Should I buy a Leica iiig ?

[lawnpotter]

I have glasses. I didnt like the Bessa R3a 40 and 50mm frame lines. I like the viewfinders on the Oly RC, Olympus trip and my netter 517/16 folder. I like to see the whole frame lines with my glasses on. With glasses, can I see the whole 50mm frame line on the iiig and iiif with out searching? As a side note,I have a minolta Rokkor40mm that I just bought but I am concidering selling as I want a small range finder body but I dont like the leica CL dim viewfinder. I like the IQ of the Rokkor, but would I be Just as happy with LTM lenses? I prefer a barnack over an M cause of size. Thanks

 

[MC JC86]

The IIIG is a nice camera, isn't really that much smaller than an M though. Is frameline issue your only problem with the Bessa? Would one of theirs with different framelines or VF magnification solve your problem?

Most of the older screwmount lenses are going to look quite a bit different than the Rokkor, less contrast and in some instances not as sharp, there are a lot of new choices for the IIIG though what with the Cosina/Voigtlander options. I've had or have the 35mm 1.7 Ultron, the 90mm Lanthar, the 15mm, the 21mm SC and liked them all.

An M mount will give you all those options and more though.

 

[elmer3.5]

hi, the iiig is like an m3, just a tad lighter. As my early m3 it doesn´t have 35mm FL.
But it has the widest option of slow speeds which i find very useful.
I like collapsible elmar like lenses and then is very pocketable.
Another lens choice is the 40mm rollei sonna hft lens, very small and quite sharp.

IIIg and rollei sonnar

bye

 

[jsrockit]

You will be able to on the IIIg as long as your glasses lenses are closer to your eyes. The IIIf, not really IMO.

 

[lawnpotter]

MCJC86 Thanks for the reply

MCJC86 Thanks for the reply

The M3 weighs 580grams and the iiig weighs 410 grams (ithink) I like light weight cause I carry camera in my jacket pocket. I suppose I could try the R2a or R2m but my rokkor is a 40mm. I have never actually used my rokkor but I like the pics on flickr. Since I bought my old netter I am starting love solid manual cameras and I am liking electronics even less. I think the bessas are nice but I think the barnak would feel more like a real camera to me. It has history and they look built more solid than a Bessa. The lieca CL felt kind of cheap to me.

 

[lawnpotter]

Thanks every one for the replies

 

[Vickko]

It would be good if you could find one in a store to try. I wear glasses, and I think I'm just used to the squinty RF. I have brightline finders that I use, and just use the RF for focus. And, it isn't a fast camera.

But, they are fun to use once in a while.

M's are a lot better, for every day shooting.


Vick

 

[ellisson]

The Minolta CLE has a very decent viewfinder, is small, and pairs perfectly with your rokkor 40mm. Much easier on the eye than a Barnack.

 

[lawnpotter]

Ellisson, is the view finder on the CLE better than the iiig? I Know that the iiig view finder is supposed to be much better than the other Barnacks. I thought of the CLE but Its too electronic for me.

 

[Robert Lai]

I find the IIF viewfinder to be pretty squinty. It is servicable, but not the greatest.

The IIIG finder is really nice, bright, and I love the parallax correction. I wear glasses, and I can see all of the frame lines easily. The 1.5x magnified rangefinder is also great for accurate focusing. In fact, only the M3 and 0.85X finder Ms offer a better or similar focusing effective baselength. The 0.72X M finders have a shorter effective base length. The RF patch may be dim on these older cameras though. I've had DAG replace the beamsplitter on mine - now it's really bright.

I use my IIIG with the CV Heliar 50 f/3.5 which is really, really sharp, and also the CV 35 2.5, which is a tiny and very handy lens (also very contrasty). I do need an external finder for the 35mm, but it's not a stretch to go from the RF to the 35mm viewfinder.

I've just obtained a M7 0.85X finder. The first thing I realized is that I can't see all of the 35mm frame lines with glasses on. However, the view through that coated M finder is astonishingly clear and contrasty! It's now at Leica USA getting a DX reader upgrade and MP finder upgrade, so I can't say more about it. However, my first impression is that the IIIG is a lot smaller and lighter than the M7. The IIF is even lighter, if you can live with that 50mm only finder.

 

[lawnpotter]

Wow you sound encouraging on the IIIG Robert. Can I buy it from you? Is it not true that the IIIg viewfinder is brighter than any M? The M has to be dimmer for the patch doesnt it?

 

[Robert Lai]

Hi lawnpotter,
Send me an email. I have two IIIG (and a IIF), and I was thinking of putting the IIF and one of the IIIG for sale. One of my IIIGs (and the IIF) has been overhauled by DAG, and it is still with him, as I sent him all of my long lenses (90 and 135mm) to be sure that they focus properly wide open and up close. They've been with him for about 6 months now, which is typical for DAG. When it comes back from Don, I MAY put it up for sale. The reason for my hesitation is that I doubt that I'll recover the cost of purchase and service. Nevertheless, keep in touch!

My other IIIG (the one I'm currently using) is awaiting it's turn to go to DAG. It was overhauled by John van Stelten of Focal Point in the past, but now it needs new vulcanite, and cleaning of the viewfinder (slightly hazy). Shutter and RF is accurate though! I shot Kodachrome and now Provia 400x with this

 

[lawnpotter]

Robert I sent you a PM. Your email feature dosent work.

 

[rogerzilla]

For the price of a IIIg I would have an M3. Any day.

 

[Roger Hicks]

For the price of a IIIg I would have an M3. Any day.

Seconded. And I've had both. A IIIg is neither one thing nor the other, lacking the simplicity of a IIIf and the features of an M3. On the other hand, I can see why some prefer the rangefinder/viewfinder arrangements of the IIIg, so I'm not saying that my choice (or yours) is the only sensible one.

Cheers,

R.

 

[furcafe]

Thirded (?).

I have various M bodies & LTM bodies, including the IIIg. If VF brightness & eye relief are your criteria, all of the "Barnack" bodies, including the IIIg, fall noticeably short of the M series. And if size & weight are your criteria, the IIIg is the largest Barnack & isn't that much smaller & lighter than a non-metered M like the M3 through M4P. The M7 is 1 of the heavier bodies, if not the heaviest (don't know how it compares to the M5). Not sure why you haven't considered just getting a lower-magnification Bessa like the R2A.

That said, I still have my IIIg & use it from time to time. It's a well-made camera & the RF/VF is an improvement over the previous Barnacks, but not the quantum leap that was made by the M3. Then again, I like all kinds of cameras & enjoy using the earlier, squintier Barnacks, too, as well as other like other cameras w/notoriously dark/squinty VFs like the Contax RFs, Kodak Ektra, etc., so ergonomics are clearly not my only concern.

Seconded. And I've had both. A IIIg is neither one thing nor the other, lacking the simplicity of a IIIf and the features of an M3. On the other hand, I can see why some prefer the rangefinder/viewfinder arrangements of the IIIg, so I'm not saying that my choice (or yours) is the only sensible one.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rogerzilla]

I don't actually have a IIIg; I have a IIIa, a IIIc, a IIf and an M3, but the convenience of an integrated RF and VF trumps everything. An M3 is probably cheaper than a IIIg in equivalent condition and you can use your old lenses.

 

[watanabe]

If you're still looking shoot me a pm, have a iiig bought from KEH 2-3 weeks ago in exc condition and cla'd by YY thereafter. There was a classified up here but think it just expired. Also have the heliar 50 3.5 limited he mentioned above.

Its a lovely camera but decided to go with a nex for my walkaround and large format for my film.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The IIIg was HCB's favorite.

Erik.

 

[Augenblick]

111g and glasses

111g and glasses

I own a 111g and am a glasses wearer. It's a superlative camera. The rangefinder window with 1.5x magnification making for very fast, flare free focussing. Winding on too is a delight, and very quick once the rolling along the edge of the forefinger technique is mastered.

However, I have to say I prefer using the camera when I'm wearing contact lenses. With my glasses on, the damn flash socket touches my spectacle lens. If you don't cover the socket with a plastic plug, you will scratch the lens of your glasses very quickly. If you use the (Leica)plug, you still contact your right spectacle lens near the top, so it takes a little longer for the scratches to appear. I have already spoilt a pair of glasses this way, but I got some good pictures.

The Zeiss ZM is great for glasses wearers.....ahem. And they sensibly put the flash socket at the side, like the Canon rangfinders.