traveler_101
American abroad
I probably have a pretty bad case of GAS: I mean Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Why else would I be thinking about another camera when I am THRILLED with the images I am getting from my IIIf?
When I decided on my first Leica a year ago, I really wanted the Barnack for its portability, handling and classic styling. And I haven’t been disappointed. I also wanted to limit my financial exposure. I had my doubts about film (hadn’t started developing then) and I planned to use the camera for b&w alongside my digital camera for color. I was hedging my bets in a way.
What has changed in the last year: I have managed film developing and scanning and I like developing. I learned that it is possible to develop one’s own color film, opening up the possibility of shooting color film. (Never thought that was possible).
About a month ago I was checking out the Fujifilm XE as a possible replacement for my E-P1. A guy was nice enough to do a little video showing off his new XE. At one point he said something like, “I wanted this camera because it has the handling, quality construction and styling of yesterday’s film cameras.” This seems to be the motive for so many ILC buyers today. I thought to myself: I am thinking about dropping $1400 on a digital camera in order to get an experience that reminds me of the real thing. Why?
I am sure you can see where I am going. What could I get for $1400 or thereabouts? One of the big reluctances about going with a M camera from the get-go was the outrageous cost of Leica M lenses. (Yes I know you can use LTM lenses on a M but I would want to use at least one M mount—seems appropriate somehow). Then I saw a photograph of a M6 with a VC 40/1.4 Nokton: fantastic! I like the looks, price and the speed. Nice images too. And the M6 has a meter, which should speed me up a bit. Further investigation revels, however, that the M6 rangefinder really should be upgraded to improve its performance. What a PITA and another expense--$280 I understand. Naturally I thought of the M2 with its better viewfinder and lower price. Problem there is that it is not an improvement over the IIIf when it comes to metering.
Being one who tends to draw out decisions, I am divided as to whether a M is really necessary. Sure the IIIf is a bit slow but I do get street shots with it anyway. It is highly portable and I am not ready to send it to the bench—at least not yet. The other consideration is RF magnification. Is a .72 finder as easy to focus as a 1.5x on the IIIf?
When I decided on my first Leica a year ago, I really wanted the Barnack for its portability, handling and classic styling. And I haven’t been disappointed. I also wanted to limit my financial exposure. I had my doubts about film (hadn’t started developing then) and I planned to use the camera for b&w alongside my digital camera for color. I was hedging my bets in a way.
What has changed in the last year: I have managed film developing and scanning and I like developing. I learned that it is possible to develop one’s own color film, opening up the possibility of shooting color film. (Never thought that was possible).
About a month ago I was checking out the Fujifilm XE as a possible replacement for my E-P1. A guy was nice enough to do a little video showing off his new XE. At one point he said something like, “I wanted this camera because it has the handling, quality construction and styling of yesterday’s film cameras.” This seems to be the motive for so many ILC buyers today. I thought to myself: I am thinking about dropping $1400 on a digital camera in order to get an experience that reminds me of the real thing. Why?
I am sure you can see where I am going. What could I get for $1400 or thereabouts? One of the big reluctances about going with a M camera from the get-go was the outrageous cost of Leica M lenses. (Yes I know you can use LTM lenses on a M but I would want to use at least one M mount—seems appropriate somehow). Then I saw a photograph of a M6 with a VC 40/1.4 Nokton: fantastic! I like the looks, price and the speed. Nice images too. And the M6 has a meter, which should speed me up a bit. Further investigation revels, however, that the M6 rangefinder really should be upgraded to improve its performance. What a PITA and another expense--$280 I understand. Naturally I thought of the M2 with its better viewfinder and lower price. Problem there is that it is not an improvement over the IIIf when it comes to metering.
Being one who tends to draw out decisions, I am divided as to whether a M is really necessary. Sure the IIIf is a bit slow but I do get street shots with it anyway. It is highly portable and I am not ready to send it to the bench—at least not yet. The other consideration is RF magnification. Is a .72 finder as easy to focus as a 1.5x on the IIIf?
Brian Legge
Veteran
I find the Barnack style finders simpler for accurate focus - if in good condition - due to the magnification but slightly slower for composition. I moved to an M because I wanted to shoot 35mm and 100mm lenses and found composition difficult with an external finder and no framelines. The M4 and M2 both fit my needs perfectly. For metering I use handheld meter and generally use incident metering as I find it simpler than worrying about how reflective different elements in the scene are, how they may be tricking the meter, etc.
If you are shooting primarily 50mm lenses and the win is a meter, you're in a bit of a spot. You might want to look at a Bessa rangefinder or a M6 with a 0.85 finder (which adds price and benefits from the MP upgrade even more from what I've read)
If you are shooting primarily 50mm lenses and the win is a meter, you're in a bit of a spot. You might want to look at a Bessa rangefinder or a M6 with a 0.85 finder (which adds price and benefits from the MP upgrade even more from what I've read)
Livesteamer
Well-known
An M6 would work well for you. Don't let the rangefinder patch flare scare you. I have three M6's and that problem only happened with my M6 .85 that I bought new about 13 years ago. The regular .72 finder works well and I have not needed to upgrade those.
I use a pair of IIIc's for most of my photography but when I need it faster and more capable I go for the M6. The M6 is a much newer camera and a fine value. Good Luck. Joe
I use a pair of IIIc's for most of my photography but when I need it faster and more capable I go for the M6. The M6 is a much newer camera and a fine value. Good Luck. Joe
TennesseJones
Well-known
I don't think you need to upgrade the m6 finder as a necessity, so wouldn't discount the m6 for that. I use these cameras and they're just really terrific, and functional.
Good luck with your choice!
Good luck with your choice!
traveler_101
American abroad
Thanks Brian. The comment about the accuracy of the Barnack finder is important to a half-blind eye glass wearer; my IIIf's RF s very good; Youxin Ye put in a new one made in Japan.
I should add that i am not wedded to the 50 FOV; it just makes sense with the Barrack and it is growing on me. Metering with the Sekonic twinmate 208 is o.k. My camera does not use the standard shutter speed stops but I have gotten better at translating the readings. Slows me down though.
I should add that i am not wedded to the 50 FOV; it just makes sense with the Barrack and it is growing on me. Metering with the Sekonic twinmate 208 is o.k. My camera does not use the standard shutter speed stops but I have gotten better at translating the readings. Slows me down though.
burancap
Veteran
Been to the mountain top and back again in the M world.
What do I have left? Besides a CL, I prefer to use my 80 year old II.
What do I have left? Besides a CL, I prefer to use my 80 year old II.
dabick42
Well-known
@ traveler 101 ---
You need to get that Leica GAS affliction under control soonest !
I caught it back in the mid 1960's and I've ended up with 14 of them - 7 Barnacks and 7 M's !
If you're currently happy with the performance of the 111f and comfortable using it, why get anything else, especially if you're worried about financial exposure and the future availability of film ?
An M2 or M3 won't give you anything major that you haven't got with your 111f, just quicker wind-on, a more convenient viewfinder and useful preview finders for two other focal lengths. And as you're already getting good metering results (presumably using a hand-held meter or ''sunny 16'' rule) you don't need an M6 to gain a metering advantage.
For what it's worth, I own an M6, several M2's, M3's and an MDa. I also have several 111c's, 111f's, a 111g and a pre-war 111b. Which gives me the most pleasure to use ?
The 111b ! It's two years older than I am and it's a joy to use. A mechanical masterpiece !
My advice ? Use your 111f some more, don't rush things, don't let Leica GAS get the better of you... !
You need to get that Leica GAS affliction under control soonest !
I caught it back in the mid 1960's and I've ended up with 14 of them - 7 Barnacks and 7 M's !
If you're currently happy with the performance of the 111f and comfortable using it, why get anything else, especially if you're worried about financial exposure and the future availability of film ?
An M2 or M3 won't give you anything major that you haven't got with your 111f, just quicker wind-on, a more convenient viewfinder and useful preview finders for two other focal lengths. And as you're already getting good metering results (presumably using a hand-held meter or ''sunny 16'' rule) you don't need an M6 to gain a metering advantage.
For what it's worth, I own an M6, several M2's, M3's and an MDa. I also have several 111c's, 111f's, a 111g and a pre-war 111b. Which gives me the most pleasure to use ?
The 111b ! It's two years older than I am and it's a joy to use. A mechanical masterpiece !
My advice ? Use your 111f some more, don't rush things, don't let Leica GAS get the better of you... !
siracusa
Well-known
M bodies are, as other posters note, more convenient in certain respects, thanks to the framelines, parallax correction, and loading (tho' cutting the film leader for LTM use is hardly taxing). However, I also concur with dabick42: on balance I find my IIIf more fun to use (and I love its compactness). And like Brian, I find accurate focus easier on the IIIf. But your question was is it really necessary, though it sounds as though your real question is not about necessity but rather, what you want and how much you want it. Only you can answer that. But you dont seem to have regretted buying your IIIF, so I'm sure you won't regret it if you buy an M (equally, that you'll be able to continue fine with the IIIf if you decide to stick with what you have). Good luck with your decision: it's good to see so much LTM love out there.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Hah, I haven't handled an IIIb but it would probably be one of my favorite LTM cameras. The ergonomics of the III were great for me but I couldn't cope with the distance between the windows relative to the IIIc. The b would be the best of both worlds. 
Range-rover
Veteran
You started out the way I did with Leica IIIF, which I traded for a M3 which I really
liked using. The IIIF if you wear glasses is hard to use so after a few months went
to a M3 and so on and so on.
Range
liked using. The IIIF if you wear glasses is hard to use so after a few months went
to a M3 and so on and so on.
Range
leicapixie
Well-known
I'm in the M camp! Often thought of a Barnack but never really did more than that! A friend has 2. One from the 30's the other relatively new, from the 50's.The photographs from those screw mounts are wonderful.The whole feel so different. Look at HCB's photos. The earlier ones somehow more "artsy" the M stuff more "journalistic".Others might disagree.
i like the bigger windows, the easier loading.
The M6 RFDR does "occasionally" flare. Block the light gathering window and it's gone. The built in meter sorta nice. Using a hand meter may be better in measuring the light. The better way? Learn to "see" the exposure! You look more carefully, do proper appraisal and judgement.
i like the bigger windows, the easier loading.
The M6 RFDR does "occasionally" flare. Block the light gathering window and it's gone. The built in meter sorta nice. Using a hand meter may be better in measuring the light. The better way? Learn to "see" the exposure! You look more carefully, do proper appraisal and judgement.
ktmrider
Well-known
Have never owned a screw mount Leica but have owned all the M's fron M2 to M6TTL. I presently use an M2 for the simplicity of the viewfinder. This is an interesting comparison as I am debating going digital but the price and new technology puts me off. If you want to try an M, do it. Life is too short and you can pretty much sale it later for purchase price which can not be said for many things these days. And I have a mixture of Leica and Cossina and find both brands excellent.
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126733
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126733
i went cheap and small, when i was required to use digital professionally for clients, using internet. so i bought a small point and shoot "Pentax Optio", to test the waters. It was a total success.My clients very happy with the results.
Digital is now part of my life, but always in small, compact, point and shoot digitals.Great to use in situations where damage to my Leica may occur! Unlimited shooting.
Contrary to many film shooters, when i was a Full time photographer, i shot a lot of film! Film was not used in the careful methodical manner, of so many. Usually at least 5 frames of a moment, where possible.Fashion shoot could result in 20 rolls of 36 exp, in 2+ hours..
i am now doing my own scanning. These images running with my total digital. Clients and friends unable to always spot the digital image.
