Leica LTM as a more compact shooter (for an M owner)

[jett]

I have Leica M's (M2/M3) and rigid lenses. My favorite focal length is 50mm. I also have a Kodak Retina (50mm f2.0) but the ergonomics are slow to operate...not sure how much I like it but I doubt a more ergonomic folder exists.

I want to add a compact shooter that has high build quality, all mechanical, and rangefinder coupled. Preferably one that can fit in my pocket.

A collapsible lens I will get for sure but this leaves me to decide whether I want to go:
Leica IIIc + collapsible 50mm
M3 + collapsible 50mm

The latter option ofcourse gives me a wider selection of lenses that are usually more ergonomic and easier to deal with (39mm filter threads) and I can spend more money on that lens ($250-$300 more)

In practice, does a Leica IIIc feel more compact than an M? The thickness is about the same, the length is about the same, the height is lower, but I'm not sure if the weight feels any different. Ergonomcis are slower but I'm not sure how much this matters. (My main problem with the retina was the EVS system).

For those who have had my concern, what was your compact solution or did you just stay with M?

 

[siracusa]

If your favourite lens length is 50mm then an M3 with a collapsible 50 would be a classic combination.
A IIIc will feel slightly more compact than an M3. However, an M with a collapsible 50 is also nicely ergonomic.
If you already have an M2 and M3 and you are looking for a collapsible, then you could stick with that and sink the money you save into getting the very best condition lens you can find. Condition is everything with older lenses.
Having said that, if you get a IIIc you will find it slightly more compact than an M. And be aware that some LTM lenses will also allow you to use 39mm filters - eg collapsible summicron and collapsible Elmar 50 f2.8.
Good luck in reaching your decision!

 

[Pickett Wilson]

A IIIc is more compact. But, it is a very different experience from the M. Slower in every way. Small finder. An M with a collapsible lens would be more pleasant to use if you are going to shoot it much.

 

[rhl-oregon]

The Barnacks are like a wiry farmer whose sons (Ms) turned into big athletes. The comparison for me is more conceptual than physical. My iiic is a sparrow, my m4 a fat bluejay.

Best to locate one you can peer through before you romanticize the compactness. The split viewfinder takes getting used to, and once you look through it (even with the magnification adjusted), you'll understand why everyone talks about the bright clarity of the M3 VF.

Barnack-style cameras are exquisite--Leica, Canon, Nicca, etc. Some more than others. I'm glad I spent a little while with one before getting my own.

I don't have a compact 50, but my Voigtlander 35/2.5 sits very compactly on the iiic--the old ever-ready case fits neatly over it--, and I do not mind that it captures more than I can see through the VF. The 15/4.5 Voigtlander is also small and quite at home on the iiic, and allows it to be a nice close-up streetshooter/crowdshooter. My early Serenar 100/3.5 balances just about perfectly as a long lens--it was made for similar screw-mount Canons. I do have a Canon 50/1.4, but that is a heavy lens for the iiic.

Good luck with your quest--

 

[thawkins]

I have an M3 with a rigid 50mm Summicron. I also have a Zorki copy of the Leica II with an Industar copy of the Leica 50mm collapsable lens. It is much more compact than the M3 however its compactness is offset by the film loading, the tiny focusing window and tiny composing window. I think the Leica III will be about the same. The rangefinder on my Retina IIa is much better than the two window system on the early Leica and Russian copies. The Retina is also ergonimically challenging but its 50mm F2 Xenon Lens gives up nothing to the 'Cron on the M3. Everything is a compromise and we have to determine which one we can live with the easiest. Cheers!!

 

[rhl-oregon]

....On the other hand, my preferred compacts are Ricoh digitals (GRDIII, GXR/M mount), Ricoh GR1 (28mm), Rollei 35s, or a CL. Having handy metering is a bonus!

And I am more likely to pick up my Retina IIa for its 50 than the iiic, though each is (as the other posters attest) 'slower' to use than an M.

But stick to your compactness quest! The extra 170 grams (580 M3 v. 410 iiic) can make a difference if you're strapping one or the other all day--even in paradise....

