Leica IIIf impulse buy.

[rbiemer]

Last fall I was in Savannah, GA on a family trip to deal with our mom's remains.
It was a good trip, ultimately. Certainly a bit somber but not entirely so.
On my last day there I had time to wander around a bit and ended up in an antique/junk store.

And walked out with a newly purchased Leica body.
That is not in great condition, that I bought knowing that I really don't like the split rf/vf windows. That I knew would need (at least) the rf serviced or replaced.

Once I got home, I put it on one of my book shelves with an I-22 lens on it and was just happy that I didn't pay very much for it.

Like a lot of us, I've had quite a bit of free time on my hands lately and this is given me some time to think about this camera and why I bought the thing.
I believe the camera could be sorted and then be a pretty good camera to use for somebody who likes using a screw mount Leicas but that's not me.

Which makes this IIIf my "worst" camera purchase. NOT because it's a bad camera of course, and not because it is not in perfect condition. But because, even though it was a fair deal (I believe) for the price, it was not a purchase that is useful to me and to my photography.

I suppose I will take it as another lesson and reminder to try to be more, well, focused on what I want to do with any camera and whether or not any particular camera will help that or will be a distraction.

No particular questions here today, just a bit of a rant about that knuckle head I still can be some times...guess I am happy I don't have any really expensive hobbies. 🙂

Rob

 

[Timmyjoe]

Rob, before you make a final decision, you might want to shoot a bit with it. There is something about the old Barnack Leicas that is hard to describe, and needs to be experienced. Sure, it's not a Mirrorless Digital Wonder, but it's a very solid image capturing device. I'm working on a long term project (which is unfortunately on coronavirus hold right now) using a few Leica IIIc cameras and lenses from the 1950's. It was happening as I was covering work during the day, and shooting the Barnacks at night. To go from a big DSLR with zooms to the tiny Barnack with even tinier primes, was such a welcome change.

Has to be experienced to be appreciated.

Just a thought.

Best,
-Tim

 

[rbiemer]

Tim,
Good idea honestly.

But I have owned and used a similar era Leica before. Can't now remember if it was a II or a III. I mostly really like the cameras but for the rf/vf system. Which is a large reason why I bought a Canon IVsb2.

And is just another reason that this was a poor choice for me.

I probably will keep it, put my Voigtlander 21mm lens on it and just use the vf for that lens and scale focus. Treat it as a If. Especially since those seem to be much more expensive.

Rob

 

[retinax]

As you don't like the split RF/VF and the RF isn't working, you could think of it as a wideangle camera to be used with external VF and zone focus... otherwise sell it.

 

[retinax]

Ahh you wrote that you'll do what I suggested while I was typing. Great minds... or just the obvious.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Done it too many times. I've now got a cupboard to sort through.

 

[charjohncarter]

I'm not crazy about the split rf/vf either; but the magnified rf is really easier to use than my other RF cameras. I have one of those adjustable Leitz finders that I use (for different focal length lenses) so I usually don't use the vf on the Barnack.

 

[02Pilot]

Echoing others, I love my Barnacks, but I very rarely use the RF, and basically never use the VF. Every one of them mounts an external finder of some sort, and I tend to zone focus most of the time. Easy with a 21, but also with a 28 or a 35, and even a 50 will work provided you're not too ambitious. Treating it like the original finders aren't there makes for a much better shooting experience, IMO.

 

[KoNickon]

I guess I have to ask the crass (and maybe out of bounds) question: So what did you pay for it? If it was a great deal, then no worries. If you paid too much for something you know you won't be using, that's a whole other matter.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I purchased IIIf with lost lens on the back (common issue with plastic lens holder, getting old and cracking, failing) and advance, shutter issue. It was not expensive. After I realized I don't want to deal with repairs, I sold it for same if not for more.
If OP deal was good deal, he could always sell it without loss. Not a big deal then. And nothing "worse".

My worse LTM deal was from some american dude on eBay selling cameras after repair CLA.
I purchased, tested, scanned, it was OK. After return period was expired, I realized this camera looks mint because it has not significant, but manufacturing defect, deteriorating RF mirror and clapping shutter.
This one I would have to sell for less, if I'm not going to fix it 🙂

 

[rbiemer]

I guess I have to ask the crass (and maybe out of bounds) question: So what did you pay for it? If it was a great deal, then no worries. If you paid too much for something you know you won't be using, that's a whole other matter.

I paid $100. Not an amazingly cheap price but I think it was a decent price. And, as mentioned, I knew it was going to need to be sorted--the focus patch is there but very dim.

I don't consider your question either crass or out of bounds.

This was not a bad deal in terms of the money spent but more in terms of I should simply have passed on it. If it had been seriously cheap for condition, it might have made sense to pick it up to turn it around for a few bucks. But it really was impulsive and that is why I consider it my "worst" camera buy.

Rob

 

[mcfingon]

The rangefinder patch dullness can be just the beam splitter mirror. I bought one from a seller on eBay for $15 called nobby sparrow and had a camera shop fit it. John Mc
https://www.ebay.com/str/nobbysparrow

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

I had a similar experience to Rob, and ended up with a Leica III that I was never really aware that I wanted. After a couple of rolls, I realised that I really, really didn't want it and sold it on (significant, I'm terrible at selling cameras). The build quality was decent, everything else was, well, annoying (to me).

I like simple, mechanical cameras that get out of the way, and I've had plenty enough opportunity to realise that I don't particularly enjoy quirks or idiosyncrasies. I think it's fair to say screw-mount Leica are full of quirks (which is a big part of why some people love them)...

Nowadays I still need to remind myself once of twice a month that I really don't want a IIIg. GAS is a terrible affliction.

There is something about the old Barnack Leicas that is hard to describe, and needs to be experienced.

Their 'annoyingness'?

For me anyway 🙂

 

[Dralowid]

Sometimes I wonder how my photography would have turned out if I hadn't bought my first Leica in 1965 and entered the world of expensive gear.

I doubt it wouldn't have been worse.

 

[Ste_S]

I had a similar experience to Rob, and ended up with a Leica III that I was never really aware that I wanted. After a couple of rolls, I realised that I really, really didn't want it and sold it on (significant, I'm terrible at selling cameras). The build quality was decent, everything else was, well, annoying (to me).

I like simple, mechanical cameras that get out of the way, and I've had plenty enough opportunity to realise that I don't particularly enjoy quirks or idiosyncrasies. I think it's fair to say screw-mount Leica are full of quirks (which is a big part of why some people love them)...

Nowadays I still need to remind myself once of twice a month that I really don't want a IIIg. GAS is a terrible affliction.



Their 'annoyingness'?

For me anyway 🙂

Get a Canon P instead.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Get a Canon P instead.

As I mentioned, GAS is a terrible affliction and a Canon P is already on the long list. Don't tempt me...

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Handled a Canon P the other month at my local film camera shop, came with a lovely 50mm f1.4 lens. Bright viewfinder, bigger than the III I've got, certainly a much better idea than a Soviet RF for not a lot more, but I didn't bond with it. He also had a VT which I adored but the finder was so much smaller.

I've been taking my III out (easy to hide should PC Plod question whether my walk is for exercise) and I noticed the magnified rangefinder picking out details that make it insanely easy to focus, but the viewfinder is still a bore and slightly off. I respect it as a camera, but it's by exception it goes out.

 

[mcfingon]

I agree Charles, the portabiblity of a Barnack with a collapsible lens is hard to beat. Here's my III compared with my M6. John Mc

 

[Solinar]

If you already know that this won't ever be your cup of tea, place it into the RFF classifieds for bit more than you paid the antique shop.

To add to the comment by John Mc - granted that ergonomics are dated, but the Barnacks are useful when you want a quality 35mm camera that fits in a coat pocket.

But because, even though it was a fair deal (I believe) for the price, it was not a purchase that is useful to me and to my photography.

Rob

Question: What is your current go to compact 35mm film camera?

 

[Rob-F]

I think you made an emotional decision, to replace a loss in a time of grief. The IIIf appears to have served its purpose. You don't like it, so why not dump it and treat yourself to something you want?