Leica LTM Leica on a budget

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
cmedin said:
I will take a considerable look at the Canons. Compared to the II/III series Leicas how do the Canons shape up prons/cons? Sorry for all the questions, but you guys are an excellent resource and this is one area of camera gear that I am very clueless in.
Click to expand...

There are a number of smaller detail differences between the Leica II/III & the Canon III/IV series of cameras, but the important differences are in the viewfinders. Canon's major innovations were to use a combined VF/RF and to have multiple magnifications. There is a lever under the rewind knob that is marked F, 1x, & 1.5x. The F position gives a 50mm FOV with an accuracy sufficent for a slower lens like the 50/2 or 50/1.9 collapsibles. The 1:1 1x position gives the FOV of a 100mm lens (which is very usable for a 90mm lens as well) and is more accurate in focusing. The 1.5x gives the greatest accuracy in focusing and is very useful for larger aperture lenses (the 50/1.5 springs to mind) and gives a FOV appropriate for the 135mm lens. Anything wider than 50 will require an accessory VF but that shouldn't be an issue based on your earlier preferences. A Leica II/III by contrast requires an external VF for anything other than a 50mm lens and has a separate higher magnification RF window and the 50mm FOV VF window.

I really need to save the pennies for another IVSb - I had one and regret selling it. I found it much nicer in use than the one Leica III I've had a chance to use. Build quality seemed just about the same to me.

Peter Dechert, who has his own forum here, is pretty much the Canon RF guru. A question or two over in his forum might be useful for you.

In the end, I'd recommend the IVSb with a nice chrome Canon 50/1.8 or 50/1.5 lens. When you do want to go longer, the Canon 100/3.5 is another lens that works very well with this camera. But then again, I am a Canonista... ;)

William
 
You might also look into Nicca bodies. The feel of my IIIf and my Nicca IIIs is very much the same. The slow speeds the IIIs are a little erratic; the more I exercise the shutter the more accurate they get. :)
 
Leica_Barnack_08.jpg


You want a Leica for cheap? This one was actually cheaper than all of my CANON RF at ebay and WORKS...245USD not including the brightline finder

It isn't bigger than your Bessa-L, but full metal.

It was the predecessor of the Bessa-R, 65 years earlier.

If you need 1/1000s buy a Leica IIIa (but no black originally)

If you want a meter you need a Leitz CL but this is just half a Leica, and most have problems with meter. So better look for a M6.
 
Last edited:
I'm a Canon collector, but I also own other gear. If you want to stay relatively inexpensive, but still try the Leica, I'd suggest a nice IIIa. It can be had with the
Summar 50/2, which is a very interesting lens. It has that soft so-called Leica Glow, and is fun to shoot with. It's small, collapses, and cheap. Main problem is usually haze, but cleaning is easy and cheap.

The IIIf is a nice camera, but quite a bit higher in price. From a ROI standpoint, I'd stay with a IIIa. You can always add a Summitar lens, also cheap, and get a different look to your shots. On another tack, the 50/1.8 Canon lens is a fine performer, and undervalued.

Harry
 
I suggest a Leica IIc, IIIc, IIf, or IIIf. The only difference between the c and the f is flash synchronization on the f at 1/25 or 1/30th of a second. That's not very useful and I never use flash with an RF anyway.
I also agree with a previous post, I never use the slow shutter speeds on my IIIf so a IIIc would do.
So taking these things into account, your best buy would probably be a IIC.
For lenses, I like my 50mm f/2 Summicron. It is collapsible and fast.
Good luck!
Eric
 
cmedin said:
Before I decide I can't really get into the RF stuff (I've tried a few, and some are nice, but I just can't really seem to get serious with it) I'm considering trying out the real deal.
Click to expand...
Dou you mean the real deal as in a Leica, or as in a good, functional, professional, high-quality rangefinder camera?

If the real deal is a Leica to you, then get a Leica screwmount, wait for a good deal and hope that the camera is in good shape.

If you want a good camera, get a Canon. Build quality is not any worse than on the Leicas IMHO, the finders are better, and the cameras are simply much more functional than the old screwmount Leicas and better to use.

Philipp
 
I might be completely out of theme here, but why did no one suggest a Bessa T?
It is obviously inspired in the leica LTM, modernized, with quick M-mount, built in light meter and really cheap nowadays.

