davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
Have you compared your IIIg's larger viewfinder window to a IIIc's smaller offering?
Anyone?
Is there a noticeable difference?
Anyone?
Is there a noticeable difference?
Erik van Straten
Veteran
There is an enormous difference. The IIIg finder is a great, parallax-corrected 50mm brightline finder. Four tiny marks indicate the 90mm field of view. The 50mm brightline comes close to the 50mm frame of the M2.
The finder of the IIIc is only an optical finder without a brightline. No parallax correction whatsoever. If you want to have a good 50mm finder on a IIIc you have to put a 12015 SBOOI on it.
Erik.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Agree on the enormous difference statement. Bright and big viewfinder. Maybe is just me, but I also find the rangefinder window a little bit brighter than those of the IIIf for instance. Not M3 brigth but definetly brighter than IIIf and previous Barnacks.
IMHO, a very comfortable shooter. Only drawback is size. Almos M3 size, if not equal.
Regards.
Marcelo
lynnb
Veteran
DFigueira
Established
Btw, is the M3 considered a step up to the Leica III or there are things where the Leica III is better? (I know some things that are better only by seeing it, but I'm talking about on daily usage etc)
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The Leica M3 is a million times better than the Leica III. A Leica III (1933) is in fact a Leica II (1932) with long speeds. In 1936 Zeiss launched the Contax II. That camera was so good - much better than the Leicas of the time - that it took Leitz 18 years to conceive and produce the M3. The M3 intended to crush above all the Contax II, but also the Japanese competition. It came out in 1954.
Erik.
DFigueira
Established
Daryl J.
Well-known
I have both. Both are in flawless mechanical condition.
The M3 is an improvement in many ways over the IIIc.
But does "improvement" mean "a better experience"? Ummmmm.....
Op ed:
Not really.
The M3 is easier to load. Barely.
The M3 fits my hands better.
The M3 takes brand new lenses.
The IIIc fits my pocket better.
The IIIc is more socially disarming and friendly. And the M3 is already socially disarming and friendly.
The IIIc gets used more.
3 Barnacks price out to 1 M3 here.
Both are easier to operate than getting in a car, starting it, and safely backing out of a parking slot.
Basically it's this for me: if I want a vintage-only camera experience, it's my Barnack. If I want vintage with modern flexibility, it's my M's. If I'm walking about and want no one to know I have a camera, it's my Barnack. But I love both systems. Immensely.
Maybe I'm a blasphemer by saying this but to me, my Barnack Leica gets treated like a vintage Olympus Stylus Epic. I can bring it almost everywhere. Only it is orders of magnitude better in quality/durability.
My M's are, well, M's.
If I had to use it daily? M series all the way.
That's a couple cents worth more.
The M3 is an improvement in many ways over the IIIc.
But does "improvement" mean "a better experience"? Ummmmm.....
Op ed:
Not really.
The M3 is easier to load. Barely.
The M3 fits my hands better.
The M3 takes brand new lenses.
The IIIc fits my pocket better.
The IIIc is more socially disarming and friendly. And the M3 is already socially disarming and friendly.
The IIIc gets used more.
3 Barnacks price out to 1 M3 here.
Both are easier to operate than getting in a car, starting it, and safely backing out of a parking slot.
Basically it's this for me: if I want a vintage-only camera experience, it's my Barnack. If I want vintage with modern flexibility, it's my M's. If I'm walking about and want no one to know I have a camera, it's my Barnack. But I love both systems. Immensely.
Maybe I'm a blasphemer by saying this but to me, my Barnack Leica gets treated like a vintage Olympus Stylus Epic. I can bring it almost everywhere. Only it is orders of magnitude better in quality/durability.
My M's are, well, M's.
If I had to use it daily? M series all the way.
That's a couple cents worth more.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
IMHO, Leica IIIG handles more or less like my M3. Biggest difference is the unified viewfinder/rangefinder, which make life easier for some, but it depends your personal taste. Some argue M3 is faster because of this, but if you do zone focus it isnt that much of a difference.
Although IIIg has a lot more charm than the M3
Although IIIg has a lot more charm than the M3
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
In terms of looking at a piece of paper comparing them, the M3 is better in every single way than the III series cameras aside from size.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
The IIIg has a better viewfinder - but only just. It's still very small. When a IIIg showed up at the local shop for a very good price I spent a very long time looking it over and agonizing over whether or not I really wanted it. In the end I didn't get it. Not enough of an improvement over the IIIf.
If you only have one lens. If you have different focal lengths, then there's a pretty big difference between the cameras. The III series cameras get even more clumsy with lenses other than 50mm. But the M series cameras are a big improvement with their integrated finders and bayonet mounting. Also the lever advance should not be dismissed.
If one is worried about price there are Canons that offer the same sort of features for a lot less money than an M-whatever.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I doubt if we can speak about a "series III cameras". The Leica III (1933) is a completely different camera than the IIIc (1940).
The Leicas I - II - III - IIIa - IIIb are of a modular construction. From that point of view they can be seen as a "series".
The Leicas IIIc - IIId - IIIf - IIIg have a die cast frame. From that point of view they can be seen as a "series" too.
So there is no such thing as a series III Leica.
Erik.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Except cameras which all share the "III" in their model name and are (at least superficially) of the same basic layout.
I don't think the IIIg is any different in outer dimensions than the IIIf, other than maybe a millimeter or two of extra height. It's definitely not the same size as an M3.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Indeed, it is about the same. Both can use the Leicavit.
If I could choose, I take a IIIg. I don't like the IIIf because of it's flash synch mechanism and I love the IIIg because of it's viewfinder.
Erik.
jarski
Veteran
imo IIIg viewfinder is significantly better than all other II/III Barnack series. its the separate rangefinder that is similar in all of them and was only "fixed" with introduction of M series.
Daryl J.
Well-known
Erik, what about the flash synch mechanism bothers?
presspass
filmshooter
If you are not going to use flash, the early IIIs are attractive. I have a IIIa and a IIIc and enjoy shooting the IIIa more than the IIIc. Measured, there's not much difference between the cameras, but the IIIa seems to fit my hand better than the IIIc. A IIIa with a collapsible Elmar or even a 35mm Elmar, is very pocketable. The slightly larger IIIc does not seem to fit as well. If you wear glasses, beware of the rangefinder adjuster on the IIIa. When it's in the raised position,it can and will scratch your glasses.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I never, ever use flash. So the comprehensive flash synch mechanism of the IIIf is quite troublesome in my eyes. It often causes trouble with the shutter too.
Erik.
Daryl J.
Well-known
Erik, thank-you.
Steve M.
Veteran
The weight and size make a big difference between an M or a screw mount Leica. To my mind, nothing beats a DS M3 w/ a DR 50 lens in terms of fun to use, quality of construction, and image quality. But we are talking about a seriously heavy setup. and the cameras are big for rangefinders. A III w/ a collapsible 50 Summicron is tons cheaper. if you can live w/ the knob wind, just buy an aux viewfinder for it. Most people get used to the viewfinders on the III lineages, but an aux viewfinder makes a big difference.
For what it's worth, a Bessa R w/ a Summar 50 and a collapsible Elmar 90 gave me some great shots, and was dead reliable. It was nice not to have to carry a meter all the time too.
For what it's worth, a Bessa R w/ a Summar 50 and a collapsible Elmar 90 gave me some great shots, and was dead reliable. It was nice not to have to carry a meter all the time too.