Leica IIIg + collapable 50mm f/2 - Practical for Daily Shooting?

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!
 
Hi,

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to comment.
Just to reiterate the core points of my original post.
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.

Practical? This is
unmetered
manual control
mechanical camera
with film
we're talking about. Practical it ain/t.
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.
Just my opinion of course. 🙂
Satisfying and fun it can be.
That's what I'm interested in.
This will probably be more of an 'off duty' type of thing where there is a lot less pressure and I'm more enjoying the process. At least that's what I'm hoping for.

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.
Yes I know there are two small windows back there. The rangefinder and next to it the general viewfinder window.
I had not thought of adding a separate viewfinder on top. Maybe for the 50, probably for the 85. I've read there are 90 frame-lines but I think the massive 85mm will completely obliterate the viewfinder.

Oh damn! Gotta get another toy now... 😀
"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.)
Wait. Now that's a direct quote.
How did you know I've said that before? 🙂

You can adjust the diopter? There is a way to adjust the rangefinder?
That's interesting. Would that help in low light or at night?
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.
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.

Thanks for some ideas as to prices. I've seen some on line but they are usually in excellent, 8+ condition, etc. and I'm really looking for a user. A lower price for missing vulcanite? Great!

Thanks for your input. I appreciate your comments.


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.).
Thank you for your input. This is what I was wondering.
I could go with the IIIg or just get a collapsible 50mm for the M6 I already have and call it good.

I'm not too concerned with quirks like loading or separate shutter dials or an advance knob. Those things I won't need to deal with every single shot, or I'll get used to it or it's not that big a deal, but the viewfinder is needed every time. If I can't see what's going on in the room, it's hard to make a picture. Also size; most of the time I'll be carrying it, maybe in a pocket if it fits better than my M6, which is what I'm hoping for. A quarter inch here or there could be the difference between it fits in a pocket easily and it won't fit at all.


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.
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.
Smaller than a M is a big plus for what I have in mind.
Thank you for your comments.
 
I have the IIIg, and I do enjoy working with it, but for my purposes my little Leica II and the CV Heliar 50/3.5 is a terrific combination. Not quite as compact as the Elmar 50/3.5 but very close and the images are very good. However, based on the specs in your initial post, I must say that I shoot this primarily in the daytime and rarely try to use it at night.
 
Hmm, if those are the only worries you might as well go with a ZI. Even faster to load, even better viewfinder, still has in-camera meter, and is even lighter to boot. Put a 28mm MS Optical Super Triplet on it and it makes an awesome street shooter. :angel:

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
 
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 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.
 
Hi,

Thank you for the pix.
Great shots and inspiring to see what can be done.
Never used a IIIg but I have no problems using me IIIa shooting my kids playing in the park.
Few from the IIIa
med_U3357I1364831941.SEQ.1.jpg


med_U3357I1366451607.SEQ.0.jpg


med_U3357I1366571848.SEQ.0.jpg
I especially like the middle one where it looks like she's being held by a giant troll. Funny. 🙂


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. 100% Correct.
I love my M6 and have no intention of selling or trading it. If I get a IIIg it will be supplemental.
...so the Barnack and collapsible 50 would probably be used for daylight shooting.
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.
I've shot a lot with ASA 800 or 1600 even if the lens will only go down to f/2. Just might be using the front dial this time... 🙂
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.
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.
Thank you for your comments.

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.
That's interesting.
Yes, one can get used to the little idiosyncrasies of certain machines and tools. Once accustomed it just seems like second nature. Like driving a manual transmission car versus an automatic. I don't even think twice unless I'm driving a girlfriends car and trying to stomp through the floor or reaching out for a gear shift that is not there. 🙂
I don't wear glasses so I'm okay there.
Thanks for your post.

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.
Funny you mention that.
Just last night someone sent me a message asking if I wanted to trade my M6 for a Leica CL and a 40mm lens.

As to getting it instead of a thread-mount body, thanks for bringing that up, I guess it could be considered for the reasons you mention.
I'm interested in Leica thread-mount bodies because I can use any threaded lens I may get in the future (I already have one) and with an adapter use them with my M6 (which I do right now). I'm not sure if the Leica CL can accept all lenses equally as well as the lenses that were made specifically for it. Something about the shorter rangefinder width or something. I just don't know that much about it.

For example I don't know how the 85 mm would be on the CL or what difference would there be if I put a collapsible 50mm on there or a normal 50mm Summilux someday in the future, etc. Would there be focusing issues with the faster lenses I prefer?

I feel confident that will be okay with a Leica thread-mount body as I can always go forwards. I just can't go backwards and mount M-lenses to it.

I'm trying to avoid compatibility issues and having things that don't work together or sort of end up in their own cul-de-sac.
I loved taking my 1950 thread-mount 85mm lens to a Leica Day at my local camera shop, mounting it onto a 2013 Leica M (240) and shooting some test video.

Thank to everyone for taking the time to comment.
Much appreciated.
 
Hi,

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.

This was actually one of my original questions. I'd love to hear why you feel that way.
Also I know there are a few different ones out there; Summar, Summitar, etc. I don't know about all of them. Any out there you recommend or would advise against? What should I look out for?
What if the glass looks clean but the aperture and focus rings are a little sticky - usable but just a bit sticky?
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.

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.
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.

On the other hand while a 35mm or 75mm viewfinder would add to the Leica thread-mount size and shape, these frame-lines are included in the basic M6, for example.

Thanks for posting.
 
