Better results with IIIa than M6 or M3

[kentigern]

I've got the Leica bug, and I've got it bad... Having bought an M3 off a

well-known internet auction site back in December, I have since bought a

selection of lenses, plus an M6ttl and just last week a very cheap (GBP ?75)

IIIa. I've taken several rolls of film (all B&W and home-developed) through each

and I am getting substantially better results from the IIIa than either the M3

or the M6. I really don't know why this should be - see below (I'm not claiming

any of these as great photos...) Any theories?<div></div>

[kentigern]

Here's one from the M6 - both films HP5+ processed together in the same tank this morning (Ilfosol S 9 mins)<div></div>

[kentigern]

And one from the M3

[andrew1]

I assume you are using the same lens on each body to guage your results. How do you

mean

better? Sharper? The rangefinder on the IIIa could be matched and adjusted perfectly to

your

lens; the RF's could be out of alignment on your M cameras. Or there could be a

difference in

your camera handling- for instance, you might be using the IIIa more carefully, due to it's

smaller finder and separate RF, etc.<p>Without more specific definition of your findings,

and some sample images, it's

tough to pin down what's going on. Theoretically if all your cameras are adjusted to their

peak function, holding the film perfectly flat, with correct back focus adjustment, and RF

alignments sorted, etc., you should only see differences associated with different lenses.

[kentish_townie]

David,

 

When you say 'substantially better results', do you mean technically or creatively? If you are

talking about on a technical level, you may want to do a side by side comparison if you

care enough.

 

It simply could be that you prefer the look of the older, uncoated (possibly single coated?)

lens. Some folks have expressed a preference for uncoated lenses, especially when it

comes to b/w. It's all a matter of taste.

 

Enjoy your cameras.

[michaelging]

The second photo is underexposed, probably because of the snow. I think you are comparing apples to oranges and coming up with walnuts. One thing does not compare to another very well, you are using different lenses , and shooting different scenes. If you want to compare the two cameras, shoot the same thing, from the same place , with the same lenses, at the same F-stop, and then maybe you can compare the 2 cameras, which I believe both are capable of giving you a great photo.

[pico]

Not a fair comparison because of technical goofs on the snow pictures, maybe others.

 

However, some people like the old screw-mount lenses because of their low contrast.

[SCL]

Perhaps you should have your shutter speeds checked for accuracy in both cameras.

[vivek iyer]

"Any theories?"

 

A couple of possibilities..

 

1.The old meters in IIIa and M3 are dead.

 

2.More expensive cameras do not make proportionately better pictures.

[alex_lofquist]

What meters?

[yeti]

An easy daylight scene -vs- an underexposed snow scene -vs- a night shot?<br>

Apples to oranges all right...

[vivek iyer]

<i>Alex Lofquist, Mar 04, 2007; 03:57 p.m.

<p>

What meters?</i>

<p>

OK, delete theory #1.

[paul_neuthaler]

There is "muscle memory" in the Barnack cameras IMHO. Fun to hold, great to use -- a real tactile sense of watch-like mechanics.

[jim nichols]

Since I use both a IIIa and a IIIf, as well as a Summitar, I will say that your first photo makes good use of your equipment. The Summitar is capable of good sharpness and contrast. For the second and third photos, you selected difficult scenes, no matter what camera and lens you selected. For comparisons, stick to similar scenes.

[kentigern]

Good points all, for which thanks. I guess I should do some more direct comparisons - ie same subject, same exposure, to more formally assess the differences: I really did like the IIIa from first picking them up, which was not the same as the M3 or M6 - both not as immediately accessible, which was not the reaction I was expecting.

 

Whilst winter can offer good photo ops here in the UK, I'm very much looking forward to the spring and summer to really get a hang of these. Whatever else, I'm really enjoying returning to mechanical cameras and B&W film after several electronic cameras (film & digital) over the years. Now to dig out my old Yashicamat TLR!

[jkelly04]

I have both a IIIa and an M3, and use both interchangeably, depending on my mood. Both cameras, assuming the shutters and rangefinders are working correctly, are capable of producing equally good images. I don't know why you would be surprised. Maybe the IIIa is just a better fit for you.

[danop]

I second Paul's comment.

 

I LOVE the feel of old Barnack models. I prefer using my II and IIIa over my M's but I only

wish the RF finder were even a bit larger (I have no problem with the viewing finder).

 

I tend to get much better close range candid and portrait out of my Barnack's. They are

much less obtrusive than say, an M3. My subjects are at ease and unaware, perhaps they

don't feel like they're being photographed by a serious professional instrument.

 

There was also another Leica II copy FED which I really liked. But alas, it's gone.

 

These cameras fit my hands better than the M's, more like how I could get a steadier grip

on a Nikon F3 with a motor drive than an equally heavy F4S. I have big hands and the M's

should fit me better, but somehow they don't.

 

In David's case, the result from the Summitar was not surprising especially at higher f-

stops. David's first picture may also owe its snappy contrast from the old Summitar's

yellow tint which aids B&W work.

 

If you like them as much as I do, try some new Bessa lenses. . . despite of being um, new,

they're a pleasure to use and are every bit as good as original LTMs.

[dennis_cheng1]

I also had a IIIa. It is so amazing that those half-century-old cameras are still capable of producing stunning images.

[kentigern]

"If you like them as much as I do, try some new Bessa lenses. . . despite of being um, new, they're a pleasure to use and are every bit as good as original LTMs."

 

I have - this is a 25mm Snapshot Skopar on the IIIa...<div></div>

[love4leica]

Different subjects, different contrast, different lenses, different lighting, etc etc . David, how can you compare tomatos with potatos ?

[ted_bradshaw1]

Maybe the IIIa just suits the combination of your eye and hand better. I prefer my III to my IIIf

for something like that reason and therefore tend to use it more readily.

 

Ted.

[ronald_moravec1]

If the shutter speeds are correct and you use the same lens and exposure, ie an adapter to get the Summitar on a bayonet, the results will be identical.

[carbon_dragon]

I'm a bit dissapointed with the lenses of the period, but there is something perverse about wandering around with a Leica IIIf and its Summitar lens in the age of 16.7MP DSLRs with huge zoom lenses.

 

As far as picture quality though, I get a lot better results with my Leica M2 and modern lenses. Better is defined here as sharper and higher contrast. I typically use the current 50 and 35 lenses.

[jtk]

You may be a little more perceptive when shooting with your Barnack than when you shoot a camera with one of those silly levers. Maybe you're more deliberate.