Help! Advice on a LTM Leica IIIa

[owen w.]

Okay, I throw myself to the wolves here. I may have earned it.

<p>

On a spur of the moment, with 11 minutes on the *-bay for what was

listed as a IIIf going for under $200, I put a bid of $201 and won my

very first auction. Having never won a bid, I was rather shocked to

win.

<p>

But then, doing the due diligence I should have done, I find from the

serial numbers listed on Steven Gandy's site that it is not a IIIf, a

early 50's body, but a IIIa from 1936.

<p>

Yeah, yeah. Caveat emptor. And, it isn't about the money, per se. I

was inspired to get a user LTM and learn the pleasures. But, is not

the IIIa a much inferior body to even the IIIc, let alone the IIIf?

The IIIg is the obviously most desired, but always much more expensive.

<p>

The seller is a grandson of a former Leica dealer. In retrospect, I

think the kid was selling off the old man's set of one each of all

Leica III models, but mislabeling and posting them as all (or mostly)

IIIf as he went. It would seem he didn't know. ... and neither did I.

<p>

So, should I be annoyed and cancel the sell (thus earning me a

"problem bidder" status on my very first *-bay purchase)? Or, do I

take the IIIa, spend the additional money on servicing any old body

coming out of storage would require, and just carry on?

<p>

(Yes, if it's too good to be true, it usually is.. ) I would just

appreciate some kindly advice from those who have actually held or

used one of these much older LTMs.

<p>

Do I keep it? Or, toss it back and be more careful in finding a

better LTM?

<p>

Thank you.

<p>

Owen

[frank granovski]

I would go through with the deal and keep it---or re-sell it here for $402 USD. Maybe you can get even more from a German buyer. ;*)

[robweatherburn]

Hi Owen - I'd stick with it. I have a III, a IIIc, and two IIIf cameras - and I'm not much bothered about any of them. But usually I do find I use my battered IIIf more than the others; simply because it's so battered it can't get much worse. My concerns are not for the difference in the bodies - they're minimal - but for the lenses: the available light and how I might be able to make use of it with the films in the cameras; when to use an uncoated Summar, a coated Summitar - an uncoated 90mm elmar - or the trusty 50mm Elmar - either coated or uncoated.

 

And, if you've used the camera and find you're unhappy with it, just sell it and put it all down to experience. I bought a IIIc from a German guy, and it wasn't up to much when it arrived. I had it repaired, and it's a fine camera. Probably cost me a bit over the odds, but that's life. And my III never lets me down. I bought it on ebay from a guy in the States - together with an Exakta and other equipment. The III's vulcanite is a little brittle, but I prefer to keep it as it is rather than have it 'restored' - and it use it regularly. It was made in 1938, came with an original Luftwaffen Eigentum uncoated 50mm elmar, and I have its despatch and batch documentation for cameras and lenses when shipped to the Luftwaffe headquarters in Berlin. That lens works beautifully - and is probably worth more than all my Leicas bodies put together. Swings and roundabouts where the money is concerned.

 

Just enjoy the equipment. There's too much technical clap-trap talked on here. Just owning and using the best of cameras will not make a photographer. On the other hand, I've seen some wonderful images taken with a box Brownie!

 

Rob

[peter_evans4]

<p>If the IIIa is in good nick, I don't suppose that its inferiority to a IIIf will matter. In your position I'd take it.</p><p>Don't forget to get a lens for it.</p><p>Incidentally, if you really, really want a IIIg at some point, you might be wise to consider Canon's answers to it (e.g. the IVSb2): they're about as solidly made, the variable-magnification finder arguably makes them better to use, and they are definitely a lot cheaper.</p>

[vidom]

The description of the LTM Leica as "Leica III f" may not even be as wrong as it seems; the following is from the Pacific Rim Camera HP:

 

"The other misleading thing about Leicas are the model designations. They started off with letter designations, then switched to a combination of Roman numerals and letters.This can be confusing because a model III is also known as a model F. Sometimes you'll find it described as a model III (F), yet there is another model IIIf which is different."

 

Something still would be wrong, a IIIa would be a "G".

 

Then there is the upgrade thing: A IIIa could be factory synced with IIIf production parts, some people would call it a IIIf then (what correctly may better be called III a sync).

[simon_bruxelles]

I don't necessarily agree with the ''buyer beware once the hammer has fallen the item is yours'' philosophy.

If the seller misdescribed the camera as a IIIf when it is in fact a IIIa then you are not getting the item you bid for and are within your rights to consider the auction null and void.

Contact the seller and explain the situation and I would be surprised if he refuses to accept the error was on his part.

It's only different by degree to him advertising a Leica and sending you a Box Brownie with the word ''Leica'' written in crayon on the side. Ignorance on his part is not a defence.

Good luck!

Simon

[anthony_brookes5]

The IIIA is a much better camera tha the IIIF in my opinion. I had both but dumped the IIIF and now have three IIIAs which I use. You're a lucky fella.

