Ade-oh
Well-known
I'm inclined to agree with Roger Hicks - Barnacks are fun to use but certainly less convenient and 'handy' than M's. I love my IIIc but my MP is far easier to use: I wouldn't use the word 'better' but more practical - certainly!
I've been thinking of getting a IIIg and a collapsible 50mm. I like the idea of a smaller daily carry rig.
Most of my shooting is in daylight, low light (or at night) or indoors where a faster lens and a bright viewfinder is helpful.
I'm not trying to replace my M6 for this kind of work,
just thinking about getting a IIIg for carrying around and shooting what I find in the streets or indoors, when I'm not officially taking pix.
Except for the built in meter, everything you mention describes my M6. A camera that I'm very familiar with and have been using for years. I find the M6 very practical and often better than the surrounding Auto-Focus (auto-everything) DSLR rigs.Practical? This is
unmetered
manual control
mechanical camera
with film
we're talking about. Practical it ain/t.
That's what I'm interested in.Satisfying and fun it can be.
Yes I know there are two small windows back there. The rangefinder and next to it the general viewfinder window.The only negative to your list of questions is the VF/RF experience which is totally different on a Barnack camera than on an M-series camera. As you likely know the VF and RF are separate. The viewfinder will be adequate or fine or great -- plus you can get a better one to mount on the top.
Wait. Now that's a direct quote."I can't see a f****g thing." Luckily there is a diopter control which will help a lot. (Lever-ish thing attached to the film rewind unit, can be slid back and forth.)
I guess I've been lucky, as I wrote above, my M6 has been through a lot and like an old samurai, it just shrugged it off and back into the mêlée we went. When the 35mm hood was crushed, I simply bent it out of the way of the lens (back to sorta-round) and continued shooting.Me, I enjoy them. My IIIf's have felt virtually indestructable to me, and my M6 I have proved isn't (a light drop led to major repairs). No one can tell you whether you'll like it. You're going to have to try one out.
The IIIg goes for a lot more than the IIIf. A IIIf red dial goes for $200-$250 and IIIg's go for $700 and up. You can research why the IIIg is supposed to be better -- I can't remember and have never felt inclined to pay enough to find out.
Thank you for your input. This is what I was wondering.What Mr. Hicks wrote. An M2 or M4 body, w/collapsible lens if necessary, would be a more practical solution & more compatible w/your existing M6 (no need for lens adapters).
I've shot a IIIg, IIIc, & various LTM copies (Reid, Leotax, Nicca, etc.) in low light conditions & while usable, they're far from ideal. Like you, I started off w/RFs in order to shoot in available darkness & using a Barnack is, IMHO, going backwards functionally. You get a small, light package, but w/none of the framing advantages of an M body or SLR & not optimal for low light shooting. The IIIg has a better VF than previous models (at the cost of a slightly bigger body), but you're still stuck w/the separate rangefinder, which isn't any better, & other LTM quirks (trickier loading & need for film trimming, separate shutter speed dials, etc.).
I do shoot fast but I was not planning on shooting fast with this camera. It was more for enjoying the process when just out and about rather than covering a show or something.I have a IIIf, but looking to sell it. I'm selling because I prefer medium format, not due to practicality. I think the LTM Leicas are plenty practical, the only real downsides are film loading, and film wind on. If you like to shoot fast, the wind on will likely slow you down too much. Otherwise, it's not all that different to an M. I do prefer the M models in generally, but the IIIf and IIIg are very small by comparison.
Stick with the M6, faster/easy to load, better viewfinder and meter in camera, you don't beat much space the IIIG is almost as big as a M camera anyway......
Tom
How did the screw Summicron differ optically from the M-mount of the same vintage?I have used the IIIg with Summicron for a carry camera. It is a bit heavy but a fantastic kit. The only thing that made it better was the addition of the Leicavit. My screw mount 50mm is far superior to any M mount of that vintage.
I especially like the middle one where it looks like she's being held by a giant troll. Funny. 🙂Never used a IIIg but I have no problems using me IIIa shooting my kids playing in the park.
Few from the IIIa
![]()
![]()
![]()
Yes. 100% Correct.What Randy said. The OP wants a light, compact carry-around camera to supplement, not replace, his M6. I assume he'll continue to use the M6 for low light, available darkness photography...
Yes. And if I find myself walking around at night or inside somewhere I will use it then if I have it. However I am not planning to use it to cover bands jumping around in dark clubs, no....so the Barnack and collapsible 50 would probably be used for daylight shooting.
I was at a small camera show yesterday and someone bought a Bessa and a lens, but they mentioned a Voigtländer Bessa can accept Leica thread-mount lenses. This guy thought it was a better value than saving up for a Leica lens or camera body. As I recall he spent about $500 or $700 which I thought was high for a beginner body and lens. I've seen used Leica for less. Of course when I made the choice I spent thousands right off the bat, but I knew exactly what I wanted and why. I was determined to see better and have the fastest lenses I could get in order to shoot bands in clubs with available light.With that understanding, a IIIg and collapsible 'chron is quite practical. A IIIf or IIIc or Canon IVSB2 would also fulfill the OP's requirements, and would likely be cheaper than a IIIg. The Canon has a single vf with adjustable magnification; put a little CV Skopar 50/2.5 on it, and it's a fine pocketable daily carry and quite rugged.
That's interesting.I have a Leica IIIg which I use with a Canon 50mm f1.5 sonnar type lens. I recently compared it (in a fanciful way!) with a Vito B in the photo.net, Classic Manual Camera section (4 April 2013). I also have a 50mm f2.8 collapsible Elmar. It's true that the IIIg has its idiosyncracies, all cameras do, but I found I could adapt to them and then the IIIg was joy to use. Thr rangefinder is 1.5x mag which aids focussing and the viewfinder is 0.7x mag with parallax corrected framelines (the earlier Barnaks are all 0.5x mag with no framelines). The only show-stopper is if you wear glasses, for you will certainly have to retrofit some kind of dioptric correction lens, as I described in my article. You really need to be able to get your eye close to the viewing port. I tried a seaparate 50mm viewfinder but it didn't work for me. That said about the viewfinder, with almost any lens it can certainly be a practical camera for everday shooting.
Funny you mention that.It seems that a case could be made for the Leica CL, no? It's small, has a meter, combined VF/RF, frame lines, M mount, normal-ish loading, probably cheaper than a nice IIIg.
I have used the IIIg with Summicron for a carry camera. It is a bit heavy but a fantastic kit. The only thing that made it better was the addition of the Leicavit.
My screw mount 50mm is far superior to any M mount of that vintage.
From those that are experienced:
• I'd like to know if you think this old camera and lens would be a practical choice?
Do you think they are as durable as an M6? Mine's been dropped onto concrete, kicked, banged, etc. The worst that's happened is the hood got partially crushed in front of the lens. The camera was fine as far as I could tell. I'm not suggesting that the IIIg will go through all that, but I'm not much of a babysitter and it will have to be somewhat durable.
• What would a current (2013) reasonable user price be for this camera and lens?
• Are there any major differences between the thread-mount Summicrons and the M-mount? Or are they really the same except for the mounting?
I like that I can use an adapter and get the 50mm on my M6 when needed.
• Any thing else I should watch for or ask about when I find one?
Any advise or experience is appreciated.
If you're so inclined, please feel free to:
Post photos of this set-up if you have it to help me visualize what it will look like when I get one.
Post photos if it helps illustrate your point(s).
Post photos taken with this set-up anyway, just for fun.
Thanks.
Of course adding accessories like a Leicavit, viewfinders, etc. will change the size and weight of the camera. However a Leicavit's functionality would be an extra feature on both a LTM or a M-mount, that one pays for in extra size/weight, etc. regardless. If you think it's worth it and it works for you, then you make that choice. If size is the priority then you don't. DoxLeica seems happy with what he's got and has decided this works best for him.I have used the IIIg with Summicron for a carry camera. It is a bit heavy but a fantastic kit. The only thing that made it better was the addition of the Leicavit. My screw mount 50mm is far superior to any M mount of that vintage.
How did the screw Summicron differ optically from the M-mount of the same vintage?
And with a Leicavit on it, I'd have thought that size and weight of a IIIg would be VERY close to a plain M. Slightly different shape, sure, but weight?
Cheers,
R.
I prefer the extra speed and I do shoot in low light interiors or at night sometimes....My personal thoughts are if you really need that extra speed or if it is going to be your only lens, I would opt for the Summicron.
You are probably right. And if you are primarily shooting on sunny days in the park it probably would be a waste of value. However test charts and sunny days are not the point of higher speed lenses, in my opinion. I don't think of these lenses as being better or worse than each other outside of obviously more modern corrections vs. older optical designs. They all get the job done and are way better than nothing. 🙂...Also, and this may get me into trouble with some here, unless you are very familiar with the characteristics of the lenses or are shooting test charts, I would bet you could line up a series of shots taken with both lenses and the vast majority would never be able to tell the difference as to which lens was used for which shot.
What you wrote about size and price is compelling and your summary really gives me something to think about. I'm definitely getting the fastest collapsible lens I can, but the differences between the IIIf and IIIg are interesting. Your pictures are very helpful too. It looks like the M body is quite a bit wider than the III body. I can see now how the IIIg is a little taller than the IIIf. Are they the same width?So, in summary, unless you really have a want for the IIIg and 'cron, I personally think that a IIIf with an Elmar will make for a better companion to your M6 outfit. If I were able to have a two camera outfit out of these, I would opt for the M2 and IIIf, but as I can only opt for 1, I went with the IIIg with a collapsible Summicron and yes, it does make for a fantastic everyday shooter.