Leica LTM Looking for some advices on first buy

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
The main thing when getting a Barnack body is can you trust the seller that it is in good operating condition? I bought a IIIf from a camera store that claimed it had been serviced, but after the first roll of film I put through it I realized they didn't know exactly what they were doing. It's obvious they replaced one of the shutter curtains, and should have done both.

So make a good physical inspection of the curtains before buying it. If you see any crackling or folds, just set it back down on the counter, back your way out of the store, then run like heck!

You could also ask to run a roll of film through it to see if there are any defects. It would give you a little practice in loading and handling the camera. Try to not let it point at the sun.

Barnack bodies are the best type of camera to learn film techniques on, as it's so basic it forces you into making all the decisions as to how the image will come out. I started with a Zorki-1d, but after having to open it up three times to fix pinholes I figured I needed a camera with better shutter material, and good mechanical build. Canon P, Nicca III-S, then a Leica IIIf. Like them all, but the IIIf just feels better built. I still like the Zorki too, as I replaced the Id with a Ie. It works flawlessly, and the I-22 lens is a great performer (after I cleaned it out). But it's just not as built as the IIIf.

PF
 
So many people can't answer the OP's question. Question is which is the better buy the IIF or IIIF (which is local and hands on). The IIF is a very late model towards the end of production, so it's a late red dial. It has no slow speeds below 1/25 and a top speed of 1/1000. Personally I don't consider the lack of speeds slower than 1/25 an issue. Below 1/25 you need a tripod for a decent picture and with today's fast films rarely needed.

I have a IIIF and never use the slow speeds or rarely anything above 1/200th. With no film in the camera I'll exercise those speeds just to keep them working, another thing to check on the IIIF. Speeds not routinely exercised tend not to work at all.

The IIIF (black dial) has more features but now you throw in the lenses. Russian lenses are always a bit chancy due to quality control. The 50 Elmar is a very fine lens but you say it is beat up. Not sure what that means. Is the glass clean and the aperture oil free? Controls move freely.

If both bodies are in the same overall condition I'd go with the IIF just on the price difference.

Bottom line is the most important thing is which one is in better condition? Especially in regards to the rangefinder and viewfinder. RF and VF repair are extremely expensive, and other work is considered routine CLA.
 
Beemermark said:
So many people can't answer the OP's question. Question is which is the better buy the IIF or IIIF (which is local and hands on). The IIF is a very late model towards the end of production, so it's a late red dial. It has no slow speeds below 1/25 and a top speed of 1/1000. Personally I don;t consider the lack of speeds slower than 1/25 an issue. Below 1/25 you need a tripod for a decent picture and with today's fast films rarely needed.

I have a IIIF and never use the slow speeds or rarely anything above 1/200th. With no film in the camera I'll exercise those speeds just to keep them working, another thing to check on the IIIF. Speeds not routinely exercised tend not to work at all.

The IIIF (black dial) has more features but now you throw in the lenses. Russian lenses are always a bit chancy due to quality control. The 50 Elmar is a very fine lens but you say it is beat up. Not sure what that means. Is the glass clean and the aperture oil free? Controls mover freely.



If both bodies are in the same overall condition I'd go with the IIF just on the price difference.


Bottom line is the most important thing is which one is in better condition? Especially in regards to the rangefinder and viewfinder. RF and VF repair are extremely expensive, and other work is considered routine CLA.
Click to expand...

Thank you, the IIF is in excellent shape indeed, I don't think it has been used much, the Elmar has suffered a hit on the outside ring around the front lens but the lens is clean, I am not too worried about the lens.
 
FredericGeorge said:
I received new pictures of the IIF





Click to expand...




Someone has dropped that lens. I would not buy it. The lens elements are likely decentered which means that one side of the image will be less sharp than the other. If it was on that camera when dropped then there are probably issues with the rangefinder.


For what they're asking for it, you can buy one of these that is in better condition. It takes time to find a good one, be patient. It is worth it in the end. There is nothing more frustrating than a camera that doesn't 'just work' when you're trying to use it to make photographs.
 
I am so pleased that farlymac has mentioned the Zorki as by now it is established that you must expect to buy some camera, test it and perhaps be disappointed. This isn't surprising as a secondhand Barnack camera could be up to 95 years old and a lot can go wrong in that time.



So I would suggest you look at something like the original Zorki as they are a great improvement on the pre-war ones but only when chosen carefully, tested and then sorted out by one of the experts.


FWIW a Barnack can be pretty basic and it seems a shame to pay out Leica money and - worse still - Leica repair money when there's more conventional cameras.



FWIW (2) elderly FED, Leia and Zorki cameras that have been through the mill and put right all feel and behave the same. But a Zorki has a couple of superior features that are more practical like taking a cable release and the tinted RF and VF etc. Plus you can get them with coated lenses. And the money you save can buy a lot of film and then go towards the next camera; probably a Leica.


Trouble is; Leicas have a huge fan base, which make this post of mine difficult to believe. Try thinking of any film camera as a secondhand camera and you'll be one step nearer reality.



Regards, David
 
I have used a friend's Barnack and Elmar.
The results are really different to an "M".
Somehow pix look like taken ages ago..
Romantic, softer and a totally different appearance!
Look at Erik's images, often very sharp but different.
Note: the top speeds often are unusable, 1/1000, 1/200..
Loading is a nightmare, i load my M3, M2 in dark to get extra frames.
These are really old cameras, not for modern times..
Never carry the camera in coat pockets unless wrapped.
The lint and dust will surely get in..
 
