M2, M6 or stand by my IIIf

Hi, good question....i satrted using a III f with an elmar 50mm f3.5...

After many M´s and M mount cmaeras i can say properly thta the III f is still a great camera...
If you use a 50mm lens is really superb since it´s very small and pocketable, i used to "wear" that combo in the back pocket of my jeans...also sometimes i used the VC meter II attached still pocketable.

Because of the size and weight nor M can compare with the III f, of course they have all sort of frames and lightmeter and handling is better than the III series...but i neer complained about that i was very trained in that camera...

I wouldn´t sugest you the III-g because it´s a bit larger than the iii-f but enough to make it not so pocketable...a matter of feww mm´s...

So today i have an m9, but with it y carry all the time a collapsible 50mm f3.5 from MS optical...

Bye!🙂
 
for most applications, an M is way easier to use.
I won't get into all the differences, but if I had to choose one, no doubt for me, it would be an M.
That being said I find using a IIIf with my color skopar 28mm and external VF a joy.
 
Calzone said:
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
Click to expand...

Cal, thanks for your advice--much appreciated. You are right about the fast lens. Right now the fastest thing i have is a VC 35/2.5. I can't afford Leica M glass by the way, but to VC Nokton 40/1.4 is a possibility and that could go on a M6. We'll see. I'll try not to accumulate eight cameras (lol), but heck if you use all of them from time to time that sounds like fun.
 
bigeye said:
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
Click to expand...

Charlie, thanks. I have the 15mm--just did use it in Italy taking shots of townscapes and buildings. Fantastic and it makes the IIIf into a point and shoot.
 
It seedms that you are happy with the IIIf and with the pictures you're producing with it. ERGO: There is no rational purpose in moving into M cameras. Keep shooting. Be happy.
 
ferider said:
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.

308093251_GZS6Q-L.jpg


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.
Click to expand...

Really interesting chart. I've read through the Head Bartender's stuff on the Leicas, but it is interesting to see these cameras in terms of manufacturing figures. The M3 was huge in comparison to the M2 but today it seems most of the interest is in the M2. The advice about the M6 finder is so various that f I ever do buy one I suppose I would have to use it for a while to se if it really does bother me.
 
Monochrom said:
Hi, good question....i satrted using a III f with an elmar 50mm f3.5...

After many M´s and M mount cmaeras i can say properly thta the III f is still a great camera...
If you use a 50mm lens is really superb since it´s very small and pocketable, i used to "wear" that combo in the back pocket of my jeans...also sometimes i used the VC meter II attached still pocketable.

Because of the size and weight nor M can compare with the III f, of course they have all sort of frames and lightmeter and handling is better than the III series...but i neer complained about that i was very trained in that camera...

I wouldn´t sugest you the III-g because it´s a bit larger than the iii-f but enough to make it not so pocketable...a matter of feww mm´s...

So today i have an m9, but with it y carry all the time a collapsible 50mm f3.5 from MS optical...

Bye!🙂
Click to expand...

Well you are right about the portability and that was the reason I went for the Elmar 3.5. Here you have a camera designed basically in the 1930s that is probably at least as portable as the smallest of today's ILCs! It's amazing design/engineering.
 
traveler_101 said:
Cal, thanks for your advice--much appreciated. You are right about the fast lens. Right now the fastest thing i have is a VC 35/2.5. I can't afford Leica M glass by the way, but to VC Nokton 40/1.4 is a possibility and that could go on a M6. We'll see. I'll try not to accumulate eight cameras (lol), but heck if you use all of them from time to time that sounds like fun.
Click to expand...

I happen to agree with Roland's comment above. The M6 flare problem is overstated, but I frame my comments around my urban enviornment where harsh lighting and bright sources of light compound the otherwise not big deal. In my case RF'er white out and flare caused me to loose shots.

With GAS once it starts it tends to rage and overtime suddenly you realize that you spent more money than you ever imagined and that also somehow you own more cameras than is practical to the point that they all become a liability. Eventually you figure out that you just plain went crazy, but by then it's too late, and there's no going back.

Unused gear is like abusing your gear because cameras are like watches; it is better to be used all the time rather than sit idle. The other problem is maintenance which gets more expensive the more cameras you own.

