gb hill
Veteran
Hope it all goes well in the test roll. I visited Rff member livesteamer a few weeks ago & finally got to fondle a IIIC. Lovely camera & very pocketable. I found the squinty VF enjoyable. Maybe perhaps it has something to do with my habit with squinting most of my life.
There is something special about Barnacks. There are cheaper and far better cameras out there, of course. But that misses the point.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
I suppose if a screw-mount fell out of the sky and hit you on the head, and you tried it and found it squinty & silly to load, you could say it wasn't a good camera, but most people here knew what they were getting into, and still went ahead with it.
lynnb
Veteran
I've used Fed-3, Canon IVSB2, Canon P, IIIc and IIIf. Only problems have been the IIIc developed an intermittent shutter problem after about 40-50 rolls, and the locking lug in the Fed-3 base plate broke off.
The P has a great finder but it's much larger than the Barnacks, more like an M. Very convenient loading and film advance though.
Loved the IVSB2 with integrated VF/RF but it's not as nice in the hand as the IIIc/IIIf, which have fewer angular bits.
My favourites by far are the Barnacks. They are seductive. And quiet. And small/inconspicuous. I use an external VF.
I was very close to this subject with a 35mm lens, and the camera was not noticed. Barnacks make great street shooters.
The P has a great finder but it's much larger than the Barnacks, more like an M. Very convenient loading and film advance though.
Loved the IVSB2 with integrated VF/RF but it's not as nice in the hand as the IIIc/IIIf, which have fewer angular bits.
My favourites by far are the Barnacks. They are seductive. And quiet. And small/inconspicuous. I use an external VF.
I was very close to this subject with a 35mm lens, and the camera was not noticed. Barnacks make great street shooters.
Daryl J.
Well-known
If all proves well with the IIIc, there is a roll of Cinestill 50D ready and waiting in the wings to be used with a pretty nice 5cm round-apertured Summitar.
And if the squinty eyed thing winds up being a bother (it won't be) I'll just put an external viewfinder on it. Using one has been fine with my M and 3.4/21mm S-A so added on Fiddly Bits is no inconvenience for me.
I'm enjoying the "theater" of operating a Barnack. For all the action it takes to work it, people seem drawn to the goofy thing rather than put off by it.
This could be really a rewarding experience.
And if the squinty eyed thing winds up being a bother (it won't be) I'll just put an external viewfinder on it. Using one has been fine with my M and 3.4/21mm S-A so added on Fiddly Bits is no inconvenience for me.
I'm enjoying the "theater" of operating a Barnack. For all the action it takes to work it, people seem drawn to the goofy thing rather than put off by it.
This could be really a rewarding experience.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
The Canon P is a much more modern camera than any Barnack or Soviet copy.
The only advantage to a Barnack is its small size. The viewfinder is squinty and you must move your eye from the rangefinder to the viewfinder to shoot. The controls and film loading are fiddly. If you do a lot a zone focusing and a lot of unobtrusive but non-spontaneous street shooting, the Barnack is an excellent tool. Otherwise, its a quaint piece of photographic history that has since been improved upon. They make nice conversation pieces, or perhaps artsy bookends or paperweights.
Or prop for a theater of the absurd project.
The Canon P has a superior viewfinder, superior film advance and superior film loading. It's also less expensive. Its build quality is excellent. As others have said, the P is more like a M camera, except for a lot less money.
The only advantage to a Barnack is its small size. The viewfinder is squinty and you must move your eye from the rangefinder to the viewfinder to shoot. The controls and film loading are fiddly. If you do a lot a zone focusing and a lot of unobtrusive but non-spontaneous street shooting, the Barnack is an excellent tool. Otherwise, its a quaint piece of photographic history that has since been improved upon. They make nice conversation pieces, or perhaps artsy bookends or paperweights.
Or prop for a theater of the absurd project.
The Canon P has a superior viewfinder, superior film advance and superior film loading. It's also less expensive. Its build quality is excellent. As others have said, the P is more like a M camera, except for a lot less money.
lynnb
Veteran
Yes the P is more modern and faster to operate if you're using the RF. I mostly scale-focus/zone focus and rely on dof for spontaneous street shooting, in which case the Barnacks are well suited for spontaneous street work, with the additional advantage that they are quieter.
Another advantage is the generally benign and often outright friendly response they generate when they are noticed. The only other cameras that have that affect in my experience are TLRs and folders.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I am a bit confused: this thread is about the Leica III, but everyone speaks about the Leicas IIIc. The III and the IIIc are totally different cameras.
Tip: the Leica III can be had in black, the IIIc's. IIIf's and IIIg's can not.
Erik.
Tip: the Leica III can be had in black, the IIIc's. IIIf's and IIIg's can not.
Erik.
lynnb
Veteran
You are right, Erik. I think III is sometimes seen as a catch-all for all the III series. But they are quite different, as you correctly point out.
Joao
Negativistic forever
It is worth to take a chance: about 2/3 of my imported items from outside the Euroland have passed through the greedy hands of Portuguese Customs whithout being checked or taxed. I am talking about articles up to 200 euros, and that included lenses, cameras, film - from the US, Brazil, FSU and China. And I never ask to sellers to mark the items as "gifts"
Good luck !
Joao
scigeek
Well-known
Actually, they can also take a good pic….
111c, 3.5/5cm uncoated Elmar. Camera propped up on a hymnbook in Ludlow Church when no-one was looking - taken using available church light on XP2 - Dec 2016.
I have both the 111c and the M. The 111c is a more useable camera. It's smaller, lighter, and ergonomically more comfortable to use. It can be shot at 1/20th without resting it on anything, and some of the shots will still be sharp. It may be a tad slower to load and shoot than the M - so what?
Oh, and the little 3.5/5cm uncoated Elmar? Inexpensive to buy, and sharp as a tack. Nice colour rendition too.
Disclaimer: I know the 111c isn't a 111, but an LTM is an LTM
.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
For proof that Barnacks "can take a good picture", look at any photo presented by Erik van Stratten.
And Scigeek, your Ludlow photo is oustanding !
On a trip to Denmark a few years ago, I took my Canon G-1 digi-cam, and extra batteries, but foolishly left the charger at home. The camera finally ran out of juice about half-way through the trip, which I rationalized into an opportunity to buy some vintage 35mm cameras, if I found any.
Conveniently, I ran across a nice Retina I in Helsingborg, and two nice Leica IIIc in Copenhagen, one a 1949 model upgraded to III-f BD + ST with a foggy Summar, and a III-c stepper that had been painted black (decent), but was wearing a very nice Summitar. The shop wouldn't swap lenses, so I bought both cameras.
I bought a bunch of Kodak Gold 200, and shot the rest of the trip with the later IIIc and Summitar. I had no meter, so I had to go "sunny/f:16".
I probably shot more pictures with the Leica than with the digi-cam, and most turned-out very good. (The only dogs were poor exposure, due to my guestimating.)
Someday I will get into screw-mount Canons... but the later ones are quite a bit bulkier than the Barnack.
For me, the LTM Leica is still my favorite vintage shooter.
My SLRs (Exakta, screw-mount Pentax, Canon Fn QL, Miranda, Nikkormat, Minolta XG-1 ,etc.) all sit in the closet...
And Scigeek, your Ludlow photo is oustanding !
On a trip to Denmark a few years ago, I took my Canon G-1 digi-cam, and extra batteries, but foolishly left the charger at home. The camera finally ran out of juice about half-way through the trip, which I rationalized into an opportunity to buy some vintage 35mm cameras, if I found any.
Conveniently, I ran across a nice Retina I in Helsingborg, and two nice Leica IIIc in Copenhagen, one a 1949 model upgraded to III-f BD + ST with a foggy Summar, and a III-c stepper that had been painted black (decent), but was wearing a very nice Summitar. The shop wouldn't swap lenses, so I bought both cameras.
I bought a bunch of Kodak Gold 200, and shot the rest of the trip with the later IIIc and Summitar. I had no meter, so I had to go "sunny/f:16".
I probably shot more pictures with the Leica than with the digi-cam, and most turned-out very good.
(The only dogs were poor exposure, due to my guestimating.)Someday I will get into screw-mount Canons... but the later ones are quite a bit bulkier than the Barnack.
For me, the LTM Leica is still my favorite vintage shooter.
My SLRs (Exakta, screw-mount Pentax, Canon Fn QL, Miranda, Nikkormat, Minolta XG-1 ,etc.) all sit in the closet...
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
After shooting a IIIg every day for the past month or so and leaving my M3 at home I can say that the M3 (and the other M models) are much easier to use. VF and RF in the same large window, advancing, loading film, adjusting shutter speeds, etc. But the IIIg fits in my pocket, my M3 doesn't. I wouldn't take the IIIg on an actual shoot with any serious attempts of making it my primary camera for any reason but it's great as a casual street camera. I wouldn't go out and try to run rolls and rolls through it on a day I plan on going out all day shooting, that spot is still reserved for the M3 but as a day to day coat pocket camera it's awesome. It's very unobtrusive and people let their guard down if they happen to actually notice you.
scigeek
Well-known
Thank you LF!
They (the Elmar and 111c) are a great little camera. More, they are a serious scientific instrument capable of fantastic results.
For anyone who wants to take plenty of quick shots may I suggest a decent phone? It will do the job - without a squinty viewfinder or stupid mechanical controls
.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I prefer a black and nickel Leica III, but in fact only because it is black.
Leica III, Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5, 400-2TMY.
Erik.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
I prefer a black and nickel Leica III, but in fact only because it is black.
Leica III, Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5, 400-2TMY.
Erik.
I can't argue with the price I paid for my IIIg ($0 + $200 for a YYE service). I've always *loved* the black Barnacks with the nickel bits and a nickel 50 Elmar. Someday I'll have one.
cz23
-
scigeek
Well-known
I like your reasoning
.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Luddite Frank
Well-known
My first two Barnacks came from Sandy Ritz Cameras, ndba Collectible Cameras. This was in 2007 or so.
I got a III-f BD with a nice collapsible Summicron, and a very nice 1932 II with an 11 o'clock nickel Elmar, both from 1932.
I then acquired two black IIIs from 1933.
The black cameras are very lovely looking; I'm a bit shy of using mine very often as I don't want to add to the paint-loss already there...
Nickel plate is really nice to look at, has a nice, warm yellowish tint.
Sounds like you got a sweet deal on the III-g; that is next on my Barnack bucket list...