And for what I've heard, the build quality is far superior from that on the bessa L.

just my o.2$
 
cmedin said:
Before I decide I can't really get into the RF stuff (I've tried a few, and some are nice, but I just can't really seem to get serious with it) I'm considering trying out the real deal. I have a Bessa-L with 25/4 (both mint) that I am considering putting up for sale, which I think should get me enough to pick up a screw mount Leica body. Now, if I get one, what should I do lens wise? I am not so worried about optical superiority as I am getting something that 'feels right' to shoot (in other words, I care more about the camera body and rangefinder focusing than the sharpness); so I would gladly slap a cheaper lens on there just to give the camera a workout.

So: what body should I be on the lookout for, and what price range? And what would be a decent inexpensive lens (I'm assuming something russian) for it?

Edit: I should mention that the lens would be in the 50-85mm range since that's where I seem to enjoy shooting.
Click to expand...

One more thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is that if you go on the Leica screwmount route, you'd have to manually scissor-trim the leaders of *every* film. I used to think that this is a deal breaker for me. So if you think it's ok, then... ok :)

Have you considered Fed 2?
 
You want build/heft, try a FED-2. You can't get a higher quality/price ratio. I admit, you have to shop around and perhaps you buy two-three bad ones before a good one, but even then you've not lost more than a $100 (and that's including a lens)!
 
The IIIf, no light meter, no parallax correction, no frames for anything other than 50 mm....way too limiting for serious shooting. Get the Bessa R and buy some good Leica glass and you will get the best of both worlds.
 
cmedin said:
I think you pretty much missed the point:
Inexpensive
50mm and up
Screwmount
Click to expand...

I have used LTM Leicas and the Bessa R (and various M mount cameras).

The Canon P is impossible to beat for its current used price, IMO.
Get that, and a screw mount 50/2 Summicron or a 50/1.4 Canon LTM
lens and you will be happy for a long time.

You get the "Leica M feeling" for less than the price of a good Barnack body.

Best,

Roland.
 
rxmd said:
Dou you mean the real deal as in a Leica, or as in a good, functional, professional, high-quality rangefinder camera?

If the real deal is a Leica to you, then get a Leica screwmount, wait for a good deal and hope that the camera is in good shape.

If you want a good camera, get a Canon. Build quality is not any worse than on the Leicas IMHO, the finders are better, and the cameras are simply much more functional than the old screwmount Leicas and better to use.

Philipp
Click to expand...

Well, I was hoping to experience that 'jewel like quality' and feel, together with some choice lenses down the road. If the Canon would get me there, and be an overall better value, I'm all for it. The Bessas, while nice cameras of their own, don't really fall into that category from what I understand. :)
 
I was reading Karen's site earlier today and the one thing that stood out as 'neat' on the IV was the switchable magnification viewfinder. Is it not really all that? It seemed like a great concept...

I'll see if I can check out a P locally somewhere.
 
cmedin said:
I was reading Karen's site earlier today and the one thing that stood out as 'neat' on the IV was the switchable magnification viewfinder. Is it not really all that? It seemed like a great concept...

I'll see if I can check out a P locally somewhere.
Click to expand...

It all depends on how you shoot of course. But 1:1 constant magnification
means you can shoot with both eyes open - which some of us really love.

Rolan.
 
ferider said:
It all depends on how you shoot of course. But 1:1 constant magnification
means you can shoot with both eyes open - which some of us really love.

Rolan.
Click to expand...

I find that I can shoot with both eyes open even on my IIIc. It's like a viewfinder mask over my eyes.

danwilly said:
The IIIf, no light meter, no parallax correction, no frames for anything other than 50 mm....way too limiting for serious shooting. Get the Bessa R and buy some good Leica glass and you will get the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

Dan,

If we were talking about practical needs, then all classic cameras, Canon, Nikon, Leica are out of the question. But in this forum, I don't think it's all about practicality, but more of what you feel and desire. A Toyota is a perfectly good car, but some people prefer a vintage BMW with lousier brakes, engine that guzzles fuel, high maintanance cost, etc. Just my opinion




I don't think it's the matter of the brand anymore, but whether the camera feels "right" to you. Thats the most important thing that will either see the camera unused 3 months from now or a daily user.

Samuel
 
I'll add a vote for the Industar 50 (or 22) if you get a screw-mount body. Tack-sharp and the collapsible version makes for a pocketable setup on a small body like the II or III.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom