xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Behaving rationally or irrationally can be applied to buying anything, from buying a well used Leica III camera to buying a Big Mac and a Mars bar, to buying a high mileage rust bucket Karman Ghia to buying a bottle of water at a tourist trap on a sizzling summer's afternoon while you have a perishing thirst.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
IIIc is the opposite of holy grail, it is one of the most common and therefore least expensive of the late Leica Thread Mount cameras.
It has a range of features ( 1/1000, cast body, sturdy mech, diopter finder ) and lack of features ( flash sync, self timer) that make it a reliable shooter.
It has a range of features ( 1/1000, cast body, sturdy mech, diopter finder ) and lack of features ( flash sync, self timer) that make it a reliable shooter.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
They all can be reliable shooters, from a Leica II or III all the way to the IIIg.
The thing is that if they have been well maintained and serviced by a good camera tech recently, then the particular model of the Barnack Leica does not really matter much.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Interesting on the perception of mechanical reliability. A recent discussion elsewhere on a Hasselblad issue had the robust defenders surprised at the Hasselblad directive at a service advisory from Hasselblad: if pro use at least 12 monthly if not 6 if in continuous use (and remember how slow it is to shoot film, relatively) and absolute maximum for amateurs of 3 years. How many cameras offered s/h have had that TLC through their life?
lxmike
M2 fan.
a very interesting snippet of information, makes you sit back a bit and think
Luddite Frank
Well-known
if you're lucky, you might even run across a II or III-c that was upgraded to flash sync and self-timer... 
I agree that if you found all variants on the shelf at the same store, the -c models should run the cheapest, due to their larger production run.
They are great workhorses, and if you find an example with some light cosmetic issues (rubs, initials scratched into body, etc.) the price might be lower yet.
The earlier brass "built-up" bodies are not as sturdy for mounting heavy (long) lenses, and you're getting more into collectible shelf-queen terriitory as far as prices go, especially original black-paint models.
Post-war III-c and early III-f might have bad shutter curtains (crackly, pin-holes) due to inferior materials available for a time after WW II.
I have six or seven screw mount leicas, and the only one with bad curtains is my cosmetically excellent 1951 III-F. All my 1932-34 Leicas still have their original curtain material, and it is holding-up.
Mr. Flibble gave excellent advice in his post.
If you really want to err on the safe side, plan on budgeting $150-$250 USD for cleaning and new curtains, and add that to the price you are paying for the camera body. A properly serviced screw-mount Leica should operate reliably for 5-10 years or more.
Lenses: make sure the glass is not scratched / marked. Leitz lenses are notorious for the soft glass in their lenses. Hazy elements can be cleaned,
edges re-blacked, etc. but scratches cannot be removed. If you get a lens with un-damaged glass, get a UV filter to go over the front element for mechanical protection. Always store with caps or in a Leitz lens case when not mounted on the camera.
My daily-shooter LTM was an "ugly" chrome III from 1934, that came with a Komura 35mm / f 3.5 lens, from e-bay for $135 in 2008. The body was missing a large patch of plating from the top plate, right around the factory engraving. A sticker inside the body indicated that it had been serviced by Peerless Camera in New York City around 1973.
It functioned perfectly, and since it already had some cosmetic issues, I made it my every-day camera, putting a couple hundred rolls of film through it so far.
Good deals in Leicas are still out there...
I think FSU cameras are kind of risky, especially if you're on a budget... it seems there are "good ones", and ones that "can be made good", but others that will never be very good. By the time you buy different examples, searching for that "good one", and/or spend money having it fixed-up, you might be spending more than you would an a genuine Leica, even if it needs service. The Leica will also hold a better re-sale value.
Good luck with your search !
I agree that if you found all variants on the shelf at the same store, the -c models should run the cheapest, due to their larger production run.
They are great workhorses, and if you find an example with some light cosmetic issues (rubs, initials scratched into body, etc.) the price might be lower yet.
The earlier brass "built-up" bodies are not as sturdy for mounting heavy (long) lenses, and you're getting more into collectible shelf-queen terriitory as far as prices go, especially original black-paint models.
Post-war III-c and early III-f might have bad shutter curtains (crackly, pin-holes) due to inferior materials available for a time after WW II.
I have six or seven screw mount leicas, and the only one with bad curtains is my cosmetically excellent 1951 III-F. All my 1932-34 Leicas still have their original curtain material, and it is holding-up.
Mr. Flibble gave excellent advice in his post.
If you really want to err on the safe side, plan on budgeting $150-$250 USD for cleaning and new curtains, and add that to the price you are paying for the camera body. A properly serviced screw-mount Leica should operate reliably for 5-10 years or more.
