Leica III or IIIc

[ZorkiKat]

I have both (3 of the III and 3 of the IIIc).

The IIIc feels a bit larger, though its only 3mm longer than the III. It feels more "solid" too. The extra 1/1000 speed is there, but I don't have much use for it.

The III feels lighter, and appears smaller too. I have the impression that it has a lower profile too, but side by side with a IIIc, the III is just about the same size. Perhaps it's because of the smaller dials, windows, etc.

As far as the "later model = newer shutter curtains = better" theory goes, it doesn't always hold. All of my III still have their original curtains, and they still show no signs of deteriorating soon. I could say the same of two of my three IIIc, whose shutters, about 15 years younger are still going strong. One had its shutter already replaced. However, my IIIf and IIIg, younger than the III and IIIc by 5-20 years all have crumbling shutters.

 

[wolves3012]

Unless there's a compelling reason - sentiment, condition etc - why choose a III over a IIIC? The IIIC has a higher spec (slightly) and better construction. Even if you don't need the 1/1000th it's there for the day you want it...

The poll result is fairly conclusive too!

 

[D.O'K.]

The IIIc is the better camera for all the reasons given, but the lighter III has a more modest and "bijoux" feel in the hand which some might find attractive.

But I'd opt for whichever of the two is in better working condition.

Regards,
D.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Nobody's mentioned it, probably because the true LTM-fetishist isn't bothered by it; but the VF/RF are also closer together on the IIIc meaning less eye-adjustment when switching between the two.


It doesn't bother me either so that makes me a Leicaphile. 😉

btw, beautiful specimen, Erik!

 

[lxmike]

To be honest I will have to put that decision on hold as I went into the camera shop/clinic to have a look at the Leica III and the IIIC but bought a ContacxG1 with 45/2 Planar instead. Different beasts I know but I could not help myself

 

[lxmike]

Oh I forgot, thamks for all your input for this question, it is very much appreciated

 

[pschauss]

Nobody's mentioned it, probably because the true LTM-fetishist isn't bothered by it; but the VF/RF are also closer together on the IIIc meaning less eye-adjustment when switching between the two.

I have a IIIa and a IIIf, in addition to a couple of Zorki's. Personally I find it marginally easier to work with the wider separation between the viewfinder and the rangefinder. On the other hand, the plastic rim around the viewfinder/rangefinder on the IIIf is less destructive to my glasses.

 

[januaryman]

To be honest I will have to put that decision on hold as I went into the camera shop/clinic to have a look at the Leica III and the IIIC but bought a Contac G1 with 45/2 Planar instead. Different beasts I know but I could not help myself

"I was shopping for a classic motorcycle but then I saw a Honda Accord and couldn't resist." 😀 That's a funny ending to this thread, lxmike. and as a PS, I'd check the spelling of that lens on your signature.

(And in your message quoted above, I think it's a Contax. Contac is a pill you take for a cold, IIRC.)

 

[lxmike]

Thanks Jim, I'm not having a good end to the day, (spelling wise), not enough coffeee today🙂

 

[wlewisiii]

I wouldn't mind a G1 myself so I can understand. That Planar is one of the nicest lenses ever made so enjoy it. The 28 & 90 make it a heck of a travel camera from what I've seen. Good light!

William

 

[hookonclassic]

I have both (3 of the III and 3 of the IIIc).

The IIIc feels a bit larger, though its only 3mm longer than the III. It feels more "solid" too. The extra 1/1000 speed is there, but I don't have much use for it.

The III feels lighter, and appears smaller too. I have the impression that it has a lower profile too, but side by side with a IIIc, the III is just about the same size. Perhaps it's because of the smaller dials, windows, etc.

I have the same feeling too...III is only slightly smaller than IIIc but look deceivingly smaller and lighter...which I prefers to carry more often as a P&S with a 35mm pancake lens with external VF...

Base on my only copy of IIIc, cannot say for sure, focusing patch on my III has better contrast than my IIIc K...anyone have same experience?

Guess I will need to add an orange OKARO contrast filter to my IIIc K.

🙂

 

[_goodtimez]

Buy both of them at a discount price !

