Thinking of a LTM...

[Roger Hicks]

These are all interesting, and related topics to the question "why we choose a certain tool." I think we have to acknowledge that a large part of photography is pride of ownership and justifying the tool we choose. It's not just about the results, the photos. For many it's the means to that end. Some have pride carrying an old Leica, some a Canon, some a Fed. It's all good.

Dear Garrett,

For sure. But there comes a point where the results have to count too. Perhaps "a large part of photography is pride of ownership" is less and less true as we grow older. At least, if we're photographers, not collectors/pure gear heads. Cameras that we once owned 'because we could' become everyday tools. Also, 'because we could' changes as we get older. Leicas and Leica lenses are a lot more affordable for me now, at 62, than they were when I was in my early 20s. And I'm reasonably confident that I'm a better photographer, partly from practice, and partly from learning which cameras suit me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[goamules]

Dear Garrett,

For sure. But there comes a point where the results have to count too. Perhaps "a large part of photography is pride of ownership" is less and less true as we grow older. At least, if we're photographers, not collectors/pure gear heads. Cameras that we once owned 'because we could' become everyday tools. Also, 'because we could' changes as we get older. Leicas and Leica lenses are a lot more affordable for me now, at 62, than they were when I was in my early 20s. And I'm reasonably confident that I'm a better photographer, partly from practice, and partly from learning which cameras suit me.

Cheers,

R.

I agree. It's a 50/50 thing with me. While I enjoy using something for it's ergonomics or history once, if it cannot deliver a good picture after a few rolls I move on. I have a few lenses that "should" be really good, but I just can't make them work for me. Same with cameras. I know the gearhead mentality is at work with me somewhat, because I know I can take better pictures with an SLR or even my digital. But I keep using the rangefinders because I like the anachronism.

 

[tunalegs]

I had a Fed 5, it was actually well made, but also large and unwieldy - awkward to use. Not exactly my cup of tea in a rangefinder. Certainly though a capable machine in the right hands. Just not mine.

 

[Brian Legge]

I wish the pre-FED 2 FSU cameras had a unified viewfinder/rangefinder. Or at least a IIIc style finder. I found the early FSU cameras to be difficult to used in the same way the Leica III was hard enough to use to sell (despite being a fantastic camera otherwise). It was simply slower to focus and compose than cameras where I could more quickly look between the rangefinder and viewfinder.

The FED 2 was a great camera but given the size and feature set, I'd go with the Canon P over it.

A FSU body in great condition is a solid user but personally I found the Canon LTM cameras and the Leica IIIc and later were better for me personally. If I was budget limited I'd probably go with a barnack style LTM canon.

Below that, I'd go with a FED 2 in good condition.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

This is a little(?) off topic but prompted by Dez's comment on screw slots.

40 to 50 years ago I helped out with the family firm to pay the mortgage etc at weekends. We used to sell some excellent but rather old fashion East German stuff which, imo, was far too cheap to convince people it was any good. But we could point out that every one of them had all the screw slots lined up as they left the factory and, of course, once they had one in their hands they realised that they were perfectly good.

I mentioned this to someone all those years ago and he said that, when he was an apprentice, all the screws and bolts were made with oversized heads. They would fix them and torque them and then he had to mark the heads with a new line for the slot alignment. Then the head was turned down to the correct size and a new screw slot cut so that they all lined up correctly when finally fitted.

I can imagine the reaction to that these days can't you?

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

I tend to agree with David, it's a little harsh to call the USSR-made cameras reverse-snobbery. I agree also it's very little to do with the cameras and a lot to do with former owners. After all, a Leica is worth money and worth spending out on servicing, a FED or Zorki is of low value and not worth the same investment. However, the lower number production-run FEDs and Zorkis are mostly quite well made and (when properly serviced) they offer a very similar experience to Leica for a far lower cost. That makes the "experience" affordable and accessible to many who can't afford or can't justify the price of a Leica or contemporary model.

For cameras like the Zorki 4 and FED 5, where production numbers were huge and quotas were higher priority than QC, it's rather pot luck what you'll get, especially given their age.

I have a 1939 FED NKVD that is almost as smooth as my Leica IIIC. The Leica has slightly better-cut gears and hence a smoother action but the chrome on the FED is far better! The quietest focal-plane shuttered RF I have is a 1955 Zorki 1, fully dismantled and thoroughly CLAd - I'd pit that against any Leica II for "experience".

Hi,

Yes, I think that's it. Having paid good money for a U/S camera we spend more to "maintain its value" as it's an "investment" but buying a cheap one we don't "throw good money after bad".

As I see it, if you like and intend to use the camera, then it pays to get the problems sorted out.

Funnily enough I always had a Leica for years and years (and still have it and still use it) but lusted after a FED to find out what was so wrong with them and why people made so much fuss about them. My only complaint about them is the sharp edge to the eyepiece surround on the FED 3.

But, itoh, having an excellent copy of a Zeiss Contax lens on an excellent copy of a Leica II with one of those cheapo Chinese vented hoods and the little Walz exposure meter is a real fun/dream outfit.