Lenses: make sure the glass is not scratched / marked. Leitz lenses are notorious for the soft glass in their lenses. Hazy elements can be cleaned,
edges re-blacked, etc. but scratches cannot be removed. If you get a lens with un-damaged glass, get a UV filter to go over the front element for mechanical protection. Always store with caps or in a Leitz lens case when not mounted on the camera.
My daily-shooter LTM was an "ugly" chrome III from 1934, that came with a Komura 35mm / f 3.5 lens, from e-bay for $135 in 2008. The body was missing a large patch of plating from the top plate, right around the factory engraving. A sticker inside the body indicated that it had been serviced by Peerless Camera in New York City around 1973.
It functioned perfectly, and since it already had some cosmetic issues, I made it my every-day camera, putting a couple hundred rolls of film through it so far.
Good deals in Leicas are still out there...
I think FSU cameras are kind of risky, especially if you're on a budget... it seems there are "good ones", and ones that "can be made good", but others that will never be very good. By the time you buy different examples, searching for that "good one", and/or spend money having it fixed-up, you might be spending more than you would an a genuine Leica, even if it needs service. The Leica will also hold a better re-sale value.
Good luck with your search !
DFigueira
Established
I must thank you all for the ideas that were said here.
I hope it helps more people like me.
On my side, I'm between two sides (since I had another post for a different budget before I had a problem but there are some ideas that got me intrigued). So I'm going to think it all for a few days and see how it works out. Spending this money for me is a full commitment so I can't make mistakes.
Thank you all again!
I hope it helps more people like me.
On my side, I'm between two sides (since I had another post for a different budget before I had a problem but there are some ideas that got me intrigued). So I'm going to think it all for a few days and see how it works out. Spending this money for me is a full commitment so I can't make mistakes.
Thank you all again!
gb hill
Veteran
This thread has helped me. I've been following it & would love a IIf.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
If "mistakes are not an option", avoid FSU cameras... too much of a gamble.
DFigueira
Established
I'll avoid them but I'm between 3 cameras now, including the Leica, even thought I would have to spend more for a CLA.
All of them useful to me.
gb hill
Veteran
i have to say thus far my Zorki 2c has been very reliable for a camera built in 1958.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I might as well repeat it; you take a gamble with almost any film camera because they are all old and mostly second-hand. Many of them have been neglected since digital came around and some since digital came of age.
Second-hand means your camera may have suffered at the hands of one or two or even ten or twenty owners over the last 70, 80 or more years. And "CLA'd" sometimes means sprayed with WD40 inside and dripping with it.
So allow for the camera being in need of serious attention because few of them have only one thing wrong with them. And allow for a repair or check over and lubrication and minor adjustments. That can cost more that the camera does...
And that is one of the reasons I suggest FED's and Zorkis, they can be no better and no worse that any other old camera when bought but Oleg can restore them at an affordable price. Add restoration costs to buying costs and you're far better off with a FED/Zorki. They are very pleasant cameras to use and deliver the goods.
I've bills for camera repairs going back 45 or more years. Please believe me. Even dealers sell ones that need repairs done, under guarantee...
The trouble is, I often think, it's politics and believing adverts that causes FED and co to be attacked so often and so stupidly.
Regards, David
I might as well repeat it; you take a gamble with almost any film camera because they are all old and mostly second-hand. Many of them have been neglected since digital came around and some since digital came of age.
Second-hand means your camera may have suffered at the hands of one or two or even ten or twenty owners over the last 70, 80 or more years. And "CLA'd" sometimes means sprayed with WD40 inside and dripping with it.
So allow for the camera being in need of serious attention because few of them have only one thing wrong with them. And allow for a repair or check over and lubrication and minor adjustments. That can cost more that the camera does...
And that is one of the reasons I suggest FED's and Zorkis, they can be no better and no worse that any other old camera when bought but Oleg can restore them at an affordable price. Add restoration costs to buying costs and you're far better off with a FED/Zorki. They are very pleasant cameras to use and deliver the goods.
I've bills for camera repairs going back 45 or more years. Please believe me. Even dealers sell ones that need repairs done, under guarantee...
The trouble is, I often think, it's politics and believing adverts that causes FED and co to be attacked so often and so stupidly.
Regards, David
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Then all the stories we've been hearing about FSU cameras being made by Vodka-soaked workers on worn-out equipment were just Capitalist lies ?
gb hill
Veteran
You bring up some good points David. I have my eye on a Leica IIf I'd like to have (not on ebay) & cosmetically is in fantastic shape but I'd still be taking a gamble that after a few rolls of film the camera might show signs of needing a CLA. I really don't have the money for a CLA that a Barnack cost.
A CLA on my Zorki I could probably swing with Oleg & I know that the camera, once I got it back would last me the rest of my life.