[roland_haid]

For $201 you can get a mint CL including lens here in Germany, however, like motorbikes newer are not better, so there is no reason not to keep it.

[Richard Williams]

After 50-70 years, there's little practical difference to a user between a IIIa and a IIIf. Unless you really want the flash synch (which might have been added later anyway, as Peter suggests - does your camera have a synch dial or socket?) that just leaves the placement of the finders (adjacent in the IIIf, further apart in the IIIa - you can't look through both at once in either camera) and the internal construction. Incremental improvements were made to the shutter design over the years (but a serviced IIIa should still expose film accurately!), and the IIIf has a stronger die-cast frame (only a potential issue if you want to attach a large and heavy lens - the IIIa is already a very solid, tough little camera). The condition of the individual camera is much more important than the specific model - as a user, you want a bright rangefinder image, a properly adjusted shutter, intact shutter blinds, and smooth film advance etc. (which can be found in Leicas of all ages, depending on their use and service histories, and all of which can be brought back to spec by a good technician).

[kaiblanke]

Roland,

<p>

I do not know where in Germany but I never came across a mint or even a good user CL that was less than USD 400 including lens. I'd happily pay you EUR 250 for such an example with the lens if you have one ...

[j._mose]

Hi Owen,

 

Let us know what the Ebay item number is so we can assess this better. It sounds like you got a good deal anyway.

 

JP Mose

[Aoresteen]

The IIIa will take the MOOLY motor where the IIIF won't.

 

I'd ask to have 10days to test the camera. If you don't use flash then there is little difference between the two.

[owen w.]

Dear Friends,

<p>

Thanks for all of the good advice. Given the time differences, I'm still waiting for a direct response from the seller. (I'm in Bangkok, he's in Maryland.)

<p>

It's really all so very interesting. For good reasons, there are fewer sites dedicated to the LTM user than others. Plus, I'd not done my due diligence in doing homework more seriously. I know so little about the differences between all the LTM bodies. OTOH, had I known more, I probably wouldn't have bid.

<p>

What can I say? It was a spur-of-da-moment bid, AND real shock to win given the $5 increment bid I put down. Ah, must be fate.

<p>

But, as several folks here have pointed out, it doesn't really seem that I've done myself any particular harm. Still, the "actual" condition of the camera is not (yet) exactly clear. I've told the seller that we will, at least, start with a much more thorough report on the actual condition of this body and, particularly, its optics (VF & RF). His photos were weak and he described 9 different camera bodies in almost identical language.

<p>

The serial number of 22739X is a 1936/7 vintage, and it is pretty clear no factory upgrades are included. Me thinks it is "as is" from that production run. The sad thing is that I think the seller broke up a collected set and dumped them all at once. He got only $375 for the IIIg w/Summitar lens. Would have never guessed that, either. Me thinks he didn't handle the inheritance very wisely.

<p>

SO, while I'm pending learning more actual details, a question:

<p>

Presuming I keep the camera, WHO is/are the best repair (CLA) resources for the LTM? It appears DAG may work on them. Sherry? BUT, is/are there specialist LTM people? While I'm not yet sure of the exact condition, it is clear that this camera has been in storage for some years. So serving will be required.

<p>

Thank you ALL for the wonderful observations, comments and suggestions.

<p>

Owen

[owen w.]

Hmm. Want to see the response?

The sale # is: 7521690057 Leica Camera IIIF Excellent ++

<p>

My mood is shifting with this response..., but I?m still open.

<p>

Yeesh.

<p>

Response from Seller:

<p>

Hello

<p>

As I stated in all my auctions, this is an estate sale. I've tried my best to identify these cameras using books and the net. The age of the camera is determined by the serial number. The III line of Leica cameras offer only minor difference between models. I am not sure what else I can tell you. You bid up the auction (so now it will cost me $20 for selling ) and won the item. My advise to you would be to finish the transaction and if you find it it not what you wanted, relist it on Ebay. Please reply with your intentions.

<p>

Ta-Da!

[Richard Williams]

Two of the LTM experts are in the UK: Peter Grisaffi of <a

href="http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/">CRR</a>, and Malcolm Taylor

(contact details available via the <a

href="http://www.nemeng.com/leica/007e.shtml">nemeng.com Leica FAQ</a>,

which also lists other repairers).<br>

[Richard Williams]

IMHO, it's too late in the bidding process to start setting additional conditions about the 'actual condition' of the body - if you have a dispute, it should hinge on whether the (apparently honest) mistake of listing this as a 'IIIF' makes the camera 'significantly not as described' (to use ebay's phrase), while taking into account the additional (and as far as we know, accuate) information supplied by the seller (serial number and photographs). According to Leica (http://www.leica-camera.com/cgi-bin/overview.pl/en/sn2p) this is indeed a IIIa, which, as Peter suggests, might accurately be described as a 'IIIa (G)' but definitely not a IIIf (a later model) or even a 'III (F)' (an earlier model). Possibly the seller's confusion was with the latter rather than the former; elsewhere (7522114789) he lists a 'IID' (which is certainly wrong, though he's now added an apology).

