Leica weight compared to Canon/Zorki/Minolta

[paniolo]

Hello Photographers,

I just read that for example a Leica IIIf weights about 400g body only.
When I check the Canon Camera Hall it says that the similar Canon bodies weight about 600-700g.
Are they realy that much heavier than a normal Barnack?

Can anyone of you confirm that?
The thing is, I realy like my Canon P and Leica M3/M2, but the weight of them makes me go nuts in some situations.

Regards

 

[zauhar]

Have not weighed them, but Canon 7 is definitely bigger and heavier than IIIf.

Randy

 

[JRminox]

Mine weights 640 grams with a 36 cassette inside. 651 with the body cap on. Built like a tank, strong as a tank.

 

[David Hughes]

The obvious comparison:

Leica II body alone 416g and FED 1 body 404g...

So much for the FED being built like a tank!

Regards, David

 

[paniolo]

Would you go for a FED 1 / Zorki 1 as an everyday camera instead of a Leica II-III?
Im interested in shutter sound and reability.
I will use it with a 5cm SBOOI finder anyway.

regards

 

[tunalegs]

Hello Photographers,

I just read that for example a Leica IIIf weights about 400g body only.
When I check the Canon Camera Hall it says that the similar Canon bodies weight about 600-700g.
Are they realy that much heavier than a normal Barnack?

Can anyone of you confirm that?
The thing is, I realy like my Canon P and Leica M3/M2, but the weight of them makes me go nuts in some situations.

Regards

They weigh more because they're vastly superior cameras. I'm only being half tongue in cheek with that statement. But the P and the M series cameras have hugely improved viewfinder and rangefinder systems compared to the barnack leicas and their clones. This means they weigh more. But better viewfinders are more important to taking good photos than weight is (well actually a heavier camera is generally also a steadier camera, so that's not a downside either).

 

[paniolo]

Of course they weight more but when I compare Barnacks with Canons I mean the Barnack styled Canons from the 50's.
They look nearly identical.

 

[Dez]

Comparing apples and apples, the later bottom-loading Canons, such as the IVSB are of considerably heavier construction that the Barnacks. I have a very nice Canon IVSB-2, which I think is by far the best built and most robust bottom loading 35mm camera ever.



The combined VF/RF with three magnifications was far beyond anything that ever appeared on the Barnacks as well. While the Canon P seems to be the collectors' choice, the earlier ones are quite undervalued, and usually a bargain when they appear for sale.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[David Hughes]

Would you go for a FED 1 / Zorki 1 as an everyday camera instead of a Leica II-III?
Im interested in shutter sound and reability.
I will use it with a 5cm SBOOI finder anyway.

regards

Hi,

What difference would it make apart from the better RF, lens coating and cable release arrangements of the FED and Zorki versions?

Regards, David

PS Not that I'd use any of them as an everyday camera. Too much hard work.

 

[Dez]

What difference would it make apart from the better RF, lens coating and cable release arrangements of the FED and Zorki versions?

Lots of heretics out there today, methinks. My everyday camera tends to be a Panasonic 4/3.

For weights, though, here are a few, body only:
Canon IVSB-2 535 gm
Leica II 420 gm
Leica IIIf (with ST) 430 gm
Leica M3 600 gm
FED-1 435 gm
Late model FED-2 520 gm
Zorki 6 565 gm
Panasonic GS-1 365 gm
Nikon D700 1110 gm

Cheers,
Dez

 

[xayraa33]

The thick squarish body corners and that side Flash-gun rail add un-necessary weight to most Canon bottom-loader cameras in my opinion.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Would you go for a FED 1 / Zorki 1 as an everyday camera instead of a Leica II-III?
Im interested in shutter sound and reability.
I will use it with a 5cm SBOOI finder anyway.

regards

Do you really want only II or III?

I restored and used two like new Zorki. Reliability isn't the issue, after they are cleaned from old grease and dry out curtains are replaced . Can't compare them to their direct originals (II), I used IIf instead, which was made at the same period my two Zorki were made. In fifties. And acquired under almost similar cost.

Both Zorki cameras were not even near to quality of IIf.
RF patch on both Zorki was kind of dull, while on IIf it was different and fine.
And they still sell new RF half-mirrors for Leicas.

IMO, with prices of working Zorki and working IIf it makes no sense to waste your money on Zorki. Both cameras are priced low enough to be "no regrets to lose" everyday cameras.

Also bear in mind what Summar and LTM Summitar most likely are not going to work at Zorki, due to small height of RF flange. But in opposite FSU LTM glass will works on Leica.

IIf has dioptric correction, which is another plus.

The only advantage over low priced IIf which makes sense to me 🙂 was primitivity of Zorki construction. Absolutely everything is possible to fix in them by DIY. While, I didn't even dare to take off IIf top cover.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

My FED 1 and Zorki 1 feel and handle just like my Leica II. Using the FED 10 or Elmar makes little difference but the FED 10 has the slight edge as it is coated.

As I said, the cable release and better RF view give them the edge over the Leica II. All of them are kept for the pleasure of using them but they are never everyday cameras to me.

Another advantage of the old USSR made cameras is that you can have the fun* of that 1930's dream by putting a Jupiter-8 on a FED 1 and imagining it was a Leica model II with a Carl Zeiss Sonnar. It's even better with one of those nice Chinese vented lens hoods.

Regards, David

* Fun is, surely, what it's all about with these old cameras. They're just big boys' toys, imo, and dirt cheap to buy and retore..

 

[paniolo]

hahaha nice comments.
Ok lets see.
I will put my hands on a Zorki 1 first.
If its nice, I will hunt down a freshly CLAed IIIf or c.

I once had a Zorki 4k with diopter lever. That piece was annoying.
Is that lever on a Barnack Leica annoying too?

 

[Dez]

I don't know about annoying, but it certainly is useful, especially for people like me who wear glasses. I have a Leica II, and an early FED, but I almost never use them because it is so hard to focus.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[David Hughes]

Oops

Oops

Sorry, only the Zorki has the standard cable release. The FED 1 has a Leitz style shutter button. As shown here:

There's a lot more about them, mostly correct, at

http://idrh.smugmug.com/Photography...rki-1s/12711309_v9DRD7#!i=914872409&k=F9zMKKw

Regards, David

 

[pete hogan]

Contented, everyday user of a Zorki 1 with Tri-X and FOMAPAN 400. An anachronism perhaps.

 

[Dez]

An anachronism perhaps.

A label that may apply to most of us on RFF, I suspect.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[goamules]

Personally, I'd give the Canon IVSB and Niccas a good look. They have a lot going for them including better reliability, better fit and finish, better viewfinders, better shutter "sound" (since that is one of the OPs criteria), on, and on....

I would not give up all those important things to save 50 grams of weight on a 70 year old Zorki. Especially considering a large Starbucks coffee weighs 473 grams, your wallet weighs 100 grams, the change in your pocket and cell phone weighs....

I just can't understand complaints about carrying basically micro cameras around, when a DSLR weighs as much and is 3 times larger, and no one every complained about them.

 

[Bingley]

Comparing apples and apples, the later bottom-loading Canons, such as the IVSB are of considerably heavier construction that the Barnacks. I have a very nice Canon IVSB-2, which I think is by far the best built and most robust bottom loading 35mm camera ever.



The combined VF/RF with three magnifications was far beyond anything that ever appeared on the Barnacks as well. While the Canon P seems to be the collectors' choice, the earlier ones are quite undervalued, and usually a bargain when they appear for sale.

Cheers,
Dez

Agree with this. My IVSB2 feels distinctly heavier than my IIIc. The combined vf /rf in the Canon, with adjustable magnification, makes it especially good for fine focusing.