David Hughes said:
I am so pleased that farlymac has mentioned the Zorki as by now it is established that you must expect to buy some camera, test it and perhaps be disappointed. This isn't surprising as a secondhand Barnack camera could be up to 95 years old and a lot can go wrong in that time.



So I would suggest you look at something like the original Zorki as they are a great improvement on the pre-war ones but only when chosen carefully, tested and then sorted out by one of the experts.


FWIW a Barnack can be pretty basic and it seems a shame to pay out Leica money and - worse still - Leica repair money when there's more conventional cameras.



FWIW (2) elderly FED, Leia and Zorki cameras that have been through the mill and put right all feel and behave the same. But a Zorki has a couple of superior features that are more practical like taking a cable release and the tinted RF and VF etc. Plus you can get them with coated lenses. And the money you save can buy a lot of film and then go towards the next camera; probably a Leica.


Trouble is; Leicas have a huge fan base, which make this post of mine difficult to believe. Try thinking of any film camera as a secondhand camera and you'll be one step nearer reality.



Regards, David
Click to expand...

Fair point.

In my career I've had a fair share of cameras, I personally believe that you could produce a decent picture even with a plastic lens.

I have no doubt that all cameras mentioned are equally good.

As said, I have been coming back to film, out of nostalgia maybe, but also because I found myself staring at my pro digital bag one day, thinking that I should replace my camera yet again, and that was a turning point.

As a pro I invested way too much to keep up.

I still own my first slr, a might Nikon FM2 coupled to a 50 1,2, the thing is a tank.

But along the years I took the rangefinder way, first digitally (if there is such a thing ^^) where I settled for a Fuji X100T - I have had it for years and it is still my go-to cam, it replaced everything else in my bag.

Regarding film, I tried for a while a might fujica 670, beautiful in simplicity, amazing lens, but too big.
So for medium format, I settled to a good old Hasselblad 500 CM, I used to have one years back.
Love the format, the "zenitude" and more of all it is mechanical, there are plenty available and I can get it repaired about everywhere so it will stay alive for years.

Also I went on the hunt for a small analog rangefinder that would please me as much as the X100T, I tried many, most of them failed to fill in the dots.

Following the same logic as for the Hassy I am now decided on the Leica, but I could be wrong.

I also really want to pause and come back to simplicity, I have eaten too many digital menus.

I am not too worried, its not such a big investment and they retain value (same as Hasselblad)

And now that I have been looking more at the results of the summitar, I know I have to try that lens !

So following all the reading here, I'll concentrate on a II/III c (not need for flash) and a summitar :)
 
FredericGeorge said:
...And now that I have been looking more at the results of the summitar, I know I have to try that lens !

So following all the reading here, I'll concentrate on a II/III c (not need for flash) and a summitar :)
Click to expand...


My Summitar lives on my IIIc and is one of the coated ones. It is a lovely lens. That's not a very technical term but it's the best I can think of...

Whatever you do, do not even think about the folding Leitz Summitar lens hood*. It is a display cabinet item imo.


Regards, David


*Also, I think it comes in two versions. It depends on the shape of the groove on the lens.
 
I have a IIc (max shutter speed 1/500) and a IIIc (max shutter speed 1/1000). I never use the slow speeds and in fact the 1/1000 is closer to 1/500...so in use the shutter speeds of both cameras are the same! I don't think the fastest shutter speed is ever achieved in these cameras but I also think it doesn't make much difference: the negative is just a bit darker...if you don't need flash you won't go wrong with a IIc or a IIIc. I don't think you will notice the design differences: the state of the actual camera will be more important e.g. the brightness of the windows, the condition of the curtains. As others have said, a CLA may be needed and gives peace of mind...I always use an external viewfinder. For 50mm, the SBOOI is great and looks good too!
 
David Hughes said:
...

*Also, I think it comes in two versions. It depends on the shape of the groove on the lens.
Click to expand...


Hi David, I think there are three:


https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=287046&postcount=13
FrankS said:
I have read that there are 3 versions of the Summitar with 3 versions of the barnshade hood. One version has no groove, one has a narrow v-groove, and another has a wider square-bottom groove on the lens nose. The clip-on 12585 hood for the Summicron fits best on the last type. This is the type that I have, and the 12585 hood fits well on it.
Click to expand...


https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=289120&postcount=14
payasam said:
FrankS is right about the three versions of the SOOPD. I'll only add that the clamp on kind (no groove) will fit any Summitar. To my horror, I note that everyone else has spoken of round hoods. The Summitar is a sensitive beauty which reacts badly to light which it does not put on the film. It is no coincidence that Leitz made the rectangular SOOPD for it, as well as rectangular hoods for the Summar and the Summarit and the Summicron. Twin lens Rolleis have square hoods. Of course, a round hood is ideal for a lens which puts a circular image on the film.
[EDIT] Sean Moran, who lurks among the M Leicas but who should soon make his appearance here, having acquired a II which is being set right, has just procured for me a clamp on SOOPD. I look forward to being laughed at for using the large and clumsy object, just about the most efficient that could have been made.
Click to expand...
 
FredericGeorge said:
I also really want to pause and come back to simplicity, I have eaten too many digital menus.\
Click to expand...

They are charming machines, but be warned a iiic is not a functionally simple camera. Compared to many Japanese and some Russian LTM cameras they are awkward and overcomplicated, pretty much whatever you do requires an extra 1 or 2 (or many more) steps to accomplish.

That summitar is a nice lens though.
 
Posting this simply to help you keep your motivation up. Find the right one and you'll enjoy it every time you pick it up.


17829519285_7e5af6709a_c.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom