Musings on Leica IIIc and Leica M4-2

[Godfrey]

As you might have read, I recently acquired a very nice condition 1946 Leica IIIc. And I have to admit I've been a little over the Moon enjoying it the past couple of weeks. It's a delightful camera. I've put three rolls of film through it and find it a joy to use.

So when I got ready for my walk today, I decided to load something different.

I haven't made any photographs with my 1978 Leica M4-2 in a while. It's been sitting on the shelf, patient and waiting for its turn. The SMC-Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special is back on it after a short stint of shooting on the IIIc. As I picked it up today to gauge whether it was time, the clean, modern feel of it spoke to my hands and I pulled out a roll of Ferrania P33 and loaded it. And then I went for a walk.

Leica M4-2 + Color-Skopar 50mm f/2.5​

I can only imagine from doing this what the M3 was like for photographers when it was released to the public in 1954. The M4-2 is not so different from an M3 that it matters. Yeah, it has the later "quick load" system from the M4, and the same viewfinder as the M4 (a little wider FoV than the M3, basically, with frameline pairs starting at 35mm instead of 50mm), but the feel of the camera is very much the same as the M3, and is a wild leap more modern than the IIIc.

In comparative terms, the M4-2 just feels faster, works faster, and is more positive, in every operation that matters. They got it so darn right with the M3 in 1954 ... and the Leica M-A is essentially the same thing, still built and sold new today.

On the other hand, the Leica IIIc has such lovely, old school charm and grace in its lines, such deliberation in its use...

Leica IIIc + Voigtländer Color-Skopar 50mm f/2.5​

Truly amazing how both cameras have stood the tests of Time.

G

 

[xayraa33]

Back in 1978 I bought a Leica IIIg but could never get along with it, not enough bare bones Barnack experience but not convenient like an M Leica.
So I traded the IIIg in for a Leica IIIc and a new Leica M 4-2. I never regretted my decision.

 

[Coldkennels]

I was offered a £500 deal on either an M4 or M4-2 (I forget which) back in 2012; a friend was getting rid of it to upgrade, and I borrowed it for a bit before turning it down and sticking with my IIIf. In hindsight I wish I'd bought it just because I'll likely never see a deal like that again.

The Ms have never really "gelled" with me the way the Barnacks did (and still do). They have stunning viewfinders and smooth to use, but I've always found the 1.5x rangefinder a lot easier to use than any combined viewfinder. The only thing I really feel like I'm missing out on by sticking with screwmounts is the wider array of lenses in M mount; if Leica made an M-mount IIIg as a special edition, I'd jump all over it (and yes, I'm aware DAG's managed to cobble some together himself)!

 

[skopar steve]

I picked up a M4-2 kit some years ago for a great deal off craigslist. Sent it right off to YY for a cla and it has been my daily driver ever since. To scratch my screw mount itch I picked up a Zorki 3M and some FSU glass. It gets used in foul weather or if I'm going somewhere sketchy. A Barnack is on the list if I come across a nice one.

 

[splitimageview]

First M I ever bought was an M4-2. Still my favorite model!

But today I prefer using Barnacks in spite of their idiosyncracies. And especially due to the 1.5x rangefinder magnification as you mentioned. And their small size, which is a nice trade off for the small viewfinder.

 

[mnutzer]

Wearing glasses I prefer the Leica M-models over the old Barnacks with its two little viewfinder peepholes.

 

[splitimageview]

SBOOI viewfinder FTW

 

[Godfrey]

Yes! I have a selection of add-on viewfinders ... 15mm, 21/25mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 75mm ... from Voigtländer and Leitz. The 15 to 25mm, even the 28mm ones are very useful even on my M bodies, depending on the body.

G