Leica LTM LTM vs M-the User Experience?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
By the way, the lens which is coming with the camera is a 50 Summicron collapsable which has just been CLA'ed by DAG.
 
I have loads of LTMs. FSU, all kids made in Japan. And now Leica IIIc, instead of IIf (which I sold to get M4-2).

Three of those LTMs are after CLA.
Zorki, Nicca III and Leica IIIc.

Nicca and Leica have not very good RF. Both service persons claims it OK. To me it is odd, because Zorki RF is much better. I have replacement mirrors. Just need to figure out which glue and if it is available in our ourskirts.

About lenses. Even Jupiter-12 blocks, partially RF patch. With hood it is worse.
So, Cosina made CV LTM lenses as small for good reason.

Advantages of LTM over M.
They are not overpiced. At all. My serviced, with new parts Nicca and Leica were not even 300 USD.
They are compact (if compact viewfinder matching lens is available).
And they are less prone to failure due to less complicated construction.
So is CLA. Person who sold me IIIc after his CLA was still charging under 100 USD earlier this year.

I have SBOOI VF for 50mm, Olympus XA VF for 35(28)mm and Russar VF for 21mm.
They were not very expensive.

Without VF and with Elmar 50 3.5 or its copy LTM Leica is most advanced compact camera, IMO. It is elegant, metal, no batteries and with neoprene pouch it is pocketable without trashing camera and lens.

The only big advantage of M vs Leica LTM is rotating shutter speed dial. On M4-2 I could select any speed without looking at it. Handy under low light.
 
I got a bargain M2 with previous owner's name
engraved and it is not Eisenhower or Queen Elizebeth,
thinking a might try some newer glass. But
so far I haven't purchased. I'll stick with my
black Leica II and 50mm Summicron plus SBOOI.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Nicca and Leica have not very good RF. Both service persons claims it OK. To me it is odd, because Zorki RF is much better.
Click to expand...

My type 3 Nicca from 1949 has a great rangefinder, so does my 1940 IIIc and 1936 IIIa. Super easy to focus! Beamsplitters are inexpensive from nobbysparrow on ebay.
 
I have 3 of them a black paint III, a IIIc upgraded to IIIf ST and a IIIf RDST. The only downside for me is the tiny built in finder. I would like to get a IIIg some day. For wide angles the SBLOO with a 35mm Summaron or Elmar is a killer combo. I no longer own a non metered M when the IIIf is all I need. I do wish Voigtlander issue more ltm lenses. The 50/2.5 Skopar lives on my III. They are so tiny my Olympus Pen kit is not doing anything.
 
raydm6 said:
I own two IIIf's and don't have any adjustment issues switching between them and my M2 and M6. Love them all.

Actually, the thing that struck me the most upon first handling a IIIf was its diminutive size and the watch-like quality. Totally different tactile and visceral experience than the M's; but in a good way -at least for me. But, I can understand your concern. You need to feel comfortable with the camera.

If you do hang on to it, consider a SBOOI bright-line finder which sweetens the experience.

The IIIf with a Collapsible Summicron is a classic combination. Maybe a shoot a roll, get some hang time together, and see how you like it.
Click to expand...


Much to agree with here. I have an M2 and an M3, and a IIIc and a Canon IVSB2 (like a IIIf only better). While the M Leicas have wonderful vfs and are easy to load, I love shooting my IIIc and IVSB2 more. They’re so compact, solid and well built, and with an auxiliary finder are actually pretty easy to use. You can slip them into a pocket. They’ weigh less than Ms, which I appreciate on long hikes. Yes, they’re finicky to load, and the finders are squinty (but an auxiliary finder is a good work around), but they’re robust and feel great in the hand.
 
After shooting an M2 for about five years I decided to try a Barnack and picked up a III and 5cm Elmar. Fair to say it wasn’t the positive experience that many here are sharing... I think it depends very much on the type of experience you’re after and the qualities you value in a body. To me, the III didn’t have character, it was just annoying. The ergonomics sucked, the viewfinder sucked, the user interface sucked, the fit and finish wasn’t on par with the M...

In the same way that I love the M2 because it just gets out of the way, I hated the III because it always seemed to be in the way.

I realise this isn’t everyone’s experience, but in light of your OP I think it’s valuable to understand that they don’t work for everyone.
 
Very high quality lenses exist in both mounts from Leica and many others. However, with some possible exceptions, the very highest optical quality lenses exist only in M mount these days at least (e.g., the 50mm F2 Leica APO Aspherical Summicron). The Barnack's take a bit more effort to use effectively, but the reward is high quality 35mm photography at lower cost. They are also notably less conspicuous and easier to carry around.
 