Regards, David

 

[NeeZee]

Roger and Michael are right. Nothing else feels and handles like a Barnack. I also use an M2, and it has the clear edge in film loading and VF, but now I go more to the IIf for less demanding shooting. For more demanding applications an M would be a better choice IMHO.

clear edge in film loading? it's exactly the same process with both cameras.

what is a 'more demanding application', by the way?

 

[Spicy]

Well the Barnack needs to have the film leader trimmed and also does not have a back door...

I'd imagine "more demanding applications" being anything where loading needs to be done quickly and reliably. Pre-trimming your leaders is nice, and certainly speeds up the process when you're out and about shooting and then need to reload, but if you're going to be shooting all day, it can be annoying.

 

[pete hogan]

Not the same loading. The open back on an M and no need to trim the film leader makes the M easier to load than a Barnack.

"More demanding" would include subjects with motion, higher rates of shooting, less time to get the shot. Lever wind on an M is quicker than knob winding-on with a Barnack.

Really like the Barnack too, it's my favorite. My IIf came back yesterday from Youxin Ye doing a CLA and rangefinder service. It's good to have it back.

 

[NeeZee]

well, i always cut all my films just after i bought them and the open back is nice to check if you have loaded correctly but doesn't really speed up things, definitely not up to a 'clear edge'. both are bottom loaders and thus more slowly to load than other cameras. on the other hand loading on both can probably be done quicker than rewinding (the most annoying thing with these cameras if you ask me).

to shoot subjects in serious motion with a rangefinder scale focusing is almost a must, so it doesn't really matter if you have one window or two.

the lever winding is quicker, i give you that, but it's not that slow on a barnack either, once you found out that you shouldn't do it by turning with thumb and index finger, but use only the index finger (much quicker).

well, just my personal view, of course. I've been using a IIIf as my main camera for about 5 years and once you got used to it, you see that all these online moaning about film loading and separate viewfinders is quite exagerated. the things i would add to that camera are a rewind lever and real back loading (and aperture priority if i could 😉 ) - but these are both things missing in the early M's too...

 

[_goodtimez]

I take it easy with loading a screwmount. I never need to cut the edge of the film, however I remove the lens and adjust the speed dial to B mode and crank it before loading.
Once the film and spool are dropped in the body, just trigger and hold the shutter button on B mode and slide the film in with a finger.
With this solution I never missed any loading.

 

[NeeZee]

I take it easy with loading a screwmount. I never need to cut the edge of the film, however I remove the lens and adjust the speed dial to B mode and crank it before loading.
Once the film and spool are dropped in the body, just trigger and hold the shutter button on B mode and slide the film in with a finger.
With this solution I never missed any loading.

yeah, heard about that method - never tried it though. If you're out in the field handling the bottom plate and two films is already enough hassle for me. removing the lens would be even worse. but when you got the time (and a table or something) it probably works well this way.

 

[pete hogan]

Something made Leica add that back door on the M. Want to bet it was to make film loading easier?

Nothing beats a IIf in my opinion, however.

 

[NeeZee]

Something made Leica add that back door on the M. Want to bet it was to make film loading easier?

Nothing beats a IIf in my opinion, however.

i agree, that's what they tried 😉

well, still nice to hear there are other people who love their barnacks - to me the iiif is perfect as i like using flash sometimes. next time i've got some spare cash (like in a hundred years or so) i might add an If as i find myself using the uncoupled 25mm skopar most of the time lately anyway - should be a great combination with that camera.

 

[Bingley]

I take it easy with loading a screwmount. I never need to cut the edge of the film, however I remove the lens and adjust the speed dial to B mode and crank it before loading.
Once the film and spool are dropped in the body, just trigger and hold the shutter button on B mode and slide the film in with a finger.
With this solution I never missed any loading.

I use this same method (although I set the shutter to T). This is what Youxin Ye recommends, btw. I learned the hard way, after messing with trimming the leader and using the metro card approach too, lousing up the shutter, and having to have it repaired.

 

[raid]

I bought an M8. Then an M9.
Then I got a Nicca with a Nikon 5cm/2, and I sent it to Youxin for a CLA.
LTM equipment is so nice to use.

 

[David Hughes]

Something made Leica add that back door on the M...

Hi,

What I'll never understand is why they didn't look at the Contax and copy that. OK, they did for the CL but I wonder if that was Minolta's idea. They could have done it when the IIIc with the solid body was planned.

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi,

What I'll never understand is why they didn't look at the Contax and copy that. OK, they did for the CL but I wonder if that was Minolta's idea. They could have done it when the IIIc with the solid body was planned.

Regards, David

Dear David,

Size. Weight. Rigidity and durability unless you want more size and weight...

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Hughes]

Dear David,

Size. Weight. Rigidity and durability unless you want more size and weight...

Cheers,

R.

Hi,

Yes, probably and what passed for monkey metal in those days was tricky to work with.

Regards, David

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

dang...a whole shipment of LTMs came to Keh.com today.

saw a black III....

raytoie