Leica IIF RD v IIIF

[lxmike]

I have a choice between a well used IIIf RD and a very nice IIf RD in nice cosmetic and mechanical shape. Whcih would you choose and what are the advantages, (apart from slow shutter speeds for the IIIf)

regards Mike

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

I think the slow speeds are only the read difference. That is if you don't count the cold shoe between the two. The IIF has a simpler v-shaped spring instead of the two chrome piece springs similar to the ones in M bodies.

There really is no difference outisde the slow speeds. If you think having slow speeds are important, i.e. you've used them frequently enough on other cameras then a IIIF it is.
I use a IIF all the time and never found the lack of slow speeds a problem. It just happens my shooting situations haven't required one. I also use it along with an M3 so I've never really been up the creek without a paddle when it comes to a dim light shot.

 

[pb908]

They are the same.
The different is the slow speed it self, and few cosmetic change(flash shoe area). If you can live without the slow speed shutter, get the IIf. I was planning to use my IIf for daylight camera only, and use flash when dark, but never work it out.
the slow shutter on IIIf still going to be useful, so if I can choose, I'll take IIIf.

 

[xwhatsit]

Does the IIF have the 1.5x RF magnification as well? I saw somewhere that the II series doesn't. Is this true? Just wondering, you see a lot more nice-condition and nicely-priced IIs than IIIs.

 

[John Shriver]

It's only the II (no suffix) that has only a 1X rangefinder.

The IIf should cost a little less, weight a tiny bit less, and cost a little less to get a CLA on. But sometimes it's nice to have 1/15 shutter speed, but not often.

 

[John Shriver]

Of course, why pay more for a IIIf. You'll probably never use the flash, and the flash connectors will just irritate your brow. Get a IIIc. There's one for £159.00 at http://www.mwclassic.com, looks like a great user.

 

[John Lawrence]

Another vote for the IIIF.

The law of s*d states that if you don't have slow speeds you'll encounter numerous situations where you need them.

John

 

[Beemermark]

Unless a IIIF has had a recent CLA the slow speeds usually don't work anyway due to lack of use.

If I had to choose between the two I'd base my decision on functionality, price and cosmetics - in that order.

 

[lxmike]

thanks everyone, mangaed to bag a IIIC converted to IIIFBDST, so I'm very happy and the advice gained here was greatly appreciated


regards Mike

 

[John Lawrence]

thanks everyone, mangaed to bag a IIIC converted to IIIFBDST, so I'm very happy and the advice gained here was greatly appreciated


regards Mike

Have fun with it!

John

 

[L David Tomei]

three variations of IIf shutters

three variations of IIf shutters

Hello everyone. Forgive me for jumping in at the last moment but I just wanted to comment that there are three variations in the shutter of the IIf. Early BD with the old speed progression (30,40,60,100,200, 500); the RD equipped with a redesigned shutter having the newer speed progression (25,50,75,100,200,500) but only up to 1/500th sec; and finally the RD with the top speed increased to 1/1000th. As mentioned before, none have the slow-speed dial. This would likely make the earlier production IIf's somewhat less competitive with the IIIf.

That said, the one you got sounds like a fine solution.

David

 

[lxmike]

yes I'm very happy with it and its sitting next to me as I type, loaded with HP5

 

[lxmike]

I'd forgoton how pleasant it is to go out shooting with a Leica IIIf, very nice indeed

 

[Daryl J.]

I have a IIIc from 1949 equipped as a IIIf RD ST and a IIf.
For some reason, I use the IIf more. I think it is because my fingers bump the slowspeed dial on the IIIf.

Great units these Barnack Leicas.

 

[lxmike]

My current Barnack set up is a 1957 IIIg with 1934 uncoated Emar 5cm attached and a 1942 IIIc stepper with 1937 uncoated Sumar 5cm attached, quite like uncoated optics