Dralowid
Michael
Nothing special...
Nothing special...
Well, nothing special to anyone else but look at the date on the invoice. I have had this camera for just over 50 years.
IMG_2477 by dralowid, on Flickr
And to those of you who think having a camera serviced on a regular basis is a good idea I say 'b******s'! In my ownership it has been serviced once.
Nothing special...
Well, nothing special to anyone else but look at the date on the invoice. I have had this camera for just over 50 years.
IMG_2477 by dralowid, on FlickrAnd to those of you who think having a camera serviced on a regular basis is a good idea I say 'b******s'! In my ownership it has been serviced once.
jcb4718
Well-known
That's a nice looking camera, Dralowid and having it in your possession for 50 years must make it special for you. How often did you use it? Any interesting stories?
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Very nice camera, Michael. Was the Elmar also cleaned only once on the inside in the last 50 years?
Erik.
Erik.
Jerevan
Recycled User
£ 31, 10 shillings well spent, Michael! 
Dralowid
Michael
£31/10s/0d and Wallace Heaton gave a 12 month guarantee if I remember rightly.
The picture flatters. It has travelled a lot, got very wet, very cold, got lost, photographed a few people later to become nearly famous, survived the second half of the '60s, art college, unemployment and children etc etc. Even earned a few £££s Not so much use in the last few years.
Erik, I don't think the lens has been cleaned although there is now a hint of cloudiness, it went for a service because the shutter had started to 'band' and I'd also managed to lose the shutter release button. If you have ever tried to remove the button from a screw thread Leica you'll understand how unlikely this was.
Michael
The picture flatters. It has travelled a lot, got very wet, very cold, got lost, photographed a few people later to become nearly famous, survived the second half of the '60s, art college, unemployment and children etc etc. Even earned a few £££s Not so much use in the last few years.
Erik, I don't think the lens has been cleaned although there is now a hint of cloudiness, it went for a service because the shutter had started to 'band' and I'd also managed to lose the shutter release button. If you have ever tried to remove the button from a screw thread Leica you'll understand how unlikely this was.
Michael
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Yes, the button originally had a more rounded top. Did you loose the shutter release guard too? This one doesn't look familiar to me.
Erik.
Dralowid
Michael
Yes I probably did. At least it is not one of those that I made out of the rings that hold bicycle tyre valves in place!
faurefan
Member
Self intro...
Self intro...
Hello all,
First timer here. I sort of stepped backwards into Leica LTM photography. A friend bought an apartment from a hoarder person whose husband had collected cameras. Out of the dusty collection came a Leica IIIf with self-timer, a collapsible Summicron, a Summaron 35mm f/3.5, a 35mm SBLOO finder, an SYOOM Leicavit winder and a Leitz WINTU right-angle finder.
After shooting one roll I discovered that the camera needed a CLA and it went up to Youxin Ye with the Summicron. It worked perfectly on return except that the Summicron front element had enough scratches to give a misty softness to the center. No such problem with the Summaron though - despite a slight dent in the front ring, the glass is mint and the photos are amazing. It works well with the large external finder.
I've since had the Summicron polished and recoated by John Van Stelten and it is in fine working order.
Self intro...
Hello all,
First timer here. I sort of stepped backwards into Leica LTM photography. A friend bought an apartment from a hoarder person whose husband had collected cameras. Out of the dusty collection came a Leica IIIf with self-timer, a collapsible Summicron, a Summaron 35mm f/3.5, a 35mm SBLOO finder, an SYOOM Leicavit winder and a Leitz WINTU right-angle finder.
After shooting one roll I discovered that the camera needed a CLA and it went up to Youxin Ye with the Summicron. It worked perfectly on return except that the Summicron front element had enough scratches to give a misty softness to the center. No such problem with the Summaron though - despite a slight dent in the front ring, the glass is mint and the photos are amazing. It works well with the large external finder.
I've since had the Summicron polished and recoated by John Van Stelten and it is in fine working order.
Last edited:
jos58
Member
Great find, it always amazes me that after a cla these oldies work so well again!
Congrats.
Congrats.
Liquid Fusion
Established
Leica IIIC Sharkskin - 1949
Leica IIIC Sharkskin - 1949
Leica IIIC Sharkskin - 1949 + Voightlander 25mm Snapshot lens
Leica IIIC Sharkskin - 1949
Leica IIIC Sharkskin - 1949 + Voightlander 25mm Snapshot lens
asiafish
Established
tinfoiljesus
Newbie
First post here! Last Saturday I went to a local Camera flea market (a biannual event in Stockholm since this spring). I had some money saved from selling other cameras and misc stuff at flea markets, so I thought about a M2 or M4-2. I had thought quite a bit about the screw mounts as well, but thought I needed the M.
Well... Didn't find a M, but after a while I caught a glimpse of this on a table I had hurried past. Another visitor was fondling it and I began to panic. Luckily he put it down and when I held it I knew I didn't need a M camera.
I thought I was a 35 mm-guy, but nah.
I thought it would feel more like the Zorki I I fondled a while back. Nooooo!
I thought people bought these since they were the cheapest way in to the Leica family, and got an M when they had the money. Nope!
The body was made in 1954 (assembled in Canada, I think) and the Elmar 50/2.8 was born in 1960. The body is in good condition except for a little dirt in hard to clean places on the outside. Small scratches on the bottom plate. I have no idea about service history but the curtains look good and all shutter speeds seem right. The Elmar is reasonably clean (maybe some small dust speck). There is a tiny bit of oil on the aperture blades, but just enough to make them slightly darker. I can't see any hazing.
The seller asked for $240. I didn't even haggle, just shook his hand.
Except for it being a 2.8 Elmar instead of the 3.5 it is bare bones, and I do like that. I will make friends with the focal length, even though I've usually used 35's. I do not want a extra finder, or a larger lens. Minimal but functional, isn't that what it's all about? The fact that the 2.8 protrudes around 12 mm more than the 3.5 is enough to keep me awake at night.
This is the first camera I've really felt the need to fondle. At multiple times. I can walk around with it at home just to feel it's presence. Wierd? Is that an anorak I see?
Well... Didn't find a M, but after a while I caught a glimpse of this on a table I had hurried past. Another visitor was fondling it and I began to panic. Luckily he put it down and when I held it I knew I didn't need a M camera.
I thought I was a 35 mm-guy, but nah.
I thought it would feel more like the Zorki I I fondled a while back. Nooooo!
I thought people bought these since they were the cheapest way in to the Leica family, and got an M when they had the money. Nope!
The body was made in 1954 (assembled in Canada, I think) and the Elmar 50/2.8 was born in 1960. The body is in good condition except for a little dirt in hard to clean places on the outside. Small scratches on the bottom plate. I have no idea about service history but the curtains look good and all shutter speeds seem right. The Elmar is reasonably clean (maybe some small dust speck). There is a tiny bit of oil on the aperture blades, but just enough to make them slightly darker. I can't see any hazing.
The seller asked for $240. I didn't even haggle, just shook his hand.
Except for it being a 2.8 Elmar instead of the 3.5 it is bare bones, and I do like that. I will make friends with the focal length, even though I've usually used 35's. I do not want a extra finder, or a larger lens. Minimal but functional, isn't that what it's all about?
The fact that the 2.8 protrudes around 12 mm more than the 3.5 is enough to keep me awake at night. This is the first camera I've really felt the need to fondle. At multiple times. I can walk around with it at home just to feel it's presence. Wierd? Is that an anorak I see?
faurefan
Member
Nice and great deal!
Greyscale
Veteran
Leica IIIf with radioactive Summicron 50/2 by Mike Novak, on Flickr
Leica IIIc and IIIf by Mike Novak, on Flickr
B.Toews
Well-known
o-Tom-atic
Member
Leica iiif with 35mm color scopar and bowery bag.
B-9
Devin Bro
This thread really is making me miss my old IIIf and SYOOM with 3.5cm Elmar... need to get another elmar for the M8
lxmike
M2 fan.
maxmadco
Well-known
Thanks to all for sharing, these are my favorite cameras.
lxmike
M2 fan.
First post here! Last Saturday I went to a local Camera flea market (a biannual event in Stockholm since this spring). I had some money saved from selling other cameras and misc stuff at flea markets, so I thought about a M2 or M4-2. I had thought quite a bit about the screw mounts as well, but thought I needed the M.
Well... Didn't find a M, but after a while I caught a glimpse of this on a table I had hurried past. Another visitor was fondling it and I began to panic. Luckily he put it down and when I held it I knew I didn't need a M camera.
I thought I was a 35 mm-guy, but nah.
I thought it would feel more like the Zorki I I fondled a while back. Nooooo!
I thought people bought these since they were the cheapest way in to the Leica family, and got an M when they had the money. Nope!
The body was made in 1954 (assembled in Canada, I think) and the Elmar 50/2.8 was born in 1960. The body is in good condition except for a little dirt in hard to clean places on the outside. Small scratches on the bottom plate. I have no idea about service history but the curtains look good and all shutter speeds seem right. The Elmar is reasonably clean (maybe some small dust speck). There is a tiny bit of oil on the aperture blades, but just enough to make them slightly darker. I can't see any hazing.
The seller asked for $240. I didn't even haggle, just shook his hand.
Except for it being a 2.8 Elmar instead of the 3.5 it is bare bones, and I do like that. I will make friends with the focal length, even though I've usually used 35's. I do not want a extra finder, or a larger lens. Minimal but functional, isn't that what it's all about?
This is the first camera I've really felt the need to fondle. At multiple times. I can walk around with it at home just to feel it's presence. Wierd? Is that an anorak I see?
very very well done, a beautiful camera and a camera to cherish ans use