 

[ZorkiKat]

I have the same feeling too...III is only slightly smaller than IIIc but look deceivingly smaller and lighter...which I prefers to carry more often as a P&S with a 35mm pancake lens with external VF...

Base on my only copy of IIIc, cannot say for sure, focusing patch on my III has better contrast than my IIIc K...anyone have same experience?

Guess I will need to add an orange OKARO contrast filter to my IIIc K.

🙂

The quality of the RF coincident images tend to deteriorate through the years. The half-mirrors used by Leica tarnish and lose their brilliance after decades. It must be from the material they used. So it's not quite easy to gauge whose (III or IIIc) RFs are more brilliant. Hard to say really, after 70-60 years.

I have two III whose RF patches are not really too brilliant, but clear enough to use for focusing even in the dimmest situations. One of them needs to have its half-mirror replaced. Of my three IIIc, the "stepper" has the clearest (not necessarily of high contrast) RF patch, and one of them has already been replaced.

I used to think that the tropical weather here contributed to the deterioration of the half-mirrors. But after seeing the RFs, and their halfmirrors, of Leica from the USA and Europe, the deterioration now appears to be more time-related than anything else.

Replacing the half-mirrors will make the rf patch image more brilliant. The III and IIIc used the same half-mirrors and the same beam-splitting method.

Speaking of half-mirrors, those found in the Leica-inspired FED and Zorki appear to be more durable. In almost all cases, I found a lot of prewar FED whose RFs had more brilliant patches than Leica 10-20 years 'younger'.

 

[hookonclassic]

The quality of the RF coincident images tend to deteriorate through the years. The half-mirrors used by Leica tarnish and lose their brilliance after decades. It must be from the material they used. So it's not quite easy to gauge whose (III or IIIc) RFs are more brilliant. Hard to say really, after 70-60 years.

I have two III whose RF patches are not really too brilliant, but clear enough to use for focusing even in the dimmest situations. One of them needs to have its half-mirror replaced. Of my three IIIc, the "stepper" has the clearest (not necessarily of high contrast) RF patch, and one of them has already been replaced.

I used to think that the tropical weather here contributed to the deterioration of the half-mirrors. But after seeing the RFs, and their halfmirrors, of Leica from the USA and Europe, the deterioration now appears to be more time-related than anything else.

Replacing the half-mirrors will make the rf patch image more brilliant. The III and IIIc used the same half-mirrors and the same beam-splitting method.

Speaking of half-mirrors, those found in the Leica-inspired FED and Zorki appear to be more durable. In almost all cases, I found a lot of prewar FED whose RFs had more brilliant patches than Leica 10-20 years 'younger'.

Hi Zork, still have no experience on using any FED camera, will try it one day if I come a cross a good classic copy...

Got a OKARO from the "Evilbay", this tiny orange filter does make a great difference on the contrast of the focusing patch...a must for some LTM camera.

 

[Steve M.]

I've always liked the IIIa cameras. They have a 1/1000 top shutter speed, and I like the wide seperation between the two peepholes better. Focusing is easy for me, and the 1.5 mag of the RF is wonderful. I had the camera's mirrors replaced when the shutter was replaced and now it's incredibly easy to see the RF patch. People always mention that the top plate is in 3 pieces rather than just 1, but there's no difference in solidity either way. Great cameras.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I like the IIc best I think, not having the slow speed dial in the front simplifies the camera quite a bit.

Flash and slow speeds seem pointless on a LTM....

 

[HuubL]

I go with Steve M. The IIIa is a hefty, rugged little camera! I don't feel it's supposed lesser sturdyness.

 

[John Shriver]

The II, III, IIIa, and IIIb are lighter than the later cameras. It is alleged that they are less rigid, and thus may be less accurate in focusing. What is more definitive is that it's a lot trickier to get 1/500 and 1/1000 shutter speeds accurate. If you care about accurate 1/500 and 1/1000 shutter speeds, spend the extra on a IIIc.

 

[Livesteamer]

I voted IIIc. I use my I and II for fun occasionally. I use my M cameras for serious work and my IIIc's for serious fun like vacations. Small and capable and lots of fun. Joe

 

[HuubL]

For shooting: a IIIc, but it looks nice too 🙂
For fondling: a black(!) III, and it shoots well also 😉