Film is used all the time, as i enjoy my Leicas.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126733
Rethink digital.
i went cheap and small, when i was required to use digital professionally for clients, using internet. so i bought a small point and shoot "Pentax Optio", to test the waters. It was a total success.My clients very happy with the results.
Digital is now part of my life, but always in small, compact, point and shoot digitals.Great to use in situations where damage to my Leica may occur! Unlimited shooting.
Contrary to many film shooters, when i was a Full time photographer, i shot a lot of film! Film was not used in the careful methodical manner, of so many. Usually at least 5 frames of a moment, where possible.Fashion shoot could result in 20 rolls of 36 exp, in 2+ hours..
i am now doing my own scanning. These images running with my total digital. Clients and friends unable to always spot the digital image.
Film is used all the time, as i enjoy my Leicas.
Pioneer
Veteran
If you have never worked with an M then you will have to own one. I have owned a couple but I always end up going back to my Barnack's. Why? I have never been able to see a difference in the resulting images between the two and I can actually confidently focus my IIIc all the time. I am also a half-blind wearer of spectacles.
Besides, convenience is way over-rated. I have a passel of convenient cameras and none of them have ever taken better pictures than my IIIc, they've just used up my film faster.
Besides (I am about to frustrate the Leicaphiles) if convenience and viewfinder is what you think you want, buy the Zeiss Ikon. Every Leica M ever built (besides the M3 perhaps) envies the ZI's viewfinder.
Besides, convenience is way over-rated. I have a passel of convenient cameras and none of them have ever taken better pictures than my IIIc, they've just used up my film faster.
Besides (I am about to frustrate the Leicaphiles) if convenience and viewfinder is what you think you want, buy the Zeiss Ikon. Every Leica M ever built (besides the M3 perhaps) envies the ZI's viewfinder.
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
The M is a low-annoyance camera. Compared to a IIIf you have: no need for trimmed film leaders, easier loading, no separate slow speed dial, the speed dial does't rotate when you trip the shutter, faster lens change, parallax-corrrected automatic frame lines, rangefinder combined with viewfinder, some have meters built in (the meter might be an annoyance to some - but in that case you can just take the batteries out).
There is very little to fiddle with. Seriously, if you like the experience of working the idiosyncratic controls of older cameras, the M system might not be for you. But you could get a decent M2 for around €600 and see for yourself. Use your LTM lenses before you buy into M glass. Sell if you don't like it.
There is very little to fiddle with. Seriously, if you like the experience of working the idiosyncratic controls of older cameras, the M system might not be for you. But you could get a decent M2 for around €600 and see for yourself. Use your LTM lenses before you buy into M glass. Sell if you don't like it.
DoxLeica
Member
If you put a Leicavit on your IIIf you'll be thrilled with the handling. Frankly, it makes a near perfect outfit. With the remaining funds grab a 50mm Nokton 1.5 and if you want a 50mm finder. Bliss!
traveler_101
American abroad
Thanks to everyone for thoughtful comments. At the moment I am going to take DaBick's advice: slow down, control the buying urge and stick with the IIIf. Also I have taken in what Leicapixie says: "rethink digital" toward the simple end.
Some strong arguments were made in favor of M cameras but two things I must say in this regard: first, I am not "annoyed" by the IIIf such that I am champing at the bit to replace it. Most of the controls of the Barnack make complete sense to me--and don't bother me. I have become accustomed to it and I am moving faster from RF to VF windows too. Film-loading is a big PITA; that is true and I need to sit down somewhere to do it, but I don't find any problems trimming the leader now that I have the correct scissors. I do that in advance for a few rolls of film; it's no big deal. Faster lens changing would be nice--yes, but I am not slow doing that as it is. Bottom line: I really like the Barnack and if I were to get an M I would never sell the IIIf.
The other point is that no fewer three posts on this thread are from guys who have used both camera types and say that it's easier to get focus with the Barnack type RF. I always suspected this to be the case, but now I have some evidence to bear out those suspicions. Well, when you have my kind of vision that is no small deal. Seems more like a M3 or VC R3M would be appropriate. Anyway I have to try out M cameras before buying and where do you do that these days? I'll put off any further investigations to next fall. In the meantime I am happy enough.
