Leica LTM Is the stiffness of IIIc (and later) die-cast bodies important?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
M

markwilk

Newbie
Local time
11:57 AM
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Messages
2
I'm looking to add a second LTM to my camera bag. I currently have a IIIf BD and have been very happy with it. However, I thought it might be fun to have an earlier III or IIIa.

With the pre-IIIc LTM bodies, is the lack of a die-cast body a big deal? Has anyone here ever run into issues with larger (heavier) lenses and focusing on one of these bodies?

Also, if focusing w/ heavier lenses is the main concern, I'm not sure what constitutes a "heavier" lens. Elmar 90/4? My Canon 50/1.8 definitely has some weight to it.
 
i don't suspect it's a big disadvantage to have an earlier camera. many people on forums make terrific images with a Leica Standard.

However, according to some of the rock star technicians I have spoken with over the years, the majority like working with the IIIc and conclude it is more robust. Lots of discussion on the internet about this.

I am thinking of getting rid of my IIIF RD and keeping the IIIc. IT's just good.
 
I don't agree that the Leica IIIc is more robust than the Leica III or IIIa. The IIIc's exterior appears simple and robust, but inside the IIIc is teeming with small, weak screws that break easily. The mechanism is less "direct". The IIIc also leaks light more often. The Leicas III and IIIa are more robust, less likely to break and are easier to repair. They are the real "barnacks".

Another advantage of the Leica III is that it is available in black paint.

Erik.
 
I have always considered that the change to the IIIc and later construction was more to allow easier assembly of the more complex interior parts but it sounded good to say it made for a stiffer body. Don't ever forget that Leica has always been very good at marketing.

IMHO the earlier Barnacks were more robust but I obviously have no way to verify that since I do not have access to Leica repair records. I do know that neither my Leica Standard or my Leica II have ever had to go in for any adjustments...knock on wood...while my later models have all had some work done on them.

Of course you need to be wary of conclusions based on samples of one, not to mention unverifiable internet observations like this one. It could just be because the earlier models that I own were not used as heavily or had already been serviced at some point before I acquired them. :)
 
Erik van Straten said:
I don't agree that the Leica IIIc is more robust than the Leica III or IIIa. The IIIc's exterior appears simple and robust, but inside the IIIc is teeming with small, weak screws that break easily. The mechanism is less "direct". The IIIc also leaks light more often. The Leicas III and IIIa are more robust, less likely to break and are easier to repair. They are the real "barnacks".

Another advantage of the Leica III is that it is available in black paint.

Erik.
Click to expand...

Yes, have always wanted a black paint and that could trump many other considerations.

But I have several black Nikons and that keeps me in line.
 
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Sounds like opinions are varied :)

I don't think I have anything to fear from using a pre-IIIc. Now I just have to find the "right" one!
 
I have a question on the “die cast”bodies. My Leica IIIa body looks like the newer Leica Barnacks I own. When I take the bottom cover off of my IIIa it looks like an aluminum one piece body. The top is constructed in two pieces verses one on the later models.

I understood that Leica took large sheets of aluminum and formed into the shape of the body. They then cut the aluminum to the correct body size (height).

At any rate, my IIIa body looks like it is constructed the same way as the later models.

My IIIa is serial #197506. 1936 model.
 
The very early Leica body shells were constructed from compressing a ring of material into the wanted shaped, they soon switched to casting the shells from Zamac.

The only real advantage of the cast shutter crate is that they could reliably run the shutter curtains at a higher speed, thereby increasing the accuracy of the higher shutter speeds. Requiring a less narrow slit
 
Mr_Flibble said:
The only real advantage of the cast shutter crate is that they could reliably run the shutter curtains at a higher speed, thereby increasing the accuracy of the higher shutter speeds. Requiring a less narrow slit
Click to expand...

At first the IIIc was made with a ball-bearing shutter, but after the war - at no. 400 000 - it was made without. Post war IIIc's are the heaviest running Barnacks out there. The IIIf's however have ball-bearing shutters again.

Erik.
 
Most Interesting Eric,

When Leitz converted a post war IIIC to a BD IIIF, did they include changing to a ball bearing shutter?

Thanks,
David
 
Last edited:
iphoenix said:
Most Interesting Eric,

When Leitz converted a post war IIIC to a BD IIIF, did they include changing to a ball bearing shutter?

Thanks,
David
Click to expand...


I really don't know that. Maybe they did. Conversions are another matter.

Another confusing point are the postwar refurbished and sychronized prewar Leicas II, III and IIIa. Many people think that these are "f" Leicas.

Erik.
 
They've only added the flash-sync as far as I know. Upgrading a I,II,III/IIIa to a true f-series would mean pretty much replacing the entire camera anyway ;)
 
I believe there was a cut-over at some point between the IIIf BD/RD versions for the ball-race shutter but not sure when. Lots of conjecture on the 'net and you can't rule out part swapping during upgrades/modifications/repairs over time resulting in a pseudo-mongrelized copy on older models. Note: later IIIf's (Red Dials I believe) did away with the exposed top cover screws and provided a cleaner look overall.

Interesting comment from the other photo forum ;)
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/help-to-identify-my-new-leica.276598/#post-2825092
Perhaps the answer lies inside the camera shutter. The K shutters developed during WWII incorporated ball bearings (the ball-race shutter) to improve performance especially at low temperatures. After WWII, all models incorporated a ball-race shutter which is very noticable based on the sound of the shutter. Here is my 1939 Standard that was upgraded several times after WWII. The last upgrade was in 1953 as can be seen from the DBP and GmbH engraving and because I obtained the original factory inspection card luckily. It is beat up and not of great value to collectors, but it is the best performing RF Leica that I own and I use it often. So, I am curious whether Blu's camera has had a shutter upgrade in 1949-50 to ball-race bearings? Even without opening the body the presence of the upgraded shutter should be evident from just the sound alone.
00Lbpc-37106484.jpg

​
l._david_tomei|1, Jun 21, 20
Click to expand...
 
It is very easy to "feel" the ball-bearing of the shutter. You no longer feel and hear the teeth of the gear train when tensioning if the shutter has ball bearings. I've never seen a post war converted I, II, III or IIIa with ball bearings. Only IIIc, IIIf and IIIg have them.

Erik.
 
Mr_Flibble said:
The very early Leica body shells were constructed from compressing a ring of material into the wanted shaped, they soon switched to casting the shells from Zamac.
Click to expand...

Intriguing - I know a lot of cast metal items in the UK (carburettors, especially) were made from an alloy called Mazak - I wonder if Zamac and Mazak are the same thing, only the linguistics differing?

I know I could, maybe should, google this, but the potential digressions on a forum are often more interesting than the initial question, so I won't. For now, at least.

The camera that raydm6 links to is a real old warhorse, isn't it? Wearing its scars with pride.
 
Talking about these alloys opens a can of worms. There's all sorts of vague white metals and "monkey metal" and some were notoriously dreadful. Look at Hornby's pre-war train sets and the wheels especially.

Anyway, it would be interesting to know.

Regards, David
 
American train sets also suffered from cast parts coming apart. I think it was called "zinc pest" on this side of the Atlantic and the cause was lead in the alloy mixture. Can anyone else confirm this?


Joe
 
Zamak and Mazak are the same thing, zinc based and used in small, complex castings.

Zinkpest is rife in German Märklin model trains of a certain age, you know, the really expensive ones, made in Germany. I have never seen zinkpest in a IIIc etc.

Some might call it 'pot metal', whatever it is it can crumble to nothing over time.

Early ltm casing are, I think, aluminium.

Although they perform in a very similar way if you put a black III alongside a chrome IIIc they 'feel' like very different cameras.
 
Apart from the standard and the ones made before that I almost had them all - for use and / or repair. The finest of them were in my view the IIIc's; in general they were smoother in handling... ... Don't believe what others state about being or not being real Barnacks - it just expressed plain emotion
Die-cast is not a big deal, but if you can choose (for use), choose the die-cast
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom