Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
I am considering the purchase of a Leica screwmount body for use and my current thinking is to look for a II or a III. I understand that the IIIa and later Barnacks have a 1.5x RF magnification, that makes focusing much easier.
Do the II and the III have the same RF magnification? If not, are they harder to focus? Does the magnification help much?
Also, I gather that the II lacks the ability to adjust the RF. In practice, is this an issue that should lead me to the III?
I don't think I'll need the slower speeds, and I've read that the slower speed escarpment is a complexity that can cause problems. That makes me think I should look for a II but I am hoping the wiser voices on this forum can point me in the right direction.
Sanders McNew
Do the II and the III have the same RF magnification? If not, are they harder to focus? Does the magnification help much?
Also, I gather that the II lacks the ability to adjust the RF. In practice, is this an issue that should lead me to the III?
I don't think I'll need the slower speeds, and I've read that the slower speed escarpment is a complexity that can cause problems. That makes me think I should look for a II but I am hoping the wiser voices on this forum can point me in the right direction.
Sanders McNew
laptoprob
back to basics
Welcome to the forum and interesting choice! Start at the basics!
AFAIK all RF's can be adjusted. All Barnacks have the 1,5 mag RF. III's are mostly the same as II's, except for the slow speeds. There are other minor differences like the accessory shoe springs.
I have a IIIa and a IIf and both have the ability to adjust diopter.
The IIIa needs a CLA because winding is still way too heavy.
AFAIK all RF's can be adjusted. All Barnacks have the 1,5 mag RF. III's are mostly the same as II's, except for the slow speeds. There are other minor differences like the accessory shoe springs.
I have a IIIa and a IIf and both have the ability to adjust diopter.
The IIIa needs a CLA because winding is still way too heavy.
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Rob, thanks for the quick reply.
I am looking for an old black/nickel II or III -- not a later version with the letters added, like IIIa or IIIf. And an uncoated nickel 50mm Elmar or Summar with clear glass to go with it would be nice.
Do these older Barnacks also have the 1.5x magnification and diopter adjustment?
Call me a hopeless romantic.
Sanders
I am looking for an old black/nickel II or III -- not a later version with the letters added, like IIIa or IIIf. And an uncoated nickel 50mm Elmar or Summar with clear glass to go with it would be nice.
Do these older Barnacks also have the 1.5x magnification and diopter adjustment?
Call me a hopeless romantic.
Sanders
john neal
fallor ergo sum
I have a II, and it does have the same magnification, and it looks like it is adjustable too.
Interestingly, one of the RF windows is made in a slighly green glass, so that you get a brighter centre spot for focussing - sort of like a built in ORAKU.
Don't know about the basic III, but would be surprised if it is any different. The other difference on the basic II is that the top speed is only 1/500, generally not too much of a problem, unless you insist on high-speed sports shots with your Barnack......
Interestingly, one of the RF windows is made in a slighly green glass, so that you get a brighter centre spot for focussing - sort of like a built in ORAKU.
Don't know about the basic III, but would be surprised if it is any different. The other difference on the basic II is that the top speed is only 1/500, generally not too much of a problem, unless you insist on high-speed sports shots with your Barnack......
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
the Leica II had the 1:1 or 1x magnification like the Zorki 1(the Zorki is a copy of the Leica II) and is not diopter adjustable.
the Leica IIc and IIf have the 1.5 x magnification like the IIIc and IIIf.
the earlier Leica III , IIIa and IIIb also had the 1.5 mag. rf. & have diopter adj.
the Leica IIc and IIf have the 1.5 x magnification like the IIIc and IIIf.
the earlier Leica III , IIIa and IIIb also had the 1.5 mag. rf. & have diopter adj.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
of all the LTM Leicas with built in rf, only the Leica II has a 1x mag. rf and no diopter adjustment.
It also came with no strap lugs, unlike the later models.
It also came with no strap lugs, unlike the later models.
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
As I feared.
Does the lower magnification make it more difficult to focus a II?
Should I care about the lack of an adjustable diopter?
Sanders
Does the lower magnification make it more difficult to focus a II?
Should I care about the lack of an adjustable diopter?
Sanders
laptoprob
back to basics
It may just be an advantage. The field of view in the 1,5 mag rf is like a 200mm lens. The fov. in the 1:1 must be more useful but less accurate. Who needs the extreme accuracy anyway? Will you use high speed telephotos on your Leica II?
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Rob, I shoot a lot of people in lower light.
I've been shooting Rolleiflexes and view cameras
until now, and if I am going to start using 35mm
I'd like to be able to lay focus with some precision.
Here's an example of what I do with the Rolleiflex,
to give you an idea of why focus is critical to me.
I tend to shoot with wider apertures at close range.
If I'm off on focus, it kills the photograph.
I've been shooting Rolleiflexes and view cameras
until now, and if I am going to start using 35mm
I'd like to be able to lay focus with some precision.
Here's an example of what I do with the Rolleiflex,
to give you an idea of why focus is critical to me.
I tend to shoot with wider apertures at close range.
If I'm off on focus, it kills the photograph.
Last edited:
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Sanders McNew said:
No, not really, the two eyes open method can be used, which I find very effective and useful on my Nikon S2 and Zorki 1 and 4 .
rangefinder contrast from a really good 50/50 mirror in the rf of the Leica II is way more useful than a dim or faded rf patch on a IIIf with its 1.5x mag.
the 1.5 magnifcation is useful to focus a fast 85mm lens or a 135 mm.
Even on LTM Canons, that offer 1x and 1.5x mag. in the finder, I prefer the 1x mag.
If your eyesight is good, and you do not need reading glasses, you can do without the diopter adjustment.
Last edited:
John Shriver
Well-known
Well, then you will get more accurate focusing with a III or newer.
You will get even more accurate focusing with a M camera. No shifting from focus to compose.
You will get even more accurate focusing with a M camera. No shifting from focus to compose.
Peter A (NYC)
Established
I love my II but the shutter button action is not very light. I use 20th sec a lot, so I asked DAG if it could be adjusted. He said sorry, but the models before the IIIc are like that.
Dralowid
Michael
Theoretically a II is 1 x 1 mag. with no diopter adjustment and a III is 1 x 1.5 mag. with diopter adjustment. Later cameras are all 1.5 magnifaction(sure?).
BUT
You may find any mix of the above. With factory conversions almost more common than unconverted cameras, especially pre 1939, I have seen IIs with diopter and 1.5 mag and IIs with 1 mag and diopter. There is nothing wrong with a factory conversion, indeed some make very sweet variations on the theme, postwar black versions especially.
As a user rather than collector, the priority must be to find a nice camera that has not been butchered by an amateur and start from there. Personally I need the diopter adjustment and I appreciate the difference the 1.5 magnification makes.
Michael
BUT
You may find any mix of the above. With factory conversions almost more common than unconverted cameras, especially pre 1939, I have seen IIs with diopter and 1.5 mag and IIs with 1 mag and diopter. There is nothing wrong with a factory conversion, indeed some make very sweet variations on the theme, postwar black versions especially.
As a user rather than collector, the priority must be to find a nice camera that has not been butchered by an amateur and start from there. Personally I need the diopter adjustment and I appreciate the difference the 1.5 magnification makes.
Michael