Leica LTM Leica IIIC or IIIF

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
C

cary

Well-known
Local time
1:53 AM
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
299
I am looking for a shooter and narrowed my choices to a IIIC or IIIF. Besides the flash sync to the IIIF is any one better than the other?

Thanks,

Cary
 
Not really... both are as good as the other, and do you think you need a flash on a Leica?
The IIIf is basically a IIIc with added flash synch that's all. However, for the pricey red dial IIIf's there's a new lighter and quieter shutter.
Also, the shutter on a IIIf runs with ball bearing, that first apperaed of the Kugelverschlussen Leica during the war;
A IIIc is also older than a IIIf, then you might think about a "moderner" camera.
That's all!
Cheers
 
The flash synch is one feature that I have used exactly once on each of my two IIIf cameras - just to see if it worked.

My second IIIf with a red scale has a delayed action timer for the shutter release and again it has been used once by myself.

Choose which ever is in the best condition - the IIIc and the early black dial IIIf are essentially the same.
 
I love my lllf black dial. You can probably find a really nice one for a good price. It's really fun to shoot with.

Cheers.
 
Go for the IIIc!
Why?
Well that would be my choice.
The IIIc might be a bit cheaper and I find the speed dial easier to move. On the IIIf the dial has a sync ring underneath and this results in less to get hold of when lifting the dial to set the speed. Another reason? There is a little less to go wrong.
All personal opinion of course.
I suggest you look at some photos to see what I mean.
 
There really is very little difference between the two. Make your choice based on condition/price and not on the model.

When looking at a potential purchase, be sure to check the visibility of the rangefinder patch. A dim patch isn't a showstopper as the beamsplitter can be replaced during a CLA but you'll want to know if there is a problem.
 
i did not know what daniel has said about the cassette problem with the IIIc - I have two IIIc's and never found any difficulty.
The larger shutter dial on my IIIf red dial is a bit more awkard , and the shutter speeds are 1/30 - 1/40 - 1/60 on the IIC and i25- 1/50- 1/75 on the IIIf.
But then , i love using my 1933 black L II and Zorkis , so my judgement is seriously suspect !
My IIIf was really excellent, but was reasonable 'cos of a tiny dint , but you will have more choice with the IIIc - i have been told , countless times , that it is condition , rather than ''age'' which is crucial - I was amazed that Leica dealers had no concern at all that my II would just continue to take fine photos indefinitely - given servicing and reasonable care .

new person dee
 
The post war IIIC's can have a problem with chrome pitting. I would get a IIIF in the best condition I could find. They are not that expensive.
 
I have probably run 400 rolls of film through several different IIIc's and IIc's without having a problem with the cassette sliding out of place.

This isn't a common problem.
 
For a real bargain (if any Leica is a bargain) late screw camera look for a IIF, if you can do without the slow speeds.

It seems that they often come up for sale in good condition for less than IIIFs.

Black dial a little rarer than red.

And, what is more, they often come complete with superb late Elmars.

Michael
 
My understanding is that the IIIc was the first model to have a more solid body construction - fewer pieces. Keep in mind the the small case letter is the significant update - the Roman numerals meant what the camera had on it.

Some feel that the IIIf with self-timer is the most admirable "LTM" model they ever produced. And the IIIg, being the last one, is usually expensive.

Now the big question: Why not go for an "M" model? They are a good bit easier to get along with when it comes to loading. If you find the right place, most Leicas can be "CLA-ed" to make them more usable.

I have an M4-2 and love it. I have never owned a screw-mount model, but I realize their appeal to many people.
 
No light meter. No parallax correction. No frames for other lenses. Been there done that. If it's a shooter you want you would be better off buying a Bessa R and making use of the Leica s/m lenses. But that's just me. Or move up to the M-series and do it right.
 
I CHOOSE to use my Leicas and ID stolen Zorkis .
Being ''sensible '' i would have spent my modest inheritance upon a Digibox , or an M 2/3/4 or simply continued to use my Minolta SRs and SR 7v - really up to date !!
If you need a camera which is sensible - forget about the Leica IIc or IIIf !
It's a different , more composed [ pun ] way of capturing the world with a Leica II or III ... of any description ...

dee
 
danwilly said:
No light meter. No parallax correction. No frames for other lenses. Been there done that. If it's a shooter you want you would be better off buying a Bessa R and making use of the Leica s/m lenses. But that's just me. Or move up to the M-series and do it right.
Click to expand...

I have both an M3 and a Bessa R - More often than not I still reach for the IIIf, usually with the collapsible 50/3.5 Elmar.

Part of the reason is that I usually shoot meter less. The main reason is I'm addicted to folders, which lets me carry both a medium format and 35mm in the same satchel. Thirdly, I've become accustomed to shooting meterless.

The Bessa R has its place, but it hasn't replaced my trusty IIIf or even my FED 2.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom