Leica LTM IIIg or M4-2

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses

IIIg or M4-2

  • IIIg (with 5cm Summitar)

    Votes: 23 44.2%

  • m4-2 (body only)

    Votes: 29 55.8%
  • Total voters
    52
lxmike said:
my only concern would be build quality, l know its not up to the heady heights of an m3 or 2 where build quality is concerned
Click to expand...

If it's in even reasonably good condition, I wouldn't worry. The mechanisms are simpler, the gearing sturdier. I like my M4, but the M4-2 I had for years, was a champ.
 
helenhill said:
my two Favorite M bodies ... M5, M4-2
so I think You know where I'm heading

3g's are Lovely/summitars too but the M4-2 Framelines are BIG & BEAUTIFUL
Best of Luck with your Decision
Click to expand...

Thanks Helen, is there much difference between the m4-2 and the m4-p....l suppose thats a question for another thread
 
I'll buck the trend I suppose and opine that a Barnack is a must have Leica. Yes they are less convenient but my goodness what a feel to them and one gets used to the separate VF Rf in no time. Besides it forces you to slow down and examine each shot. I do have an M2 which I love but I would not part with my Barnacks before the M. Oh and LTM lenses are cheaper and plentiful plus they can be used on M's but not the reverse.
 
I've owned an M4-2 (Robert Lai now has it) and I regularly use a Summitar on a IIIc. First, I think it's a myth that the M4-2 build quality is inferior in any meaningful sense to prior M Leicas. There are reports that some early run M4-2s had viewfinder flare problems, but the M4-2 I had never did. I think it's a great user M body and would nicely complement your Canon P.

That said, in the choice you have at hand, I'd be inclined to go for the IIIg + Summitar, for a number of reasons: (1) I happen to like shooting Barnack-style cameras (the construction and small size appeal to me); (2) as noted above, if you don't like the IIIg, you can sell it and keep the Summitar; (3) I disagree with the comment above that the Summitar is too large for a Barnack body; and (4) a Summitar in good condition can be a really good optic. BTW, is the Summitar coated or uncoated? (The pre-WWII versions are uncoated and use the old f-stops; the versions from the late 40s/early 50s were coated and use modern f-stops.

But that leads to a final point: condition. What do you know about the condition of the Summitar/IIIg and M4-2? Has either camera been CLA'd? Can you inspect? Model preferences aside, you might be better off choosing the sample that's in the best condition.
 
ray*j*gun said:
I'll buck the trend I suppose and opine that a Barnack is a must have Leica. Yes they are less convenient but my goodness what a feel to them and one gets used to the separate VF Rf in no time. Besides it forces you to slow down and examine each shot. I do have an M2 which I love but I would not part with my Barnacks before the M. Oh and LTM lenses are cheaper and plentiful plus they can be used on M's but not the reverse.
Click to expand...


many many thanks, l have a lot to ponder about:)
 
Bingley said:
I've owned an M4-2 (Robert Lai now has it) and I regularly use a Summitar on a IIIc. First, I think it's a myth that the M4-2 build quality is inferior in any meaningful sense to prior M Leicas. There are reports that some early run M4-2s had viewfinder flare problems, but the M4-2 I had never did. I think it's a great user M body and would nicely complement your Canon P.

That said, in the choice you have at hand, I'd be inclined to go for the IIIg + Summitar, for a number of reasons: (1) I happen to like shooting Barnack-style cameras (the construction and small size appeal to me); (2) as noted above, if you don't like the IIIg, you can sell it and keep the Summitar; (3) I disagree with the comment above that the Summitar is too large for a Barnack body; and (4) a Summitar in good condition can be a really good optic. BTW, is the Summitar coated or uncoated? (The pre-WWII versions are uncoated and use the old f-stops; the versions from the late 40s/early 50s were coated and use modern f-stops.

But that leads to a final point: condition. What do you know about the condition of the Summitar/IIIg and M4-2? Has either camera been CLA'd? Can you inspect? Model preferences aside, you might be better off choosing the sample that's in the best condition.
Click to expand...

the IIIg is a cosmetic user but has been over hauled by a friend who owns a camera clinic/repair shop:) he did not mentioned if the Summitar was coated or not, l am going to check it out at the weekend, will keep you informed
 
The 50/3.5 Elmar is a lot smaller, but then again, it's a lot slower.

Summitar is my favorite older Leica lens, like it better than the collapsible Summicron and much better than the Summarit...

As stated above, there are multiple types: coated, uncoated, hex blades, ten blades. I have two pristine Summitars, one uncoated from 1940 and one coated from 1951 (hex blades.) The photo below is from the coated lens.

IMG_9976.jpeg
 
Ever since I knew it existed I've wanted a IIIg, but over the same time period I've had two M3s, an M2, M4-2, and two M4s, and no IIIg, so you know that when push comes to shove, I'd get the M4-2.
 
Hi,

I don't think it really matters; if you are considering both you'll probably get both and a lot of others before you know what hit you. It's a long and slippery slope, so beware. And then there's all the lenses to get and so on.

BTW, I think and I hope a lot of others do that the Summitar, especially the later coated ones, are nearly Summicrons in many ways and one of the best 'vintage' lenses made, ever.

Why not toss a coin and see what you reaction is when you check how it fell?

Regards, David
 
Agree w/ David Hughes about the Summitar. I see that the OP has visited the "Summitar the Star" thread, so he's seen what this lens can do.
 
splitimageview said:
IMG_6806.jpeg
Click to expand...

Oh my, great photo (Summitar or else).

To the OP, I have IIIg and M4P. If I need to come back with keepers, I will pick the M4P. The IIIg is a cool object, in a "steam-punk" kind of way, and very fun to use, but you (1) are limited to LTM lenses (slow to change), has (2) no coincidental Frame/focus mechanism (makes faster lenses more difficult to focus, and (3) is much slower to load.

Plus, in contrast to - say - the IIIc, the IIIg is not really smaller than the M4P.

This is IIIg and 50/2.8 Elmar:

r1-Scan-140105-0002.jpg


This is an M4P photo (with 50 Summilux), which I could not have taken with a IIIg. Happened too fast.

Summilux-D.jpg


The real question is what you want to shoot with the camera. Only you will know.

Roland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom