texchappy
Well-known
I'm thinking about saving for a Barnack right now instead of the M I'd considered. I know some of the basic differences but still have a couple of questions.
1. I'm not totally understanding how the rangefinder window(s) are different than the M's - how does it work?
2. How is the experience of shooting different with a Barnack than an M (or other rangefinders).
Only RF experience to date is a Zorki 4 FWIW.
TIA,
Tony
1. I'm not totally understanding how the rangefinder window(s) are different than the M's - how does it work?
2. How is the experience of shooting different with a Barnack than an M (or other rangefinders).
Only RF experience to date is a Zorki 4 FWIW.
TIA,
Tony
colyn
ישו משיח
The M's have only 1 range/viewfinder combined window whereas the Barnacks have 2. One is the rangefinder window while the other is the viewfinder window..
The Barnacks are going to be a bit slower to shoot and film loading is through the bottom without a back door like on the M's.. You also have to cut the film leader a bit longer to make loading easier..
loquax ludens
Well-known
The separate viewfinder and rangefinder windows on my IIIc are small and dim compared to my M cameras. I wear eyeglasses, and that makes it more difficult for me to focus and compose since they don't have much eye-relief. I have a hard time using the IIIc in dim light. Also, the metal rim on the vf and rf windows can easily scratch plastic eyeglass lenses.
What I like most about my IIIc is its compact size, especially with my collapsible Elmar mounted. It's just a little shorter and thinner than my M3 or M6, and weighs a few ounces less. Not a big deal, but it slips into my coat pocket more easily than my M's.
If you buy a Barnack, be sure to budget for a CLA unless you know it's just been done. Really you should do that for any camera, but the LTM Leica cameras are older and often in greater need of a CLA when you get them.
What I like most about my IIIc is its compact size, especially with my collapsible Elmar mounted. It's just a little shorter and thinner than my M3 or M6, and weighs a few ounces less. Not a big deal, but it slips into my coat pocket more easily than my M's.
If you buy a Barnack, be sure to budget for a CLA unless you know it's just been done. Really you should do that for any camera, but the LTM Leica cameras are older and often in greater need of a CLA when you get them.
muser53
MUSER53
Tony, The first decent camera I ever used was my dad's 111F. The Barnacks were a marvel in their day but are simply slower to use than M Leica's mostly because the viewfinder requires you focus in one window and compose in another. They are really cool cameras but are not everyone's cuppa tea. If possible I would try and borrow one to see if it fits your style of shooting.
Rico
Well-known
Shooting a Barnack is a fussier affair overall. Compared to an M, it's primitive, loud, and squinty. I love mine.
Prewar models are even a bit smaller, but any Barnack makes an M seem strangely overweight. Once you find your groove, a Barnack makes the perfect shooting machine.
jarski
Veteran
Barnack rangefinder "peep hole" requires good eye sight, and its still painful to use. those are fun cameras, but would not get it for main body.
bean_counter
Well-known
I used the IIIf as a main body for a while, but could hardly wait to save up for an M.
I still use the Barnack; with a 50/3.5 Elmar stopped down, fast film, and an SBOOI finder, it makes a great coat pocket "point 'n shoot" using scale focus. It's fun.
I still use the Barnack; with a 50/3.5 Elmar stopped down, fast film, and an SBOOI finder, it makes a great coat pocket "point 'n shoot" using scale focus. It's fun.
Brian Legge
Veteran
If you like the footprint of the Barnack but want a unified finder, take a look at the earlier Canon LTM cameras like the IVSB.
After using a Canon P - with it's larger, more M like finder - I found I missed the high magnification finder of the IIIc. The IVSB is a decent compromise with a unified finder window that can be magnified for close focus.
After using a Canon P - with it's larger, more M like finder - I found I missed the high magnification finder of the IIIc. The IVSB is a decent compromise with a unified finder window that can be magnified for close focus.
S.H.
Picture taker
Some remarks about Barnacks:
- 1) there is a RF window and a separate VF window. Both are small, but usable; the RF after and including the III is 1.5 magnified. Can scratch glasses. The VF is close to the lens, so parallax for a 50mm is minimal (compared to a contax II for example), I was pleasantly surprised.
- 2) shooting experience
The zorki 4 is closer to the M than any Barnack as it has a combined RF/VF and some have a lever wind. The Barnacks are smaller, have also separate slow speeds (two dials to turn). They are also a tad louder than a M. Of course, a M has more accurate and quicker framing with a lens in the 35-90mm range. But if you are used to manual cameras without metering, there is not a world of differences. If the camera is pre set before the shot, it is almost as quick. There is no lever wind. With a collapsible lens it can fit in a pocket without being too heavy.
Only way to find out if you like it, is to play with one. I always thought the separate RF/VF was impractical, I changed my mind, but I did not liked it when I was a beginner.
Personally, I think using a Barnack makes sense with a 50mm using the built-in VF, and with a wide (35mm or wider) with a small external VF. It is a small and light package. Adding external accessories quickly makes it as bulky as a M, and much more quirky. (but of cousre it is fun, and I have a VIOOH too )
Keep in mind that Barnacks are old, and were often very much used. Rust, weak RF, dirt in shutter, gummed slow speeds, holes in curtains are not uncommon. Bad repairs by amateurs can also add problems and are more and more encountered. I would advise to look for any clean model regardless of year/model, as a clean 1934 III is better that a rusted 1954 IIIf anyway. The price of a full cla by a competent repairman costs almost the price of the body itself (excepting collector grade items). It should cost much less than a M though : 200-250€ for a hassle-free example is possible, but you have to look for it, and probably not on eBay.
Bottom line : try it, and do not rush.
- 1) there is a RF window and a separate VF window. Both are small, but usable; the RF after and including the III is 1.5 magnified. Can scratch glasses. The VF is close to the lens, so parallax for a 50mm is minimal (compared to a contax II for example), I was pleasantly surprised.
- 2) shooting experience
The zorki 4 is closer to the M than any Barnack as it has a combined RF/VF and some have a lever wind. The Barnacks are smaller, have also separate slow speeds (two dials to turn). They are also a tad louder than a M. Of course, a M has more accurate and quicker framing with a lens in the 35-90mm range. But if you are used to manual cameras without metering, there is not a world of differences. If the camera is pre set before the shot, it is almost as quick. There is no lever wind. With a collapsible lens it can fit in a pocket without being too heavy.
Only way to find out if you like it, is to play with one. I always thought the separate RF/VF was impractical, I changed my mind, but I did not liked it when I was a beginner.
Personally, I think using a Barnack makes sense with a 50mm using the built-in VF, and with a wide (35mm or wider) with a small external VF. It is a small and light package. Adding external accessories quickly makes it as bulky as a M, and much more quirky. (but of cousre it is fun, and I have a VIOOH too
)Keep in mind that Barnacks are old, and were often very much used. Rust, weak RF, dirt in shutter, gummed slow speeds, holes in curtains are not uncommon. Bad repairs by amateurs can also add problems and are more and more encountered. I would advise to look for any clean model regardless of year/model, as a clean 1934 III is better that a rusted 1954 IIIf anyway. The price of a full cla by a competent repairman costs almost the price of the body itself (excepting collector grade items). It should cost much less than a M though : 200-250€ for a hassle-free example is possible, but you have to look for it, and probably not on eBay.
Bottom line : try it, and do not rush.
Kent
Finally at home...
Yep. Also my thoughts.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I'll second that too.
The older ones are fun to use but a bit of a pain once you've used a series M or - dare I say it? - the FED 2 etc. This answer isn't really about photography is it? It's more about having fun taking photographs and (or whilst) using elderly cameras.
If your sole aim is a good photograph then there are some digital cameras that are far easier to use and produce more than adequate prints. Although they are not much use for slides and a pita for good (affordable) B&W. Affordable is not the word I'd use for digital...
Regards, David
ferider
Veteran
Barnacks are fun, but I wouldn't use one exclusively.
M bodies are much faster and more accurate in use. This is close to what the view looks like through an M3 finder:
And the frame-lines move when you change focus - to correct for parallax.
M bodies are much faster and more accurate in use. This is close to what the view looks like through an M3 finder:
And the frame-lines move when you change focus - to correct for parallax.
FrankS
Registered User
Slight lateral thinking shift: get a Leica CL. Like a Barnack, it is smaller than an M, but has a large single viewing window like the M and the more versatile M mount. They can be found for around $200 with an inoperative meter.
ferider
Veteran
Or, if money is tight, I recommend a Canon P - almost an M3, but LTM mount.
Bingley
Veteran
The posts above sum up the Barnack experience nicely. I use a IIIc that's had a CLA and various repairs and now has a very clean vf, yet I still use a brightline finder on it even when shooting a 50. The Canon IVSB2 is comparable to a IIIf, but has a quieter shutter and a unified vf/rf with adjustable magnification which is nice for precise focusing. I completely agree that Barnacks are slower cameras to use than Ms but are fun in their own way.
colyn
ישו משיח
I have a P coming in tomorrow. It should go well with my Canon 7...
julio1fer
Well-known
I use two IIIa bodies regularly. I actually like having the rangefinder window separate, since most of the time I use an external viewfinder for focal lengths other than 50mm. The rangefinder window is excellent for focusing on something critical.
As for comparisons with the M, it all depends on your shooting preferences and style. If you really need parallax correction you should probably be better off with an SLR.
Eye relief (diopter compensation) is ample in the rangefinder window - just adjust the diopter level and set your glasses up when you focus.
Definitely Barnack bodies are smaller and easier to handle IMHO.
Canon RF bodies are excellent options as said above.
As for comparisons with the M, it all depends on your shooting preferences and style. If you really need parallax correction you should probably be better off with an SLR.
Eye relief (diopter compensation) is ample in the rangefinder window - just adjust the diopter level and set your glasses up when you focus.
Definitely Barnack bodies are smaller and easier to handle IMHO.
Canon RF bodies are excellent options as said above.
Vics
Veteran
I've only shot M3, but I think the coolest thing about the Barnacks is the 3.5/50 Elmar. I'm saving up for one to adapt to my M. I love that Elmar IQ.
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃı&
My II was originally a IA from 1931 but was upgrade in about 1950. Sure, the RF and VF windows are squinty by M standards but neither one on my camera is dark. The 1,5 magnification - pretty massive compared to the V/RFs of the Ms - makes it easy to focus very precisely.
A drawback is of course that the VF is only accurate for 50mm.
In my experience a Barnack is not much slower than an M. Perhaps I'm a slow photographer
A drawback is of course that the VF is only accurate for 50mm.
In my experience a Barnack is not much slower than an M. Perhaps I'm a slow photographer
Dralowid
Michael
Start the journey, buy a Leica II or III and try it. If you don't like it, sell it and you should not be out of pocket. The only cost will be film...and if you didn't enjoy the experience that is hardly likely to amount to much.
Next step, buy an M...and so on and so on.
The problem is that you will soon find you have more than one camera.
Next step, buy an M...and so on and so on.
The problem is that you will soon find you have more than one camera.