 

[Timmyjoe]

Everyone is different, but here's what I found when I tried all the above combos.

Started out with a iiif and 5cm collapsable cron. Found it to be a little slower than I would like but it sure was small.

Got an M2 and put the cron on it. Certainly was faster to shoot and faster to focus. But the camera had some issues.

Then found an M3 and put the cron on that. Absolutely LOVE the viewfinder on the M3 when coupled with a 50. But I also have a 50 lux pre-asph and the image quality from the Lux pretty much smokes the image quality of the collapsable cron, as long as I don't need a pocketable package. So the Lux is now on the M3.

So the cron is back on the iiif and even though it is not my favorite rangefinder to shoot with, it is my smallest and most pocketable, so now it is once again my "carry around all the time" camera.

Hope that helps.

Best,
-Tim

 

[NeeZee]

Just try one. I use a IIIf as my main camera and didn't like the M2 as much when I tried it. People always go on about film loading with the Barnacks but after some practice it's not really more time consuming than with an M2/M3 (let's face it, all bottom loaders are a pain in the ass to load compared to swing backs). The IIIf is more compact than an M but still quite heavy. If you're thinking jeans pocket, get an Olympus XA...

 

[Frontman]

After using a Retina IIIc, I was amazed at how smooth it was, and how great the images were. But as a long-time Leica shooter, it was difficult to get used to the lens mounted shutter and aperture controls.

I have a lot of Ms, and a lot of Barnacks. I have often used a IId, IIf, IIIa, or IIIc with a Summar, Elmar, or Summicron. My favorite pocketable setup now is an FED S with it's 50/2 lens. The FED is far from being as smooth as my Leicas, but I like it's rough and rugged simplicity. The viewfinder window is squinty, but accurate enough, and the camera takes surprisingly good photos, the FED lens is in very good shape, and outperforms my Summar.

I now have 5, wait, make that 6 M cameras, but I don't consider them to be pocketable. When using a collapsible Elmar or Summicron, they are compact, but not in the same way as the old Barnacks. The early Leicas were designed to be carried a pocket, the M series was not.

 

[goamules]

If you want small, go for the cream of the crop:
- Nicca or Tower lever wind with an opening back, good viewfinder because they are newer.
- Leica IIIG, with the larger viewfinder
- Canon IVSB with the adjustable, single viewfinder.

I've used them all (except a iiig), and compared to an early Fed or Zorki the above have MUCH better viewfinders. Last week I compared the viewfinders of my Tower, Leica IIIc, II, and Canons, and a couple prewar Feds. Build quality is the same with all the Japanese and German makers, in my opinion. But the viewfinder on later cameras is the best, so go for a camera built at the end of the rangefinder era. Also consider upgraded options and innovation, like all the above have.

 

[Bingley]

I have a IIIc and a Canon IVSB2 for precisely the reason you state: to have a high quality film camera that is more compact than a Leica M (and I've got a couple of those, too). I love to shoot with the Barnack and Barnack wannabe, but I agree generally w/ Picket Wilson's assessment above. A couple of additional points:

First, I generally use an external vf even when shooting a 50: makes framing easier and you don't have to depend on the small, squinty vf.

Second, while a collapsible lens on a Barnack is great for pocketability, there are some very compact 50s that also work very well. The CV Skopar 50/2.5 is one example. Mounted on a IIIc, you can still easily slide the camera into a coat pocket, and you get the advantage of modern glass.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

hahaha...nice thread...the street shooter's dilemma.

If you are shooting with a 50mm, adding a hood
increases the profile quite a bit, however, without
a hood, the old lenses tend to flare quite a bit. I
fashioned a hood made of 2 filter rings, it worked
well for 50mm but caused vignetting on the 35mm.

Perhaps time to consider a Summaron. Nice sharp
and very small ?

raytoei

 

[Pioneer]

An M6 with an Elmar collapsible does not easily slide into a shirt or coat pocket like a IIIc or Tower Type 3 with the Elmar. The M is easier to use but it just is not as compact as the Barnacks are.

My Tower Type 3 rides in my pocket almost everyday, and is there if and when I need it. I do enjoy working with my M6 but I cannot say that it is with me every day. As for the viewfinder, after you have spent a bit of time with it you find that using it just comes natural.

But, different strokes for different folks. Thats why we have choices.

 

[philipus]

My favourite M is the M6TTL and that is by far my most used Leica. The second place in this "competition" is won by my Leica II. It is thinner, lower and lighter (the II weighs 400g and I don't think the IIIc is much heavier).

Even though the II has the VF and RF windows quite far apart (which the IIIc doesn't) I don't find it to be much slower to operate than my Ms, see below for my shooting style. It is different yes, but not much slower. I often bring it with me when I go jogging, simply holding it in my hand for 10km is no problem. I used to do that with my M3 and a Summitar, but that was a bit too heavy.

I tend to use either the Summitar or a Hektor 2,8cm f6.3 on the Leica II. The Summitar is an absolutely wonderful lens with great rendering. Compact and quick to focus. Plus the f2 really helps which is why this is my preferred indoors LTM lens.

The Hektor is my street shooting lens which I use without an external finder. I do have the VIOOH and TUVOO but I just use an ISO400 film f8 or 11, zone focus, snap away. Quick, easy and virtually invisible. I have considered getting the 35mm Summaron instead to get more flexibility with a wider aperture but so far I'm very happy with the Hektor, which also is so incredibly small.

I do use the Summitar for street too and of course it is as easy to zone focus as the Hektor. However, I find the more narrow field of view of 50mm requires me to put the camera at my eye and compose, something which I usually don't have to do with the Hektor.

Anyway, to end this tirade, my advice is to go for an LTM and try it out. They are easy to find for not much money. And chances are you'll get hooked and not want to sell it. There is a certain very satisfying and quite silent "clunk" when the shutter is tripped and the smaller form factor makes one feel this in the hands. It's just a very different shooting experience from the M.

Cheers
Philip

 

[georg16nik]

Leica IIIc or any true Barnack is substantially smaller than any M.
Just 2 different systems.

Leica IIIx shutter cage was redesigned and made of aluminum (the old I/II/III are brass), hence IIIx are lighter despite being a bit larger than I/II/III.

Serious advantage of some IIIc steppers is the double ball bearing shutter.
After using such IIIc, any M feels like tractor.. as far as shutter operation goes.

Having more than 1 system in any format might be GAS attack, take care.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Another vote for a SMALL collapsible lens (Elmar) on an M. Yes, the screw-mount has romantic appeal, and it's smaller -- but for me, that's outweighed by the way the M is just a lot easier to use.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

As you can see above, there are screw mount lovers and bayonet mount lovers. There are also those who sit on the fence. 😀

I wouldn't go back to a screw mount viewfinder. It's just too much like hard work for my taste.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Well, my 2d worth is to say that wanting a 50mm and compact limits you. And I guess a coupled RF as well? So you can only have a screw thread Leica or one of its numerous clones.

Personally, I'd pick the Contax Tix but that's AF, A priority and P mode with (gasp) APS film and that will put a lot of people off. Then there's the Olympus XA and so on. Like I said, just my 2d worth...

Regards, David

 

[Austerby]

For me, my IIIa really shines with the Voigtlander 25mm or 15mm LTM lens mounted, along with the external viewfinder. It's small and easy to scale focus. I've never really got on with the internal viewfinders so tend not to use it with 50mm lenses, though the viewfinder magnification window for focussing makes it easy to be precise.

 

[Vics]

I was in your spot exactly. The answer is YES the Barnack camera feels and is a LOT smaller and lighter. I bouight a IIf and a Summaron 35/3.5. I returned the camera to KEH because I realized right away that it was TOO SMALL for me. I couldn't get my fingers down into the body to pull the film out! My problems with the camera were particular to some physical, age-related problems of my own. The camera was perfect for what you're talking about. I went for the IIF because I couldnt hand-hold slow shutter speeds anymore, so why have them?
EDIT: BTW, I thought the rf/vf on the Barnack were surprisingly bright and easy to use.