[huw_finney]

Fine little camera, keep and use it. Look for an Elmar 50/3.5 for it they where made for each other, Russian copies are OK, cheaper and coated. Run a film through it before a CLA, if it looks good I wouldn't bother just yet. OK the outsides look a bit less than exec++ but who cares, mine (a IIIb the subject of my first Mad Project, hunt the archives) seems to be a bit rougher than the one in the ebaY pics. I often pop mine in my trouser pocket, the pre C ones fit, it is great to get a fine pic from a camera and lens whose combined age is about 130 years.

 

Warning... Barnacks are addictive little shooters.

[dan flanders]

Don't knock the IIIa. Mine still operates beautifully even though it hasn't had a CLA since the late forties. It went along with me for a tour in a B-17 in the ETO in '44 and never failed. It's more compact than the later IIIc and believe me that extra eithth of an inch makes an ergonomic diffrence. Quite frankly I prefer the separation of the VF & RF over that on the IIIb & IIIc. Admittedly it doesn't have flash, but there were several DYI gadgets available that worked quite well. Put an Elmar on it and carry it in your pocket. It's likely that the guy who sold it to you didn't know the difference and if you got it for less than two or three bills you are indeed fortunate. It beats any othe P&S all hollow.

[huw_finney]

A pic from a IIIb and uncoated Elmar.<div></div>

[huw_finney]

After all it is those Barnack cameras that made Leica.

[melvin_bressler1]

Hi Owen:

 

I've owned a IIIa for over 40 years. Got it from my uncle, who bought it new.

Its been cleaned twice, and the shutter curtain replaced about 5-6 years ago.

Its a great camera. I use it all the time with a col. 50 mm Summitar and a 35

mm CV Ultron. I also have a 90 mm "no name" lens which also works fine.

 

Send it to DAG, and see what it needs if anything. Unless its not reapairable

(is that a word?) use it and have fun. It is the smallest Leica, and with the col.

lens actually fits in my pocket.

 

BUT, make sure you have a workng take up spool for the film.

 

Happy snaps.

[owen w.]

Thank you all for the comments and suggestions. Because I am in Thailand, this purchase will be sent to a colleague who will carry it to Bangkok later in July. I won't see this camera until well after any inspection period.

<p>

I asked for the help, because I know so little about these Barnack beauties. As noted in my opening note, I accept the "caveat emptor" of the market place. I bid, I bought. But I did hope to learn in/from the process.

<p>

I do greatly appreciate all the various details provided to help me learn what it is I have actually purchased. While a few must always throw rocks, I've learned a great deal in this thread from the other generous contributors.

<p>

Thank you, again. I'll look forward to another learning curve when I get the camera in my hands.

<p>

Owen

[Richard Williams]

A good starting point to learn more while you wait for your camera is

the original manual. There's an online version of a IIIf-era manual

here that's also applicable to your IIIa:<br>

<a href="http://yandr.50megs.com/leica/3f/3f.htm">http://yandr.50megs.com/leica/3f/3f.htm</a><br>

Reprints of this and the origininal IIIa manual (and contemporary

catalogues) are available from Hove Books:<br>

<a href="http://www.hovebooks.com/lib/index.html">http://www.hovebooks.com/lib/index.html</a><br>

It's also worth getting hold of a copy of the Morgan & Lester

'Leica Manual':<br>

<a href="http://www.ozdoba.net/leica/leica_lit_e.html#ausderzeit">http://www.ozdoba.net/leica/leica_lit_e.html#ausderzeit</a><br>

(various original editions from the 30s to the 50s that cover the LTM

cameras are still readily available for not much money).<br>

[owen w.]

Richard,

 

Thank you. The first manual is immediately accessible, so makes for nice reading. I hadn't really thought about the "pre-50's" bodies before. This should be fun. The best things often appear in the oddest ways.

<p>

I'm amazed that Huw, Harry and Melvin all talk about decades of use without CLA-type service. I discount Huw, 'cause I think he does his own to very fine tolerances - or just remakes them into something better. Given this, I'm gonna assume that a good benchman here in Bangkok will be able to service this one to a workable toy.

<p>

The only LTM lenses I have are a Canon 85/1.9 found in Burma (long story in a thread of such title), and a VC 15. Obviously, I don't think I'll put the huge/heavy Canon on it, but the VC 15 should be a fun place to start.. until I can find a nice LTM Elmar.

<p>

Thanks, again. Owen

[stephen_w.]

"A flash on a rangefinder is like a sidecar on a motorcycle."

 

I like that.

 

$201 is not a lot for any Leica.