paulfish4570
Veteran
... manufactured in 1951, my birth year, preferrably a cast model. i looked at the manufacturing dates for the iiic, d, and f, and all had at least a few in that year, correct?
i've got two fine ltm cv lenses i use with adapters with my r2m. it is outfitted with a nikon corrective eyepiece that fits my right perfectly. the cast iii series all have diopter levers, which would allow one to match my right eye perfectly as well.
how hard to to find?
(it's all your fault, you april atlanta rff'ers with all of your beautiful little machines ...)
i've got two fine ltm cv lenses i use with adapters with my r2m. it is outfitted with a nikon corrective eyepiece that fits my right perfectly. the cast iii series all have diopter levers, which would allow one to match my right eye perfectly as well.
how hard to to find?
(it's all your fault, you april atlanta rff'ers with all of your beautiful little machines ...)
gb hill
Veteran
I get occasional gas pains for one too. I have a 50/3.5 post war elmar I use with my Zorki II but it's not the same as a leica body. There were some nice leica screwmounts in Atlanta wasn't there!
bgb
Well-known
What a great idea Paul I guess i need to find one from 1957
They are such pretty little cameras
They are such pretty little cameras
robklurfield
eclipse
Paul, you know I love mine. If it turns out that you don't fall in love with one, you can certainly find plenty of buyers here, so give it whirl.
Bingley
Veteran
I was born a few years after 1949, the year my IIIc was made. I think of it as an older brother...
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The diopter is for the rangefinder and it's not static. One sets the diopter adjustment based upon how far away the subject is. It's not required, but it can definitely have an effect on ease and accuracy of focusing faster lenses.
I have a nice IIIf BD from 1951 as a matter of fact but I'm not looking to sell it.
It's a great little camera after Youxin did a CLA, replaced shutter curtains and replaced the beamsplitter.
They often pop up here on RFF, I'm not sure about the specific year though.
The call of a Barnack is strong. This is my second one in just under two years. The first one I sold and months later I regretted it.
The saloon keeper has all the serial #'s up on his site so you might be able to hasten your search by looking for those cameras in the 1951 range.
Good luck!
Phil Forrest
I have a nice IIIf BD from 1951 as a matter of fact but I'm not looking to sell it.
It's a great little camera after Youxin did a CLA, replaced shutter curtains and replaced the beamsplitter.
They often pop up here on RFF, I'm not sure about the specific year though.
The call of a Barnack is strong. This is my second one in just under two years. The first one I sold and months later I regretted it.
The saloon keeper has all the serial #'s up on his site so you might be able to hasten your search by looking for those cameras in the 1951 range.
Good luck!
Phil Forrest
Last edited by a moderator:
bgb
Well-known
I just checked on Steven's site the models that were made in '57 and it could get expensive if i want a iiig ...
Guess i could wimp out and get an M3 from that year, i hear great thing about them
Guess i could wimp out and get an M3 from that year, i hear great thing about them
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think everyone has to experience owning a threadmount at some stage and after what you've been through recently Paul I think you owe it to yourself to give one a go.
BTMarcais
Well-known
my M3 is older than my IIIg..... (which IS a '57 I think...)
-Brian
-Brian
literiter
Well-known
I have a iiif, manufactured in 1951. I'm older.
You must consider a lens too. I looked at a few LTM Elmars that cost more than the camera, ($350-$400) looked very nice but all had some really ugly glass. In the meantime I bought a Russian "Industar 50" for about $30.00 plus shipping ($30.00). Not a bad lens. The focus appears right on, images are sharp and the glass is flawless.
The film doesn't have to be trimmed, but if you want to load film in the field without removing the lens you may want to trim the film beforehand. No big deal.
Is the camera easy to use? No! It is very small and light, though, and in the right hands (patient hands) will perform perfectly.
You must consider a lens too. I looked at a few LTM Elmars that cost more than the camera, ($350-$400) looked very nice but all had some really ugly glass. In the meantime I bought a Russian "Industar 50" for about $30.00 plus shipping ($30.00). Not a bad lens. The focus appears right on, images are sharp and the glass is flawless.
The film doesn't have to be trimmed, but if you want to load film in the field without removing the lens you may want to trim the film beforehand. No big deal.
Is the camera easy to use? No! It is very small and light, though, and in the right hands (patient hands) will perform perfectly.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I just sold my IIIf with the Summitar. Nice camera. Very well built. Small. Pocketable. Not user friendly. Pain in the neck to load. No more Leicas at the moment. Oh well.
n5jrn
Well-known
I'm a few years away from my 50th birthday. Once I find my next job, I'm going to be keeping an eye out for a nice user M2 made the same year I was born (1963).
sparrow6224
Well-known
Paul, I think something like 20,000 IIIf s were made in 1951 (!!) at least according to Cameraquest's serial numbers. I have one. It's great. You learn how to load it -- not hard. Like unsnapping a woman's bra -- once you learn the trick you'll never have trouble again. I have an M2, a CL and the IIIf and I'm shocked to find the IIIf is my favorite.
Essential is a good universal VF (at least for me). The Leica one is rather big and ungainly -- I love the Nikon, have two, would part with one if you're desperate. The little 50 slot on/in the camera isn't parallax and is tiny. With the universal on top you can have anything from a 35 to a 135 on the camera and you're covered.
I love the IIIf. Have I said it? I love the IIIf. And the Summitar 50/2 is great too and so works with that camera.
Essential is a good universal VF (at least for me). The Leica one is rather big and ungainly -- I love the Nikon, have two, would part with one if you're desperate. The little 50 slot on/in the camera isn't parallax and is tiny. With the universal on top you can have anything from a 35 to a 135 on the camera and you're covered.
I love the IIIf. Have I said it? I love the IIIf. And the Summitar 50/2 is great too and so works with that camera.
sparrow6224
Well-known
PS Actually I should say, that there are 20000 numbers -- which doesn't mean they made 20000 lenses.
n5jrn
Well-known
They certainly have their quirks, but don't be put off by their reputation for being hard to use. My IIIf isn't really all that hard to use in my opinion, and I sort of like how it slows me down and forces me to think a little. Moreover, it's a real pleasure to use something that's so well built, and Barnacks are quite affordable compared to M bodies.
So I say go for it! If it turns out to not be the camera for you, you can simply sell it and recoup your purchase cost.
sparrow6224
Well-known
The III's -- sorry I can't stop praising them -- are smaller than the M's, and feel absolutely perfect in the hand.
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
You deserve it Paul! I have a IIIf RD and a 35mm Summaron, both my year of birth 1952. The IIIf is the smoothest LTM I own, and the prettiest cosmetically. To help you decide acquire your own, here is a picture:
dotur
od karnevala
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
who has one from 1988? haha.
robklurfield
eclipse
Simon, you're not allowed to post to this thread anymore. making the rest of feel old.
1988? I have unexposed film that is older than you are, not to mention that BOTH of my kids are older, too.
making the rest of feel old. 1988? I have unexposed film that is older than you are, not to mention that BOTH of my kids are older, too.
Last edited: