To get or not to get: Leica IIIc/IIIf + collapsible lens

[michael_barnes5]

<p>I have an issue.<br /> <br /> My M's are too large and my Retina is never ready. Is Leica IIIc/IIIf + collapsible Summiitar/Summicron (I want atleast f2.8 aperture) a good solution?<br /> <br /> Let me elaborate.<br /> I like my M3 + rigid 50mm when I want to shoot and I like my Retina IIIc when I want compact. Now, I think I want something in between for casual use. The M is ergonomic but a little too big and heavy. My retina is portable but the ergonomics work against me (I can't change the aperture/shutter speed on the fly, and that is important to me).<br /> <br /> I'm thinking a Leica LTM and/or a Leica collapsible.<br>

<br /> I'm not worried about how useable the camera and/or lens is from an ergonomic/image quality point of view. My concern is how much more compact it really is. Numbers can say one thing but anyone get a collapsible 50mm and/or bottom loader just for compactness and feel that it is worthwhile? </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>It is clear that an important design parameter for Leitz with the LTM cameras was pocketability. This is the big advantage with these cameras, one that you would probably appreciate. The downside is a rather small viewfinder.</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16835613-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="423" /><br>

Leica IIIc with Summitar 50/2<br>

Leica IIIc/IIIf is quite compact. You need to handle one to see whether you can get by with its squinty viewfinder, for me I don't mind.<br>

For real compactness, I use Minox MDC 38/2.8 lens,or Rollei 35S with Zeiss Sonnar 40/2.8 viewfinder cameras, with bright and large viewfinder<br>

but without rf.<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16664814-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="517" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5807352-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="530" /></p>

[furcafe]

<p>Kyocera Contax T, though it's aperture priority only.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>If you want it get it by all means. With you get what you have wanted with good reason it is guaranteed that you will be happy.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>They are all compact, or not -- depending on your perception. Most people would consider a Leica M very compact. I know I do.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I use both an M (M4-P) and the IIIc/f. The former, with a light and collapsible 50mm f2.8 Elmar-M (black model, much lighter than the silver chrome one), is very compact and offers the more modern VF/RF, ease of loading and rewinding. The IIIc/f, with compact V-C 35mm f2.5 lens, is a bit smaller and great in use, but needs an auxiliary VF and is slower in operation. The choice is like a dozen of one, or 12 of the other?</p>

[rogerwb]

<p>I once had a IIIC and foolishly sold it when I bought my first M. I plan to replace it some day but in the meantime my LTM lenses work satisfactorily for casual shooting on a Fed 1G.<br>

The 35mm Summaron takes up no more room than a collapsed Summicron and is always ready to go. You do need an aux finder though. </p><div></div>

[charles_stobbs3]

I had both an M with a collapsible Summicron and a Retina IIa and was a lot more comfortable with the latter when skiing/hiking. Mt opinion that the folding bed offers a lot more protection and spreads any impact (and there were many) better than the collapsible lens.

[christopher_junker1]

<p>There is a 3rd alternative and that is the Leica CL or Minolta CLE. The 40 f2.0 Summicron is a super lens and you can still use LTM 50 lenses with M adapters that collapse, like the Summitar, Summicron or Elmar f2.8, but you'll have to limit the lens collapse feature. The CL meter swing arm can be damaged if you collapse a lens into it. It is also light, easy to load, the meter is accurate and it has a hot shoe if you are indoors with a mini flash. The weight of my IIIc or IIIf does make it easier to hand hold in low light than the CL. If you plan to do a lot of indoor available light shots, the brighter CL finder together with the 40 Summicron should give you good results. If you are determined to go retro, look for a 50 Nikon f1.4 in LTM for the IIIc and IIIf as it is small although not a collapsible lens.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I had to use one of the Leica III models as a field camera back in one of my early projects. It was a truly great leap beyond the Kodak Signet 35 I had got stuck with the year before, but loading and using the camera in the field was a PITA compared to modern film cameras. Although I'll be pilloried here for saying so, I think my Soviet LTM FED-2 is easier to use than the III.<br>

My Rollei 35, on the other hand, has its peculiarities, but aside from the zone focus, it's a pleasure to shoot with.</p><div></div>

[michael_barnes5]

<p>Thank you for your advice.<br /> <br /> I'll have to elaborate a little more.<br /> <br /> I'm not concerned about the viewfinder. Maybe I'll change my mind...but I don't mind squinting with the retina iiic which is nowhere near the big bright M3. I also once owned a Canon IVSB and that viewfinder didn't bother me because it was not so bad at focusing but I sold it to go M. (I'm opting for a Leica LTM over a Canon this time around because I think that the divorced settup works better for squinty finders).<br /> <br />The Rollei 35 is great, but no rangefinder. I have one and like it for scenics but I like focusing for daily use. I'm not sure about the Minox...I'll look into it. I don't like any automated cameras. I love having control of the focusing, and exposure. <br>

The CL + 40 cron is a great idea.<br /> <br /> lens-wise, I think that the 40 cron shouldn't hold anything back to the Leica collapsible...I hear that it is a very good lens and it is more likely to be found clean. Price-wise, they should be similar enough to not matter between the two outfits ($500-$600?). I'd opt for a dead meter minolta branded body/lens because it is more likely to be cheaper.</p>

<p>I've read mixed things about the durability but I think it should be fine. I actually do not care about the meter and that seems to be the most common failure. Any size comparisons between the CL + 40 summicron and a IIIc/IIIf + 50 col. summicron/summitar? The former is undeniably more modern but is it more compact? I actually do have a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 LTM that I was planning on selling...wouldn't this lens be a bit big on the IIIc/IIIf if I were to go that route and keep the lens?</p>

<p>Well, part of me knows that the III/CL settup will be more compact but I am unsure if it is compact enough. Best thing I can do is borrow/buy one I guess and return/sell it if it is not. Thanks for all the advice/opinions thus far.</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>I like my iiif with a collapsible summicron. It fits in my jacket pocket and my cell phone has a light meter ap, so I am good to go. For real compactness I like my Olympus RC. The lens is surprisingly good and the camera is tiny. </p>

[james_elwing]

<p>IIIa is lighter, smaller, and probably cheaper. a II is slightly lighter again</p>

[baisao]

<p>I'm a huge fan of the IIIc and feel that my best shots have been taken with this body. I also think the ergonomics are about perfect for me. So far I haven't held a camera that felt more comfortable in my hand. It's small and it's brass: it feels heavy for its size. People talk about it being pocketable. I guess it is if you wear a sports coat. I would need suspenders if I put it in my pants pocket.<br>

<br>

I think I am easily pleased with most things but the finder is squinty even for me. It's like looking through a periscope on a U-boat. I use an auxiliary finder all the time. This also helps with horizontal parallax correction. I love my IIIc, see no added value to a IIIf, and think the IIIg is the best of breed. In fact, I like the IIIg better than any of the non-metered M’s.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>I use a scale focus Retina as a daily shooter, and it's very fast to use. If you get a screw mount Leica, while you may gain a RF, you're still going to have to take the camera down from your eyes to set the aperture and shutter speeds. It only takes about 2 seconds more to set the lens distance while you're at it. Those 2 seconds would be lost w/ an LTM camera though, because you'll spend at least that much time aligning your split image in the viewfinder. The net effect is: a scale focus Retina, w/ it's lens set to hyper focal distances, is darned hard to beat for speed. Surprisingly, my little old 50 3.5 Xenar is just as good as most any LTM 50 I've ever used. You just have to get used to that little Retina viewfinder, or mount an auxiliary finder if it bothers you. A Leica LTM camera is not exactly an improvement in viewfinders.</p>

[christopher_junker1]

<p>The Leica CL and 40 Summicron were designed together in the early 70's. Although dimensions are different, with the 40 lens mounted the CL is roughly the size of a IIIc/IIIf with the Summicron. However the two piece body of the CL is much lighter having a much thinner back with the main body being an aluminum die casting rather than brass and the 40 is a lighter lens. Although the viewfinder has markings for 50's, the body is not strong enough nor does it balance well with heavy lenses like the 50 Summilux 1.4 or 50 Summarit 1.5. So long as you don't try to collapse it, the 50 Summicron LTM with the M adapter works well on a CL. The 50 Nikon 1.4 is not too large for a c or f and with the M adapter would work well on the CL. The only real difference between a IIIc and a IIIf is the f's flash synch system and the shutter speed sequence as their focusing and framing layout is identical. Gus Lazarri can repair/restore either body. Dim rangefinders on old LTM bodies are common and caused by the reflective material on the rangefinder mirrors deteriorating, but they can be fixed as can pinholed shutter curtains. The post comment that mentioned the Leica IIIg is accurate, it is far and away the best of the LTM bodies with an outstanding build quality. If you can afford one, and this will be your only LTM don't bother with a IIIc or IIIf, the IIIg is that much better a camera. <br>

My CL dates back to 1975 and the only trouble I've ever had was the meter cell went bad. I sent it to Sherry Krauter for repair and a complete CLA. When Sherry took it apart, mine turned out to be an early CL. Sherry informed me that Leitz continued to develop and improve the CL internal parts and that mine could be updated to match the later versions. I had Sherry do the repair, CLA and parts update about 10 years ago and I've had a reliable camera ever since. Sherry in addition to being one of the best overall Leitz repair technicians is also regarded as the expert on CL's. Hopefully she still has her full stock of CL repair parts.<br>

Quick shooting with the CL is easy. I use the meter to get a rough idea of the required light and set the f stop as desired first and then the shutter speed. As the CL displays both the shutter speed and +/- 1 stop metering in the finder, I simply change shutter speed if necessary while focusing/framing and shoot. The shutter speed dial on the CL is on the right front just ahead of the shutter release and with one finger can be changed while focusing without having to take your eye away from the rangefinder/viewfinder window. Unlike an LTM body, the CL is quicker for successive shots as it has a film advance lever, not a winding knob.</p>

 

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"IIIa is lighter, smaller, and probably cheaper" <em><strong>James E.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem with <strong>earlier</strong> than IIIc units, is that <strong>major and critical</strong> internal improvements started with the IIIc.<br>

These include the ability to accurately adjust the high speeds and as a result of these improvements hold a tighter tolerance. <br>

IIIg and IIIf units are larger and more complex internally. Even with these clear advantages, the bargain badge is still on the IIIc.<br>

<br>

Though not a super compact, the Canon P should be considered as a fantastic LTM bargain; <br>

it does <strong>at least 10 things better</strong> than the aforementioned Leicas... <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00ZjJv?start=0"><em><strong>Louis M.</strong></em> Review</a> <<< Click<br>

<br>

The OP did seem to indicate concerns with automation and <em>guesstimation</em>. <br>

Though famous for being great cameras with wonderful lenses, he should pass on the <strong>light duty</strong> <br>

Minolta CLE, Leica CL, Rollei 35's, Olympus XA, Contax T and Minox ML types... </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>The story of Leica is one of continuous evolution. Early Leicas are good cameras, but their later stable-mates do the same things in a better way. While I have worked well enough with screw mounts (IIIc and IIIa), I have been more comfortable and efficient with bayonet bodies (M3, M2, M6). However, size has not been too important a consideration for me, and I have never had just one lens.</p>

[oliver_filippi]

<p>My dad had a Leica IIIC with the collapsible f/2.0 Summitar lens. He subsequently traded in the body for a IIIF in order to get synchronized flash capability.<br>

I used this camera in high school to take photos for the school yearbook. If you look at the photos in the yearbook (even though the photo resolution isn't great, you can pick out my Leica shots - sharper and crisper) The IIIF was a very nice camera. The f/2 Summitar lens was subsequently superceded by the f/2 Summicron.<br>

The die hards of that era tended to favor the f/3.5 Elmar lens, which was essentially a Tessar design. The Summitar was a step in the Summicron direction (Gauss design, with air spaced elements). Note that Leica designed the Summitar within a year or so of the development of coated lens elements (which reduced dispersion on the separated elements.) Previous lens designs typically minimized, or eliminated separate air spaced elements (typically cementing multiple elements together, if necessary).<br>