Thanks everyone for your input!
Some strong arguments were made in favor of M cameras but two things I must say in this regard: first, I am not "annoyed" by the IIIf such that I am champing at the bit to replace it. Most of the controls of the Barnack make complete sense to me--and don't bother me. I have become accustomed to it and I am moving faster from RF to VF windows too. Film-loading is a big PITA; that is true and I need to sit down somewhere to do it, but I don't find any problems trimming the leader now that I have the correct scissors. I do that in advance for a few rolls of film; it's no big deal. Faster lens changing would be nice--yes, but I am not slow doing that as it is. Bottom line: I really like the Barnack and if I were to get an M I would never sell the IIIf.
The other point is that no fewer three posts on this thread are from guys who have used both camera types and say that it's easier to get focus with the Barnack type RF. I always suspected this to be the case, but now I have some evidence to bear out those suspicions. Well, when you have my kind of vision that is no small deal. Seems more like a M3 or VC R3M would be appropriate. Anyway I have to try out M cameras before buying and where do you do that these days? I'll put off any further investigations to next fall. In the meantime I am happy enough.
Thanks everyone for your input!
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
As far as VF'ers, I think for low light the M-bodies have an advantage. Only consider this if you desire to use/get fast glass. Otherwise all that what was said above is correct.
If you go for a M6 consider that the MP finder upgrade is kind of manditory if you intend on using the camera under harsh high contrast lighting conditions. For me white out and flare was annoying to the extent that I couldn't tolerate it. Realize that I live in NYC in an urban setting.
I have a Leica II. It is a fun camera and offers its own advantages, but for low light my M6 has a much brighter VF'er than any screw mount I have owned.
As far as saving money and GAS: consider keeping everything to the bare minimum and perhaps extensively use what you have. I have 8 cameras, all have their use and purpose, but sometimes I wonder if it might be better if I only had two that I used extensively.
Cal
If you go for a M6 consider that the MP finder upgrade is kind of manditory if you intend on using the camera under harsh high contrast lighting conditions. For me white out and flare was annoying to the extent that I couldn't tolerate it. Realize that I live in NYC in an urban setting.
I have a Leica II. It is a fun camera and offers its own advantages, but for low light my M6 has a much brighter VF'er than any screw mount I have owned.
As far as saving money and GAS: consider keeping everything to the bare minimum and perhaps extensively use what you have. I have 8 cameras, all have their use and purpose, but sometimes I wonder if it might be better if I only had two that I used extensively.
Cal
bigeye
Well-known
Depends on the lens, too. Using a 15mm or 21mm CV is pretty much the same between the two (any lens requiring a shoe VF...). My IIIf has the 15mm on it most of the time.
- Charlie
- Charlie
ferider
Veteran
OP, just two comments from somebody who uses Barnacks (have used IIf, IIIc and IIIf before) and Leicas, M2 + M6 included.
1) The M6 flare is largely overrated (and my M6 has the MP finder now ....). M3 and M6 are historically the most sold and used Leicas, and most M6 are in successful use without the finder upgrade.
2) If you like the size and focusing of the IIIf, and you like 50mm, consider a IIIg. I finally decided to try one, and like it a lot. More expensive than a Barnack, but a good user and certainly cheaper than an M6. They also keep resale value (mine cost around US 600).
In any case, I recommend only to buy what you have played with, if possible.
Roland.
1) The M6 flare is largely overrated (and my M6 has the MP finder now ....). M3 and M6 are historically the most sold and used Leicas, and most M6 are in successful use without the finder upgrade.
2) If you like the size and focusing of the IIIf, and you like 50mm, consider a IIIg. I finally decided to try one, and like it a lot. More expensive than a Barnack, but a good user and certainly cheaper than an M6. They also keep resale value (mine cost around US 600).
In any case, I recommend only to buy what you have played with, if possible.
Roland.