Is this an original ?

[karlori]

Is this a real Leica ? How much would it be worth ? The description says its upgraded from I to III. I really have no clue about screw mount leicas so any help would do 🙂 .

 

[xayraa33]

Is this a real Leica ? How much would it be worth ? The description says its upgraded from I to III. I really have no clue about screw mount leicas so any help would do 🙂 . The serial as seen on the photos is 44425.

Yup it is a real Leica.

Black paint III bring more money than the chrome ones.
from 350 to 600 dollars I'd say.

 

[John Lawrence]

I concur with the above poster.

Price range between Euros 200 - 400, obviously dependent on condition.

I've just sold a couple of black Leica IIIs all fully serviced and that's about the price they go for.

John

 

[karlori]

The reason i am asking is that i have found a 50mm 3.5f Elmar in my dads photo gear ... He was 100% sure he sold off all his leica stuff. I am aiming for an old I to III camera but in black pain. 350$+300$ for a CLA does not sound like a bargain. I wouldn't be willing to part with the lens rather would marry it with a body 🙂 .

 

[John Shriver]

CLA should not cost $300, more like $150-200.

Black paint, while it was the "budget" model when new (chrome cost more), is now collectible priced. Chrome will cost a lot less.

Also, black paint is much more common on a II than a III. If you want black on a budget, get a II. Only downside of II over the III is that the rangefinder magnification is 1X, which is less accurate than the 1.5X magnifaction on all the III models. Really only matters if you're using a Summarit 50/1.5, Summarex 85/1.8, or Summicron 90/2.

But realize that anything before a IIIa only has a top shutter speed of 1/500. With many Leica lenses only stopping down to f/12.5, you can wind up over-exposing in bright sun.

But the only way to get a IIIa in black is get an earlier black camera that Leica upgraded to IIIa. Thus, silly rare.

 

[Charles Woodhouse]

Hi, your camera started life in 1930 as a black fixed lens Leica IA and was subsequently converted to a black interchangeable lens Leica III from 1933. It is quite possible that it was converted to an interchangeable lens Leica IC and then a Leica II if the owner was keen to have their camera representative of the latest model, or it could have just been converted from IA to III as late as 1964(from memory).
Conversions like this are a bit more sought after by us stupid collectors because they are scarcer than original models, but other factors come into play such as cosmetic condition and functionality, although Leicas can generally be tweaked back into perfect working condition unless they have been through a catastrophic event such as a flood or fire, and even a flood cannot necessarily stop them.

 

[35mmdelux]

interesting stuff..

 

[johannielscom]

CLA should not cost $300, more like $150-200.

Black paint, while it was the "budget" model when new (chrome cost more), is now collectible priced. Chrome will cost a lot less.

Also, black paint is much more common on a II than a III. If you want black on a budget, get a II. Only downside of II over the III is that the rangefinder magnification is 1X, which is less accurate than the 1.5X magnifaction on all the III models. Really only matters if you're using a Summarit 50/1.5, Summarex 85/1.8, or Summicron 90/2.

But realize that anything before a IIIa only has a top shutter speed of 1/500. With many Leica lenses only stopping down to f/12.5, you can wind up over-exposing in bright sun.

But the only way to get a IIIa in black is get an earlier black camera that Leica upgraded to IIIa. Thus, silly rare.

Not true,

the IIIa has a 1/1000 top speed. The III had a 1/500 top speed.

The smallest aperture on pre-war Elmars was f18.0. Full scale: f3.5, f4.5, f6.3, f9.0, f12.5, f18.0

 

[John Shriver]

That's what I meant by "before IIIa". Less than, not less than or equal.