Nice thread but really it comes down to buy or get a loaner. If it fits your style and needs use it! Most of the people I've read have very user specific needs/wants. Lot's of users really enjoy using the III-G, others just don't get the same enjoyment. I own and use several Canons of different vintage and styles I like them all, but my favorite? Well let me see- -- -- what bag do I have today? Oh! today it's the Canon III. Used the Canon P yesterday, but of the five kinds of Canons I use all use LTM lenses. What ever your choice happy shooting.
 
My 2 Cents

My 2 Cents

I've recently compared a IIIg vs. an M2 in my quest to find my perfect 35mm rangefinder. It sounds to me like you are looking for an alternative to your M6 versus a replacement for it, something smaller and more pocketable, but still a Leica. I've added some pics to compare a M2 w/ Summaron vs. IIIg w/ Summicron vs. IIIf w/ Elmar.

Weight: In hand, the IIIg and M2 are very similar in weight with no real discernible difference. The M2 body weighs more, but the Summicron definitely makes up for the weight difference.

Size: The size isn't really all that different with the Summicron collapsed. In the pics, the M2 outfit looks a little thicker, but I realized after that I didn't push the lens cap on all the way. So outfit wise, the body/lens combos are just about the same thickness, with the M2 being just a hair taller and wider.

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. However, if this is not your only lens, you don't shoot a lot of low light, or your main concern is pocketability, I would definitely skip the Summicron and go with an Elmar. You can fill a freezer with film for the difference in the going prices. 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.

As for the body, again, if you want pocketability, I would go with a IIIf over a IIIg. It's smaller, lighter, easier to find parts for, and as with the lenses, you could fill a freezer with film for the price difference.

The IIIg is like the perfect middle ground between the Barnack line and the M line. It sacrifices some of the size and weight advantage of the Barnack in exchange for a bigger finder, framelines, and parallax correction. However, there is one thing to keep in mind. Because they were so limited of a production, it can be difficult to find parts for the IIIg. Mine had a little bit of separation in the viewfinder. It wasn't bad though and didn't at all impact the usability, even in low light, but since I was sending it in for CLA anyway, I asked Youxin to fix that while he had the camera open. He told me though that it can't be fixed because you can't find parts anywhere for the viewfinder unless you bought another body for parts.

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.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1055.jpg
    IMG_1055.jpg
    58.1 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_1061.jpg
    IMG_1061.jpg
    58.4 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_1065.jpg
    IMG_1065.jpg
    56.9 KB · Views: 0
Hi,

Thank you so much for your post.
I really appreciate the pictures to compare and contrast. Makes it easy to see the differences like this. Very helpful.

...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.
I prefer the extra speed and I do shoot in low light interiors or at night sometimes.
It won't be my only lens as the 85mm I have now (see sig. line) is a Leica Thread-Mount lens. It's quite big and heavy though and certainly not a lens for casually walking around with. So I was looking for something more reasonable and still fast enough as a primary lens; like the 50mm Summicron.
...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.
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. 🙂
I think being able to shoot at a faster shutter speed is the reason to have these lenses.
Shooting in a bar, restaurant, or on the street at night at 1/30th is way better than at 1/8th, for example. Combine that with some fast film and you have a good chance of using faster shutter speeds and really freezing the action, only using the available light.
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.
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?

The only thing I can ask is if the IIIg's viewfinder is brighter than the IIIf's? Also while the thread-mount will be a supplement to the M6, I'm not one of those guys who walks around with four cameras around his neck. In the end I'm only going to be carrying one or the other, not both. Meaning even though it's only 'per day' I'm also only opting for one, so maybe the same choice you made? I'll have to think about it.

Thanks again for your posting and pictures.
 
Hi Souljer,

For some reason I had it in my mind that you were planning to use this for a day time walk around camera, which is why I recommended the Elmar, as you really wouldn't need the extra speed of the 'cron.

To answer your questions, the IIIg is the same width and thickness as the IIIf, just a bit taller. The M is a hair taller than the IIIg with notable extra width and thickness. The viewfinder of the IIIg is much bigger and clearer than the IIIf. The IIIf VF is definitely sufficient, but there is a reason why you see many Barnack shooters with 50mm viewfinders. The framelines and parallax adjustment are also nice additions over the IIIf. However, it is definitely not an M finder.
 
Hi,

Thanks for the reply.
Your comment on the viewfinders and how many LTM users still mount a 50mm viewfinder on top is telling and interesting to weigh in.

Found this picture on another thread. It's clear the IIIg is smaller but not very small. Just enough to fit into a smaller pocket I guess.
See how great pix of these are?

If you guys have any relevant pix please post them.


 
I have shot LTM for about 6 years now, and own Leicae II, several III, and a III-f.

I friend loaned me an M-2 to try-out.

I have always wanted a III-g, but the price has put me off. I don't see enough gain in improvements to justify the extra cost. I still WANT one, but not for $700+ for a clean example, no lens.

If you don't need flash sync, you can get very nearly the same shooting quality from a post-war IIIc for less than half the cost of a IIIg.

I don't think I'd advise a IIIg as someone's very first LTM, unless they happened onto the tremendous bargain (fully-functional IIIg for less than $500).

My daily-driver LTM has been a $150 e-bay III from 1934 with peeling chrome on the top of the VF/RF housing, and it came with a 35mm/f:3.5 Komura lens. Bought it six years ago, and have put a couple hundred rolls of film through it.

My 2-cents, plain.
 
Back
Top Bottom