Yes, barnacks aren’t for everyone. :) But for those willing to live with the compromises they can be a lot of fun and not much expense compared to the M.
 
Raydm6 said it so well. I have my M2 with me now. It is like Nikon D3 compared to the IIIf. The Leica as skectchbook is a Barnack Leica. I take the IIIf with collapsible Elmar on my bike, in my bag to work, in a coat for a walk on a freezing day, under an umbrella in the rain. Then everything else RaydM6 said.
 
My experience is that I find a IIIc easier to pick up and take when I'm going for a walk and so I take it out more.

Using them is definitely different enough from using an M camera to justify taking some time to get to know LTM better before making a decision it's not for you.

It's worth noting the change to the 1.5x rangefinder view which I think is the IIIc onwards? It makes things easier to focus anyway and you're in luck with IIIf.

Also it's useful, to me at least, to consider if the lens scale is in the right system for you. I find lenses marked in feet less friendly for scale focus since I am a native metric speaker.

All in all I think I prefer to use a IIIc but there's no doubt an M is easier and more adaptable.
Enjoy yours, you say you already have an M2 so you seem well set for adventure.
 
Just an aside...

Just an aside...

Oddly enough, everything that has been said about the Barnacks is what I would say about the Olympus XA (or XA2 or XA3); small, neat and nice to use.

You can all ignore that and mark me down as a heretic...

Luckily, we heretics have our uses.


Regard, David
 
David Hughes said:
Oddly enough, everything that has been said about the Barnacks is what I would say about the Olympus XA (or XA2 or XA3); small, neat and nice to use.

You can all ignore that and mark me down as a heretic...

Luckily, we heretics have our uses.


Regard, David
Click to expand...

If you have one of these working by now and in frequent use, it is great.
Those cameras have too tiny electronics to be as durable as LTM.
This is why it is easy to source one you have mentioned in defunct state and source it for 35mm VF on LTM.
 
I started shooting with a Leica II, which is an LTM, around age 12 or so. I bought my M2 when I was 19. So I've been using both for so long that my hand and eye are "imprinted" on both. Thus, no real adjustment issues. The moment I pick up either one, my hands know what to do with it. The only thing I don't Care for, with the LTM, is the viewfinder--too squinty! So I simply use an accessory finder--Leitz or Voigtlander. Loading a Barnack is a bit more fiddly, but not really bad. It is a lot easier to change lenses on my M models! The bayonet mount is faster, and there is no need to change out the accessory finders. The smaller size of the Barnack is nice for carrying in a photo vest pocket, making it easy to have two cameras with different lenses.
 
I did not read mention of the MFD of screwmount lenses. For me that would be the biggest turn off using Barnacks, even though I like the form factor.
 
Depends on what you want to use your camera for. I want to tell stories, and MFD didn't keep Robert Frank, David Douglas Duncan, Henri Cartier-Bresson and many others from telling stories with their Barnacks.

Just saying'.

Best,
-Tim
 
Rob-F said:
I started shooting with a Leica II, which is an LTM, around age 12 or so. I bought my M2 when I was 19. So I've been using both for so long that my hand and eye are "imprinted" on both. Thus, no real adjustment issues. The moment I pick up either one, my hands know what to do with it. The only thing I don't Care for, with the LTM, is the viewfinder--too squinty! So I simply use an accessory finder--Leitz or Voigtlander. Loading a Barnack is a bit more fiddly, but not really bad. It is a lot easier to change lenses on my M models! The bayonet mount is faster, and there is no need to change out the accessory finders. The smaller size of the Barnack is nice for carrying in a photo vest pocket, making it easy to have two cameras with different lenses.
Click to expand...

After I use my II for a while, and switch to my M2, I always think the M is so “luxurious”!
 
Ko.Fe. said:
If you have one of these working by now and in frequent use, it is great.
Those cameras have too tiny electronics to be as durable as LTM.
This is why it is easy to source one you have mentioned in defunct state and source it for 35mm VF on LTM.
Click to expand...


My experience is that they are cheap to buy, usually work and - if not - are easily, quickly and cheaply repaired by the specialists. When I've finished the film in my M4 I shall put some in the XA3 then, perhaps, the Minolta 7000 as a contrast. Like I said, they are great to carry around whenever you go out.


Regards, David
 
At one point I went from ltm to Ricoh GR1s, a lovely, small camera with a great lens and loads of delicate electronics. Sold it for a significant sum before it broke. I understand they are no longer repaired by anyone. Recently sold all my M stuff so now it is back to ltm for film again which I suppose is where I started...quite happy and a lot better off!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom