David Hughes
David Hughes
Yeah, they are fun, fun, fun and you get to meet and talk to a lot of people when using them. Sometimes they even offer you their old film cameras...
Regards, David
Regards, David
Richard G
Veteran
Ii + Sbooi
In capitals.
In capitals.
JohnTF
Veteran
I enjoy my Standard, the plain clear viewfinder-- and any other finders I can fit from my collection of Cosina, Leica, and Nikon cameras.
I started with zone focus, and am pretty good with it. At my young age, I was happy to find a camera that took 135 film, and could be adjusted for exposure and focus. I have a good supply of LTM lenses that simply fit down to the 12mm.
I recall that my black Standard was really my first, came with the RF, but after I bought it from Pavel in Brno- I passed through Paris on the way home-- you do attract attention, -- negatives were fine.
My avatar also works fine, another Czech find, Skoda?, but unless you are looking for the signature of that lens-- you may wish for any of the line with the Standard LTM.
I started with zone focus, and am pretty good with it. At my young age, I was happy to find a camera that took 135 film, and could be adjusted for exposure and focus. I have a good supply of LTM lenses that simply fit down to the 12mm.
I recall that my black Standard was really my first, came with the RF, but after I bought it from Pavel in Brno- I passed through Paris on the way home-- you do attract attention, -- negatives were fine.
My avatar also works fine, another Czech find, Skoda?, but unless you are looking for the signature of that lens-- you may wish for any of the line with the Standard LTM.
Dralowid
Michael
Black II conversion with rangefinder from a III
Richard G
Veteran
Mint IIIf. Very compact. The collapsible Elmar is key. And for this one I don't use the SBOOI so it goes more easily into the pocket. It is like a Swiss watch.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
My IIIc/f, which will never go anywhere, it was a gear swop with TomA so has immense sentimental value but is a perfect size to carry around. That Skopar is a perfect fit so much so I have another on my IIIg.
Haha, agreed, but they are gems.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
"impossible to actually use"
Sometimes, as in this case, hyperbole descends into absolute nonsense.
Sometimes, as in this case, hyperbole descends into absolute nonsense.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
My IIIc/f, which will never go anywhere, it was a gear swop with TomA so has immense sentimental value but is a perfect size to carry around. That Skopar is a perfect fit so much so I have another on my IIIg.
Nice one, Chris. Looks like it just left the factory.
I have a Leica II and 3 of the IIIc. I have been fascinated by the IIIc and its wartime history for some time. It's my favorite of the Barnacks. I use the 21mm, 25mm, 28mm, 35mm, and 75mm Voigtlander lenses on the IIIc, each with its own CV accessory finder. And I use the Collapsible Summicron with that same 50mm Leitz finder as in Chris' photo.
Once in a while I do get an urge for a IIIg; and once in a while, for a I or a Standard. I have resisted so far . . .
MaxElmar
Well-known
They're all pretty much the same animal, if you ask me (except for the very oldest and very latest examples). I wear glasses and use external finders. As for "impossible to actually use" well, it's a poor craftsman that blames his tools. I wouldn't recommend it, but when I sold my first photo to a local newspaper in 1979 or so, it was a high school basketball shot with a Leica IIIa and a hazy Summar - pushed Tri-X. Go figure.
or people take hyperbole way too seriously.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Yes I think it was too perfect for Tom he liked a used camera to look like a used camera.
Once in a while I do get an urge for a IIIg; and once in a while, for a I or a Standard. I have resisted so far . . .
I satisfied my IIIg urge, they are much less expensive these days than they were even a couple of years ago. I must admit I am a little disappointed I was perhaps over expecting the legend. Nothing wrong but that size difference does matter, for me and for the price difference I don't find it exceeds what the IIIc can do, like you I now hanker for a I, the standard is a bit pricey for a workable example.
FUJINON
Member
I have used most of the Barnack cameras over the years 1956 to present time and find that my choice would be the Leica IIIb.It's a great camera to use.
lxmike
M2 fan.
I enjoy using Barnacks, IIIg is a gem, as is my IIIc
Pioneer
Veteran
I own several of Barnack's wonderful little tools but I can't tell which is best. They are all terrific.
Of course I do have some favorites, everybody does. Even that can change as time progresses though.
At this point my overhauled III definitely receives the most attention. It is one smooth little operator and I actually don't miss the 1/1000 second shutter speed, though I had thought I might.
The other Leica that I use a lot is my "new" Leica Null, a reproduction of the first series of 100 cameras that Leica produced to originally test the market prospects of Oskar Barnack's engineering masterpiece. Mine looks exactly like the Leica Null Series No 122 shown on the LHSA org website.
I think that this is about as basic as 35mm film photography gets outside of using a pinhole. The shutter doesn't even cap so you have to cover the lens every time you wind on the film. There is no rangefinder nor is there any facility for exchanging lenses. Even the shutter knob, which adjusts from 1/20 seconds through 1/500 seconds, works entirely different from anything else I own. But the lens, a modern recreation of the original anastigmat using modern glass, is worth the price of entry for the entire camera. It is great fun and, for me, very addicting.
In fact, it is so addicting that I think I have shot more 35mm film on this camera since I have owned it than any of the other Barnacks I own. For me it shows that Mr. Barnack pretty much had it right from the very beginning. The only additions that followed that I actually find useful are the capping shutter, the interchangeable lens mount, the rangefinder, and the low range shutter speeds. Of course, that describes the Leica III so I guess that explains why I enjoy using that camera as much as I do.
I don't find the viewfinders squinty, in fact they seem to work perfectly for me. The rangefinder, because of the magnification, is easier for me to focus then the M version. Finally, after a lot of practice loading the camera, it is now pretty much second nature. I have even loaded it in the dark.
I really believe that Barnack got it right the first time. Most of the "improvements" that came along with time didn't really make the camera better, they just made the camera a bit more convenient to use.
Of course I do have some favorites, everybody does. Even that can change as time progresses though.
At this point my overhauled III definitely receives the most attention. It is one smooth little operator and I actually don't miss the 1/1000 second shutter speed, though I had thought I might.
The other Leica that I use a lot is my "new" Leica Null, a reproduction of the first series of 100 cameras that Leica produced to originally test the market prospects of Oskar Barnack's engineering masterpiece. Mine looks exactly like the Leica Null Series No 122 shown on the LHSA org website.
I think that this is about as basic as 35mm film photography gets outside of using a pinhole. The shutter doesn't even cap so you have to cover the lens every time you wind on the film. There is no rangefinder nor is there any facility for exchanging lenses. Even the shutter knob, which adjusts from 1/20 seconds through 1/500 seconds, works entirely different from anything else I own. But the lens, a modern recreation of the original anastigmat using modern glass, is worth the price of entry for the entire camera. It is great fun and, for me, very addicting.
In fact, it is so addicting that I think I have shot more 35mm film on this camera since I have owned it than any of the other Barnacks I own. For me it shows that Mr. Barnack pretty much had it right from the very beginning. The only additions that followed that I actually find useful are the capping shutter, the interchangeable lens mount, the rangefinder, and the low range shutter speeds. Of course, that describes the Leica III so I guess that explains why I enjoy using that camera as much as I do.
I don't find the viewfinders squinty, in fact they seem to work perfectly for me. The rangefinder, because of the magnification, is easier for me to focus then the M version. Finally, after a lot of practice loading the camera, it is now pretty much second nature. I have even loaded it in the dark.
I really believe that Barnack got it right the first time. Most of the "improvements" that came along with time didn't really make the camera better, they just made the camera a bit more convenient to use.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Exactly. 1.5x magnification in the rangefinder image, from the iiia onwards, is a significant help at nailing accurate focus as opposed to the combined rf/vf of the M series. Which was one reason why the iiif was still being produced two years after the introduction of the M3, and a new model, the iiig, was introduced 3 years after the M3 was introduced. Some people just preferred them.
I like using my iiib with a 50 because, when trying to focus, I can better see what I am doing than I can with my M! Squinty my arse.
But, to zealous True Believers on their knees at The Church of What's
Happening Now, none of this will ever make any sense.
pschauss
Well-known
I have a IIIa and a IIIf (60th birthday present from my daughter and son-in-law) and love them both. After ten years of use on both, I sent them to Youxin Ye for a CLA. The viewfinders and rangefinders are clear and easy to focus, even with my glasses on. I have never had a problem with the bottom loading. In fact, I prefer it because there are few ways to have light leaks.
traveler_101
American abroad
IIIf similar experience. I find magnification of the RF helps me to focus. I us the Elmar without an external viewfinder. 35mm CV Colour Skopar with an inexpensive Russian viewfinder - only disadvantage is that it increases size of the package.
shawn
Veteran
My favorite is a clone, the Tower 45. Much easier to load (like a M3), shutter speeds can be accurately set before or after winding, better placement of the shutter release and the lever advance is more convenient.
Shawn (Ducking and covering....)
Shawn (Ducking and covering....)
David Hughes
David Hughes
Squinty Viewfinders
Squinty Viewfinders
I've got to defend the early Leica's viewfinders for the simple reason that, at the time, they were a vast improvement on the alternatives; meaning ground glass screens. I've a quarter plate SLR from the 1920's with a CZ f/4.5 Tessar fitted and it's a PITA to use.
The Leica with it's direct vision VF would have seemed years ahead and add all the other advantages over the serious amateurs' plate cameras with their f/6.3 lenses to focus upside down and so on and the Leica owners would have felt they were in heaven. And they didn't have to carry several pounds weight of glass plates in metal frames but could load 36 shots at one go...
OTOH, they (Leitz) did have the chance to improve the VF when the all new die cast IIIc appeared but they didn't. Like with many other minor points the range baffles me at times; I mean, why, why not call the new IIIc the series IV?
Regards, David
Squinty Viewfinders
I've got to defend the early Leica's viewfinders for the simple reason that, at the time, they were a vast improvement on the alternatives; meaning ground glass screens. I've a quarter plate SLR from the 1920's with a CZ f/4.5 Tessar fitted and it's a PITA to use.
The Leica with it's direct vision VF would have seemed years ahead and add all the other advantages over the serious amateurs' plate cameras with their f/6.3 lenses to focus upside down and so on and the Leica owners would have felt they were in heaven. And they didn't have to carry several pounds weight of glass plates in metal frames but could load 36 shots at one go...
OTOH, they (Leitz) did have the chance to improve the VF when the all new die cast IIIc appeared but they didn't. Like with many other minor points the range baffles me at times; I mean, why, why not call the new IIIc the series IV?
Regards, David