I remember a camera dealer told me one time, with Leica it's all about the lenses & I already have a 50/3.5 Elmar coated post war lens on the Zorki & the Zorki does for me already, has the same shutter speeds as the IIf. (the IIf I'm looking at doesn't have a 1000th). Think right now I'll shoot & develop the roll of film I have in my Zorki & might just talk myself out of spending the bucks on the Leica name. I just put a Gordy strap on it & it sure looks good.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Then all the stories we've been hearing about FSU cameras being made by Vodka-soaked workers on worn-out equipment were just Capitalist lies ?
Interesting comment.
How would you describe the failure of my IIIc, my Digilux-2's sensor (about 10 years ago) and the M9's, which was returned this year?
BTW, I've no complaints about Leica's service when they failed but the IIIc was repaired by a dealer...
And I thought I was merely pointing out that all second-hand cameras are a gamble and that FED and Zorki are treated differently.
Regards, David
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Rightly or wrongly, I was given to believe that the Soviet versions of German cameras were really hit-or-miss, in terms of quality, and that as years went by and machinery and dies became increasingly worn, the quality fell-off even more.
With that in mind, if one buys an FSU camera today you might get "one of the better ones" that works acceptably, or you might get one that was a dog to start with, and may or may not be able to be improved.
Presumably the odds of "getting a good one" are better with Leitz equipment?
And it is entirely possible that I have absorbed western capitalist bias and some Leica snobbery.
I agree that ANY mechanical camera that is more than say 10 years old, or 10 years out from its last CLA probably needs attention. Maybe five years is more accurate.
To date, I have seven Barnack bodies ( II, III (x3), III-c stepper, III-c/f ST, III-f BD, and only one has turned-up non-functional: my 1951 III-f: cosmetically very nice, but the shutter curtains are crackly and like a sieve. All deserve a CLA, but they all still function reasonably well.
What was the nature of your III-c's failure ?
LF
With that in mind, if one buys an FSU camera today you might get "one of the better ones" that works acceptably, or you might get one that was a dog to start with, and may or may not be able to be improved.
Presumably the odds of "getting a good one" are better with Leitz equipment?
And it is entirely possible that I have absorbed western capitalist bias and some Leica snobbery.
I agree that ANY mechanical camera that is more than say 10 years old, or 10 years out from its last CLA probably needs attention. Maybe five years is more accurate.
To date, I have seven Barnack bodies ( II, III (x3), III-c stepper, III-c/f ST, III-f BD, and only one has turned-up non-functional: my 1951 III-f: cosmetically very nice, but the shutter curtains are crackly and like a sieve. All deserve a CLA, but they all still function reasonably well.
What was the nature of your III-c's failure ?
LF
gb hill
Veteran
Unlike a Barnack they are hit & miss. Leica engineering is superb over the FSU camera's. I'm thinking I might just jump on that IIf. If it needs attention I can send it to Yoxin Ye who is here in the US. Sending my Zorki to Oleg the shipping would bite me. Lot's to think about.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Leica III, Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5, 400-2TMY.
Erik.
Erik.
Daryl J.
Well-known
A IIIc arrived in house last week and finally the ltm 3,5/35mm Summaron I've had laying around for ages will get some use with b&w films. I'm running a test roll of Vista 400 through it at the moment so I'm using a different lens as to my eye, color is not the Summaron's forté.
I'm really looking forward to the experience, squinty viewfinder or not.
I'm really looking forward to the experience, squinty viewfinder or not.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I think anybody that wants a III series Leica should try finding one to use before buying if at all possible. They're not user friendly cameras, and at least in my opinion, not even really good cameras to take pictures with.
Yes the the fit and finish and mechanical feel are peerless. But you have to contend with knob wind, a minuscule peep-hole for a "viewfinder", separate rangefinder, lift and set shutter dial, and rather silly film loading. That's fun for some people, and not fun at all for most people. So If you get a chance to test first you can know if you're one or the other.
At least if you spend far less on a Zorki 4 you end up with a usable viewfinder and rather less fiddly film loading. Or you could spend a little less on a Canon and get an advance lever, an even better viewfinder, and a real shutter dial.
Yes the the fit and finish and mechanical feel are peerless. But you have to contend with knob wind, a minuscule peep-hole for a "viewfinder", separate rangefinder, lift and set shutter dial, and rather silly film loading. That's fun for some people, and not fun at all for most people. So If you get a chance to test first you can know if you're one or the other.
At least if you spend far less on a Zorki 4 you end up with a usable viewfinder and rather less fiddly film loading. Or you could spend a little less on a Canon and get an advance lever, an even better viewfinder, and a real shutter dial.