Thus Leica took, essentially, immediate advantage of the new coated lens technology.<br>

The only significant drawback of the camera was the small "peek through" viewfinder, though the adjacent rangefinder was easy to use.<br>

If you are considering one of these cameras look at the IIIG, which had a "brilliant finder" more like the M3. I don't know how much a IIIG is going for, compared to a IIIF. The IIIG may be pricey, since the M3 came out a few years later, so only a limited number of the G models were produced.<br>

Of course, the M3 was a major advance - and essentially got everthing right (Brilliant viewfinder, integrated range finder and multiple, automatic viewfinder frames for different focal length lenses, bayonet lens mount). Which is why, over 60 years later, it is still the standard of 35mm rangefinder systems.</p>

<p>Oliver Filippi</p>

<p> </p>

[oliver_filippi]

<p>My dad had a Leica IIIC with the collapsible f/2.0 Summitar lens. He subsequently traded in the body for a IIIF in order to get synchronized flash capability.<br>

I used this camera in high school to take photos for the school yearbook. If you look at the photos in the yearbook (even though the photo resolution isn't great, you can pick out my Leica shots - sharper and crisper# The IIIF was a very nice camera. The f/2 Summitar lens was subsequently superceded by the f/2 Summicron.<br>

The die hards of that era tended to favor the f/3.5 Elmar lens, which was essentially a Tessar design. The Summitar was a step in the Summicron direction #Gauss design, with air spaced elements#. Note that Leica designed the Summitar within a year or so of the development of coated lens elements #which reduced dispersion on the separated elements.# Previous lens designs typically minimized, or eliminated separate air spaced elements #typically cementing multiple elements together, if necessary#.<br>

Thus Leica took, essentially, immediate advantage of the new coated lens technology.<br>

The only significant drawback of the camera was the small "peek through" viewfinder, though the adjacent rangefinder was easy to use.<br>

If you are considering one of these cameras look at the IIIG, which had a "brilliant finder" more like the M3. I don't know how much a IIIG is going for, compared to a IIIF. The IIIG may be pricey, since the M3 came out a few years later, so only a limited number of the G models were produced.<br>

Of course, the M3 was a major advance - and essentially got everthing right #Brilliant viewfinder, integrated range finder and multiple, automatic viewfinder frames for different focal length lenses, bayonet lens mount#. Which is why, over 60 years later, it is still the standard of 35mm rangefinder systems.</p>

<p>Oliver Filippi</p>

<p> </p>

[Troll]

<p>I've had Leicas since my first IIIF in 1953 (I think that I'm down to 8 or 9 right now). While the M's and Barnack's are great to fondle, my choice for actually making pictures is the CL. I had DAG remove the 50mm Viewfinder lines, and love the 40 and 90. </p>

[Two23]

<p>I just came home from shooting my vintage 1942 Leica IIIc. I use the ELmar 3.5cm f3.5, Elmar 5cm f3.5, and Elmar 90mm f4 lenses. I chose those because they are all classic 1940s coated lenses, and they all take the A36 filter and hood. I use the VIOOH viewfinder most of the time as it's big and bright. My Elmar 5cm is collapsible and very compact, but my favorite lens is the Elmar 3.5cm. It's almost as compact. I also own a IIIf, and shooting it and the IIIc are the same. Film loading is a bit of a hassle but I am getting better at it. I pre-cut the leaders at home to speed things up in the field. No doubt an M is easier to use, but I just like the high cool factor of the IIIc. I get a big kick out of shooting vintage cameras and love the look I get from classic lenses.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[michael_barnes5]

<p>I decided to try a Leica LTM...a IIIc/IIIf most likeley, now the question is which glass? I can start a new thread for that.</p>

[philip_dygeus2]

I use a Leica II with a Summitar frequently, and even brings

it with me when I go for a jog. It is that light and compact. A

IIIc would be very similar in size. The Barnacks are

definitely much smaller than the M bodies. And really nice

to use too.