which leica ltm

[loneranger]

I am a long time M6 user but have eyed the older leica ltm mounts for some time because they seem smaller, lighter, more pure type of rangefinder. Anyways, there are so many different kinds (iiie, f, c , etc) , it is very confusing. Can someone help me out. I'd like to keep the cost less than $350, if possible. Are there ones that are more reliable? How about the canon ltm's, what are the differences. I know it is a lot of questions, I hope someone can give a simple answer.

 

[John Shriver]

I'd say they are all equally reliable. I wouldn't go earlier than IIIa, since a 1/1000 shutter speed is pretty much essential in a world of ISO 400 film, and some LTM lenses only stop down to f/12.5.

The IIIa is slightly lighter than the later models. The body is a bit less rigid, since it's built-up, rather than cast.

The IIIb is to rare to buy as a user.

The IIIc gives you closer RF and VF windows. I think they are slightly squintier to use than the IIIa's. It's an easier camera to service, has a spring loaded accessory shoe, shutter curtain brakes, other plusses.

The IIId is too rare to buy as a user.

The IIIf adds flash sync, which is a very minor advantage over the IIIc. Not really worth the extra cost.

The IIIg has a very nice viewfinder, but is way beyond your price budget.

Allocate at least $100 to $150 for a clean/lube/adjust as part of your budget. So don't spend more than $200 on the body.

The Canon bottom-load screwmounts are all at least as good cameras as the Leica IIIc, maybe better. You get a single-window range-viewfinder with 3 magnifications. Again, get one with a 1/1000 top shutter speed. Most of the model variations have to do with flash sync, which isn't really relevant.

 

[loneranger]

John, thanks for your answer, very helpful. One more quick question, are the shutters as reliable as M leicas.

 

[Graybeard]

I suggest that you only consider a post-war camera. These are of more robust construction and often cost less than their pre-1940 counterparts.

The group which I recommend includes the IIIc and IIIf as well as the IIc and the various IIf variants (all good).

If you will be shooting handheld, really consider the IIc and IIf. These are often the least expensive Barnack Leicas, presumably due to the their lack of shutter speeds below 1/30th, but are fine shooters. I am one of those people who don't find slow shutter speeds useable without a camera support.

No matter which Barnack Leica you buy, budget $80 fir Youxin to do a CLA on your new jewel. It really spoils the party if your new camera has sticky shutter problems out in the field.

 

[John Shriver]

The mechanics of the screwmount Leicas are much simpler than the M series. So there's less parts to go wrong. But they both have very slow, low-tension shutters. When the lube gets dirty or goes bad, the high shutter speeds go off. So they are both more "maintenance dependent" than your typical Japanese SLR.

I expect that M Leica shutters can be adjusted to be more accurate than screwmount shutters.

The primary enemy of all the Leica shutters is, of course, the sun burning a hole in them.

Greybeard is right that the pre-war screwmounts (IIIa and earlier) are more delicate in construction. If you plan to use lenses that are demanding of high focusing accuracy (85/1.5 Summarex, for instance), a IIIc or later is recommended. But, for the typical lenses (Elmars, Hektors), they are certainly accurate enough.

No question that the cast chassis of the IIIc makes it more durable and accurate, and that the refinements of the shutter mechanism are real. But I don't think this is a huge difference.

But, I think the more important point is that I just don't see much logic to paying extra for a IIIf instead of a IIIc, and there can be a big price difference there. But if you see a really good deal on a IIIa, you're not really losing much.

 

[Luddite Frank]

I have five LTM Barnacks.

Three of the LTMs are 1932-33 black lacquered, and don't get out much ( They function well, but are nice enough cosmetically that I'm pretty careful about when & where I take them shooting.).

My first LTM is a IIIf Black-Dial ( 1951-52, s/n 6004xx) that worked when I first got it, but the shutter curtains quickly went crackly-crinkly, so now it needs new curtains AND a CLA; also, the flash sync is gummy, and works intermittently. Cosmetics are beautiful; it just "don't work"...

My "everday user" LTM is an "ugly" (pitted, worn chrome) III (s/n 1366xx, 1934) that came from e-bay for about $150, wearing a Komura 35mm lens... I was surprised to find it in what seems to be good working order - shutter is light-tight, and runs all the way down to 1 sec.

I put my Summicron 50 on it, shot a test roll, and it's been my "user" for over a year now, having shot close to 100 rolls of film.

Also in the kit for this camera are: black 90 Elmar, black 135 Hektor, 35 Elmar, A-36>E-39 filter-ring adapter, E-39 Heavy-Star hood, Summicron "barndoor" hood, Nikon "Varifocal" finder, Gossen Luna-Six meter. This is my "everyday"RF" kit.

The only "downsides" are: the lighter, more delicate "built=up" body, no flash synch ( not too big a deal for me ), the separate VF / RF windows, and having to use an accessory finder for anything but the 50 mm prime lenses. Oh, and trimming the leader and getting the film shoved-under the spring -tongue of the take-up spool...

Most of my shooting is in daylight, so I wouldn't miss the slow-speed knob...

If money were no object, I would like to get a IIIg for a user; I think I would enjoy the internal bright-line finder and the automatic parallax adjustment... but they're a little costly for me...

I plan on having my IIIf overhauled and that becoming the "user"... if that ugly III ever dies...

My local "mentor" keeps telling me that I "need an M Leica" and to "quit torturing myself with LTM for a user"... so far, I'm resisting that advice...

Good luck...


Luddite Frank

 

[peterm1]

I have both a 111a in very nice condition and a Canon IVSB. I like them both but the 111a is noticeably smaller and lighter. I do like the small size of the 111as compared to both the Canons and the later Leica thread mounts but this is by no means a defining thing for me. What I am saying is do not overlook the Canons. Build wise they are every bit as good or better than the Leicas. They tend in fact to be slightly heavier due to the build, but this is not an impediment. Unless I am mistaken they also tend to be cheaper. And all of the above goes for their glass.