Leica LTM Looking at a Leica II. Any reasons not to get it?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Keth,

A large part of the answer, I suspect, lies in vastly greater use of ERCs in the past. I've seen some pretty scabby black paint on pre-war Leicas. BP Nikon Fs are what amaze me for durability.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I must be an exception to the mainstream around here ( which generally seem to despise eveready cases )... I would never lug around a camera I cared about w/o an ERC or some other body case....

I realize it's not a good thing for the camera / optics to store one away for long periods wrapped in leather, but it seems a bit silly to carry around several-hundred to a couple thousand dollars worth of gear naked, getting banged / scratched / rubbed...

My user Leica III ( not a beauty queen from the start, with its "sick" (peeling) chrome) rides around in the bottom half of an ERC from a III-g: nice metal strap rings rivetted to the case body, which acommodate a nice wide strap...

I wouldn't dream of carrying around one of my black Leicae "naked"...

I guess I'm just weird that way...
 
ERC = Ever Ready Case -- Thank you Luddite Frank!

Ever since Roger first mentioned ERCs up above, I've been searching to find if that was a paint additive responsible for the long-lasting finish on the black II cameras.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Well, I'll go against the grain and ask: why? You already have the Ms. Is the II going to get you better pictures?

Sure, they're very pretty. So's the Ultra Fex Himalaya sitting on my desk. But if you already have other cameras that you're happy with, and that take good pictures, why buy another? What are you unhappy about with the Ms? That's the real question.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

My main thinking was to utilize this little Summitar. Since the Summitar focus is off, it really needs it's own dedicated body, and a cheap little Leica II seemed like a good partner to it. For me, having another camera is like having another guitar- they all have their own sound and feel. More is always better, and it gives you more choices when going shooting.

:D
 
Just checked the serial number of my lens. It's a 1939, so that little 1939 Leica II body will be a perfect match. That's Fate, I gotta get it now :D
 
loquax ludens said:
ERC = Ever Ready Case -- Thank you Luddite Frank!

Ever since Roger first mentioned ERCs up above, I've been searching to find if that was a paint additive responsible for the long-lasting finish on the black II cameras.
Click to expand...


Well ... I'm glad I wasn't the only one!

I did a google search and came up with 'European Resuscitation Council'
amongst other odd things!

:p
 
"Since the Summitar focus is off, it really needs it's own dedicated body, and a cheap little Leica II seemed like a good partner to it."


Why not get your Summitar serviced and collimated by someone like Sherry Krauter, so that it is "dialed-in" and can be used on ANY "standardized" LTM body ?

Not trying to dissuade you from getting a Leica II; just seems a little counterproductive to dedicate a body to a wonky lens...
 
The Summitar came from Sherry Krauter and she CLA'd it. Good thought though. It's also been to Youxin with my M3. Youxin is the one that told me about the problem and why I was having such a hard time focusing it.
 
Youxin checked the lens on my M3 and his M8, and he checked my adapter against a Leitz adapter and they were the same.
 
Oh, and it's not collimation that's the issue, the focus is too far, which suggests something different. I'm good with just mating this lens to a little body all it's own and having fun with it that way.
 
Not sure what to say; All LTM cameras and Lenses made after mid 1931 or so came with standardised lens mounts...

Can you describe how your Summitar is "ouf of focus " ?
 
Yes, when you line up the rangefinder image, the actual focus is farther away. The body adjustment can be made to match the lens and everything will be good, or, if I can find an M8 or M9 to borrow, I can focus the lens and see how much the rangefinder image is out of alignment and just eyeball it like that. I'd prefer just to have a dedicated body for it, it would be unique that way. It would not be a daily/all-around shooter, so no loss.
 
Pirate said:
My main thinking was to utilize this little Summitar. Since the Summitar focus is off, it really needs it's own dedicated body, and a cheap little Leica II seemed like a good partner to it. For me, having another camera is like having another guitar- they all have their own sound and feel. More is always better, and it gives you more choices when going shooting.

:D
Click to expand...

This is one of those arguments I can understand only intellectually, in that many whose opinions I respect think the same way. My own view is that unless there is a clear advantage for a particular application (no matter how you define 'advantage' and 'application'), just 'different' doesn't really work for me.

Thanks for explaining, though. We can always learn from one another, even if we can't necessarily understand what we're learning (if you understand that somewhat convoluted argument).

Cheers,

R.
 
Just out of curiosity, Roger, what would persuade you to put a roll through your Ultra Fex? On my long list of things to do that I'll never actually get round to doing is roll my own and use mine... but then I'm a masochist!

Adrian
 
Proabably just as easy to have the Summitar's focus adjusted as part of the CLA, probably mis-assembly of the optical block messing up the focal length. Although it could be a mutt, with a focusing mount that doesn't match the focal length of the lens.

My own preference is a IIIa, so that you get 1/1000 top shutter speed, not that's it's a paragon of accuracy at that speed. With ISO 400 film, and a lens that only stops down to f/12.5, 1/1000 becomes somewhat useful in bright sun.

But if you want black, IIIa becomes challenging...
 
I would have thought if it were fixable that Sherry would have fixed it with her CLA. She sold it to a friend of mine for a very good price so I don't think there was any extra effort put into this lens. Youxin is the one that checked it out and told me about it, so I'm liking the idea of the Leica II as a permanent fix for it.
 
I just took a quick look at eBay for Leica II and the going price for the two that were listed (both silver) were $565 and $799 for body only. That's not a cheap camera. Also, under Leica II, most of the other cameras shown are Zorki I and various other Russian copies. There are two Zorki I cameras there for $49 if you're just looking for a small pocket camera. Any reason not to get one?...yes: the price.
 
Todd Frederick said:
I just took a quick look at eBay for Leica II and the going price for the two that were listed (both silver) were $565 and $799 for body only. That's not a cheap camera. Also, under Leica II, most of the other cameras shown are Zorki I and various other Russian copies. There are two Zorki I cameras there for $49 if you're just looking for a small pocket camera. Any reason not to get one?...yes: the price.
Click to expand...


Damn ... I paid $190.00 for my black Leica ll on eBay a few years ago. It's a nice camera but I wouldn't be paying $500.00 or more for one! :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom