter
Well-known
Need and want are two separate things. Everybody needs a IIIg
Jerevan
Recycled User
There is always an exception to the rule ... I have never wanted a IIIG (can't understand why they are so coveted), but I am always on the lookout for a second IIIb ... 🙂
Similar threads