Then there is the problem of added expenses like huge film bills because you end up shooting crazy amounts of film to try and justify owning all these cameras of various formats to the extent that you begin carrying two cameras all the time just to exercise the cameras. It got to the point where I found I was beginning to shoot 50-60 rolls of film a month (120 and 135) and then I realize I was spending about $2.5K on B&W film alone.

Then there's getting confused because because of all the differences between all your rigs and you will make some rather dumb mistakes like forget to change the ISO or to forget to remove a filter...

At this point I have more cameras than I need, but I am also spoiled rotten to the extent that I really can't part with any of my present cameras. This is after two cull downs.

BTW My Wetzlar M6 with MP finder is like a cheap man's MP at a fraction of the price.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
I happen to agree with Roland's comment above. The M6 flare problem is overstated, but I frame my comments around my urban enviornment where harsh lighting and bright sources of light compound the otherwise not big deal. In my case RF'er white out and flare caused me to loose shots.

With GAS once it starts it tends to rage and overtime suddenly you realize that you spent more money than you ever imagined and that also somehow you own more cameras than is practical to the point that they all become a liability. Eventually you figure out that you just plain went crazy, but by then it's too late, and there's no going back.

Unused gear is like abusing your gear because cameras are like watches; it is better to be used all the time rather than sit idle. The other problem is maintenance which gets more expensive the more cameras you own.

Then there is the problem of added expenses like huge film bills because you end up shooting crazy amounts of film to try and justify owning all these cameras of various formats to the extent that you begin carrying two cameras all the time just to exercise the cameras. It got to the point where I found I was beginning to shoot 50-60 rolls of film a month (120 and 135) and then I realize I was spending about $2.5K on B&W film alone.

Then there's getting confused because because of all the differences between all your rigs and you will make some rather dumb mistakes like forget to change the ISO or to forget to remove a filter...

At this point I have more cameras than I need, but I am also spoiled rotten to the extent that I really can't part with any of my present cameras. This is after two cull downs.

BTW My Wetzlar M6 with MP finder is like a cheap man's MP at a fraction of the price.

Cal
Click to expand...

Wow! Cal, that's a cautionary tale if there ever was one. You make falling for the Leica a bit like falling for the femme fatale--well maybe not that bad. I have some limitations that you apparently don't/didn't have around money and time, but that is besides the point. I obviously have a case of GAS and have to keep it in bounds. The key point you make is about camera use. Seems to me that two film cameras is about what one can handle. Any more than that and they effectively become collectibles which is kind of sad. The only way to avoid that outcome is to adopt a --if they sit they must be sold--principle, but i can imagine how hard that must be. Already I don't want to sell my IIIf--even if I did "move on" to a M.
 
traveler_101 said:
Wow! Cal, that's a cautionary tale if there ever was one. You make falling for the Leica a bit like falling for the femme fatale--well maybe not that bad. I have some limitations that you apparently don't/didn't have around money and time, but that is besides the point. I obviously have a case of GAS and have to keep it in bounds. The key point you make is about camera use. Seems to me that two film cameras is about what one can handle. Any more than that and they effectively become collectibles which is kind of sad. The only way to avoid that outcome is to adopt a --if they sit they must be sold--principle, but i can imagine how hard that must be. Already I don't want to sell my IIIf--even if I did "move on" to a M.
Click to expand...

I grieve the loss of cameras, even ones I don't need. It sounds like you are more sensible than me, and I have this tendency to be both impulsive and compulsive.

I am just a man like you and I pay for this crazy behavior in other ways: a big expense I don't have is a car, and I tend to walk rather than even take the subway. Also I live in a one bedroom apartment with my girlfriend. The money has to come from somewhere, and I figure not owning a car and having the related expenses probably saves me over $8K a year.

I hope my shared experience just prevents you from making any serious mistakes. I'm very lucky to have a girlfriend that understands my needs.

Cal
 
I agree that Ms don't replace Barnacks. While you can get LTM to M adapters to switch the look from the optics, the form factor of the III-series is just about as good as it gets, IMO. I love the photos from my IIIc. For some reason they seem more experimental and artistic than my M6 shots. I also find Barnacks easier to focus than Ms.

Another nice thing with the III-series is that you can use the NOOKY-HESUM to get in real close, opening another dimension to your photography.

I have tried a IIIg and was VERY impressed. If the IIIg had a TTL meter it would be a little slice of heaven!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom