LTM to M switch ?

[PeterL]

Hi,

I'm a recent convert to RF cameras, with my first Zorki being only in my posession since February. I liked it a lot but I wanted long shutter speeds, so a crappy Leica iiic joined the collection and works fine after a good CLA. And I love the Summitar lens ! But I'm getting really frustrated at the RF window. On the iiic, it's much more squinty than even the Zorki. I find it's impossible to focus in low light because I just can't find an area that shows enough contrast. I love the iiic, but it's too unusable for me. So I'm considering selling my cameras and getting an M3 with an LTM convertor ring instead.

How does the combined VF/RF of the M3 compare to the iiic ? I hear it's really a world of difference. No more squintiness & easy focussing when it's pitch dark ? Is there any problem using the Summitar on the M3 ? Does it collapse okay, no RF problems, ... ?


Thanks,


Peter.

PS: yeah, yeah, I've got GAS thanks to you guys. Good job. Well done. I'll probably start wanting M lenses too. Where's my checkbook for those pre-ASPH 35 & 75 Summiluxes ? 🙂

 

[FrankS]

I have both types of cameras and there is a world of difference in viewfinders. Not so much difference in the RF patch so perhaps your cameras' RF systems have deteriorated a bit Using an external viewfinder even for the 50mm lens is a good idea with cameras with squinty viewfinders.

 

[PeterL]

Hi Frank,

It's not so much the VF that is the problem, it's the RF. I just can't get it focused in low light. I just had it CLA'd and everything seems fine, but focusing seems much more difficult than with my Zorki.

If the RF patch of the M3 isn't much better, then getting one won't be the answer to my problems :-S


Peter.

 

[FrankS]

You need to check it out yourself. Is there any way you can hold a Leica M camera? Either a camera shop or a fellow photog who lives nearby?

With RF focussing, you need to find a contrasty section to focus on, not just the general scene. You can also choose a substitute subject the same distance away as your intended subject, get a focus on it, then use that setting for the final image.

 

[PeterL]

Thanks Frank,

I tried those hints that you gave me with varied success. I know a shop where I can probably try an M before handing over large amounts of cash.


Peter.

 

[jkelly]

Like Frank said, the difference is in the viewfinder, and the fact that the RF and VF are combined in one window. I have both a IIIa and a double stroke M3. I got an SBOOI finder for the IIIa because of the squinty viewfinder, and I use LTM lenses on both. I find that I use the M3 more than the IIIa because its just easier. Plus the fact that when I change focal length lenses, I don't need to worry about an auxillary viewfinder with the M3. I also like the faster film advance and the softer shutter on the M3. Focusing with the rangefinder of either camera is tricky in low light.

As Frank said, you need to focus on a small contrasty object such as jewelry or some other reflective object like a glass or a doorknob. Actually, in low light the IIIa might have a little advantage, since its RF has 1.5 magnification. I suggest that you spend some time practicing low light focusing without the pressure of having to make a shot and wasting film. Its possible to have rangefinders re-silvered but its expensive.

 

[jkelly]

Oh, and you asked about using a Summitar on an M3. That's my primary 50mm lens. Works like a charm. I also like the LTM 9cm Elmar. A recent picture taken with each is attached.

 

[Ronald M]

A screwmount in fun in sort of a retro way. Not fun if you change lenses a lot.

Put a 50mm 3.5 elmar on it for a really compact package.

If you change lenses a lot, an M is a better investment.

Buy the way, the mirrors all get dirty etc and need repair after time. A good condition RF in a screw is as nice as an M.

 

[pvdhaar]

A good condition RF in a screw is as nice as an M.

Absolutely true. Both have things going for them, but each in a different way..

What sets the M's apart is the brightness of the viewfinder, plus that you've got two ways to focus. You can un-fuzz the coincident image just like with a screwmount, but you can also line up at the edges of the RF patch. The latter is especially nice in so-so light conditions.

The main distractor though of the M's is their sheer size. They're humongous! You may want to check that aspect out first. It's the reason why in the end I favour an LTM over an M..

 

[Ronald M]

The bayonet lenses are not backwards compatable. This keeps you from getting to try many of the new lenses which seem to be nice for some things.

 

[jlw]

What sets the M's apart is the brightness of the viewfinder, plus that you've got two ways to focus. You can un-fuzz the coincident image just like with a screwmount, but you can also line up at the edges of the RF patch. The latter is especially nice in so-so light conditions.

You can get a screwmount camera that has a nice, bright RF/VF and a sharp-edged rangefinder patch, along with other modern conveniences such as lever advance and crank rewind. Just ask the man behind the counter for a Bessa R.

 

[FrankS]

If only leica made a camera as compact as the screwmounts and with a big finder like the M's, ........oh wait, there is the CL.

 

[raid]

... and with a rangefinder base that is very useful with wide aperture lenses ... oh well.


Raid

 

[triplefinger]

I had a great IIIF for focusing and a crappy IIIb, it's just time. I purchased a ZI and the rangefinder brightness and ability to focus is unsurpassed, even by the MP, which i recently sold.

That said, I also had an m4-p which was bright and easy to focus, just without any meter or auto exp or numbers on the framelines... for me, no contest. I'm a zeiss guy. and that's after owning a number of M cameras

 

[sunsworth]

The Ms are a dramatic improvement. My first Leica was a IIIC, about 12 months after that I bought an M2 and never used the IIIC again. There is no comparison in either the rangefinder or the viewfinder, the M is far, far better.