Leica III is a feeling

[kampermann]

A contemporary review of a Leica III from 1934 with some of it's accessories.

 

[css9450]

A few interesting typos there.

 

[mconnealy]

The 3D rotating image of the camera is a nifty gimmick. I need to look into that.

 

[LCSmith]

It is a shame that so many photography publications are illiterate. One would think this is due to the technical emphasis of the education of its writers.

 

[retinax]

It is a shame that so many photography publications are illiterate. One would think this is due to the technical emphasis of the education of its writers.

Having a Dutch domain, the author is likely not a native speaker of English. An offer to proof read would be nicer than calling someone with a pretty solid command of a foreign language "illiterate".

 

[Dralowid]

Having a Dutch domain, the author is likely not a native speaker of English. An offer to proof read would be nicer than calling someone with a pretty solid command of a foreign language "illiterate".

With this I agree. Furthermore it may come as a surprise to some that the ltm Leica might be a new discovery for many people, hopefully of a younger generation.

As I a grumpy old person who thinks he has seen it all I do my best to encourage enthusiasm and will support it as best I can.

 

[css9450]

Having a Dutch domain, the author is likely not a native speaker of English. An offer to proof read would be nicer than calling someone with a pretty solid command of a foreign language "illiterate".

The language barrier doesn't explain the repetition of these same sentences one after the other:

"Now you can choose the desired diaphragm on the lens (the standard lens for this camera is usually the excellent Leica 50 mm f / 3.5 Elmar, produced from 1925-1961). This camera is mounted with the even better and more bright 50mm f / 2 Summitar from 1951. Both are high-quality collapsible lenses that also do an excellent job on digital cameras through an adapter. Now you can choose the desired diaphragm on the lens (the standard lens for this camera is usually the excellent Leica 50 mm f / 3.5 Elmar, produced from 1925-1961). This camera contains the even better and more bright 50mm f / 2 Summitar from 1951. Both are high-quality collapsible lenses that also do an excellent job on digital cameras via an adapter."

 

[retinax]

The language barrier doesn't explain the repetition of these same sentences one after the other:
[...]

You're right!

 

[xayraa33]

Interesting article despite the typos and or translation to English .

The article might appeal more to a younger audience who find using a Barnack camera quaint and out of the ordinary in our present era...but for some like me who grew up with antiquated photo gear like the Leica III and liked it very much ( I still own 2 of them) it is all a moot point.

 

[LCSmith]

Having a Dutch domain, the author is likely not a native speaker of English. An offer to proof read would be nicer than calling someone with a pretty solid command of a foreign language "illiterate".

I can do no right these days!

I did not call anyone illiterate! I made a general observation about photography publications! I didn't even mention the article!

Geez.

 

[retinax]

I can do no right these days!

I did not call anyone illiterate! I made a general observation about photography publications! I didn't even mention the article!

Geez.

On the forums which there are on the internet, the convention among those who useth them to converse among themselves be such that one proposeth a topic about which to hold a conversation, and the others who have any interest in said topic follow with comments and questions in a thing they call a thread. That is to say, they generally believe there should be a connection in content betwixt the initial post and the comments which follow, and such connection will be assumed even when it is not made explicit by the author of a comment. Thusly I assumed thy comment to be in reference to the words of the starter of this thread, who appears to also be the author of the piece to which he shared a link. He thus is, in my estimate, the author of a photography publication. Therefore, even when you say you didn't mean him specifically (which is, as I tried to explain above, not an easy thing to understand without additional explanation as it would appear to be against the conventions of a forum and conversation in general), he is one of the many who you say your comment refers to.
Of course it could also be the case that I missed a meaning of the word you used, and went too far in assuming that in fact it referred to the author and not the publication, the latter being what you wrote. If you meant that the publication cannot read and/or write, I'm sorry for my misguided attempt at reprimanding what I felt to be less than polite words.

 

[LCSmith]

On the forums which there are on the internet, the convention among those who useth them to converse among themselves be such that one proposeth a topic about which to hold a conversation, and the others who have any interest in said topic follow with comments and questions in a thing they call a thread. That is to say, they generally believe there should be a connection in content betwixt the initial post and the comments which follow, and such connection will be assumed even when it is not made explicit by the author of a comment. Thusly I assumed thy comment to be in reference to the words of the starter of this thread, who appears to also be the author of the piece to which he shared a link. He thus is, in my estimate, the author of a photography publication. Therefore, even when you say you didn't mean him specifically (which is, as I tried to explain above, not an easy thing to understand without additional explanation as it would appear to be against the conventions of a forum and conversation in general), he is one of the many who you say your comment refers to.
Of course it could also be the case that I missed a meaning of the word you used, and went too far in assuming that in fact it referred to the author and not the publication, the latter being what you wrote. If you meant that the publication cannot read and/or write, I'm sorry for my misguided attempt at reprimanding what I felt to be less than polite words.

Thank you for the explanation, and for the endorphins!

 

[Erik van Straten]

I love the Leica III, above all the black-and-nickel variety.

Leica III black/nickel, Summar nickel, TMY400-2/AdoxMCC110.

Erik.

 

[Pioneer]

As do I Erik. Unfortunately my well worn Leica III is currently out of order with no ready cash to correct this sad situation.


So I make do with my M3 for now. 😀

 

[Pál_K]

I've used my 1934 Leica III quite a bit in the last few years. I have the case, but don't use it (I put the camera in a pouch).

Also, I don't feel right about putting color film in it.