Pictures with old cameras (8): Leica III

[heqm]

<p>This is my other favorite camera, along with the <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00dPJJ?unified_p=1">Rolleiflex</a>. They're different enough that in most ways they don't compete, so I don't have a first favorite and a second favorite.<br>

<br />Several years ago I had three working cameras, a 35mm SLR, a 645 SLR and the Rollei (plus a non-working 35mm rangefinder that was repaired later). I did not need another camera. But I conceived a project (working in the ultraviolet) for which an uncoated lens was necessary. That meant, essentially, a prewar camera; and one of high quality, so there'd be someone who would repair it if necessary (as opposed to my<a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00dI5n"> Agfa</a>, which no one would look at because it was too cheap to be worth repairing). After doing my research, I settled on either a Leica or a Contax. Going into a camera shop, one of those that had been around forever and is now gone, I asked about the Contax there in the window. The salesman asked if I intended to shoot with it, and when I said yes, he said, "I wouldn't do it to you." The shutter curtain was too likely to break and too hard to fix. So I wound up with the Leica III, a 1934 model, at a reasonable price. It is not the IIIf or IIIg, which can sync with flash and are thus more expensive, but I had no intention of using it with flash. It's not even the IIIb, where the rangefinder and viewfinder windows are right together. There it is, on the left.</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>This is a camera designed by and intended for people who know what they're doing, sort of the Linux of cameras. The rangefinder window is separate from the viewfinder, and both are small and dim. (In fact, in a museum once, with lots of bright pinpoint lighting, there were enough reflections off the knurled ring around the rangefinder that I couldn't see to focus, and had to guess.) There are two separate dials for the shutter speed, and you have to have one set in the right position if you're using the other. The shutter speeds are not in any standard progression: 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/20, 1/30, 1/40, 1/60, 1/100, 1/200, 1/500. Sometimes you have the luxury of third-stop adjustment; sometimes you have to ponder whether you'll need to use a different aperture. And loading! There are people who will tell you the bottom-loading Leicas are actually easy to do. They are mistaken. You can learn the process to the point where it becomes normal; but that's not the same thing.</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>And yet, this is one of my favorites. A small part of that is the satisfaction of making it work--real klutz's don't operate prewar Leicas. Part of it is the feel. I can only describe it this way: other cameras are held in place by springs, and rattle if shaken; this one is held in place by things fitting together exactly. The cliche "Swiss watch" comes to mind.<br>

But mostly, once I've conformed to its habits, it's a small, quiet, unobtrusive camera of excellent quality. People don't notice it, or quickly forget it's there; just as Henri Cartier-Bresson found. (I am <em>not</em> comparing myself to him.) Just look at it there next to the Contax: the f/2 Sumar is far less threatening than the f/1.4 Planar. The SLR is built around the heavy-caliber lens, while the Leica is a more compact bit of machinery.<br>

That said, going to the 90mm Elmar and the necessary viewfinder, the package is no longer unobtrusive and compact. The Elmar is not a telephoto: the lens is actually 90mm from the film. And the viewfinder is mirror-reversed (meaning vertical compositions are seen upside-down) and not magnified, seen at the end of a tunnel. More to get used to.<br>

And the Elmar, when in one's luggage, gets attention from the TSA people. I suppose it looks like a gun barrel or something. To their credit, whenever they've asked me to open things up, they've always been impressed by the fine old machine.</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>The f/2 Summar is fast enough to handle low-light situations, like a party lit only from the windows. There<em> is</em> flare from the uncoated lens; sometimes it's an interesting effect. The "backlight suppression" feature of my scanner supresses it very much in the picture above; if I were to print that in an enlarger, there's be big haloes.<br>

So the Leica III has proven unexpectedly good at pictures of people, especially in low-light situations, once I got used to its idiosyncracies and limitations (especially flare). Along the way I've picked up several filters, which are push-on and set-screw types, which bother me a little. The polarizer is more ingenious than useful, I find. I might like it more if I shot more color.<br>

Oh, the ultraviolet project? I'm still working it out. It's not as striking or spectacular as infrared (which I've done with the Leica also). People with sunscreen on look as if they're coated with black oil. Vegetation is dark. Here are a couple of examples:</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>And here is an old wood house, here in Alexandria (Virginia), surrounded by newer brick buildings (and cars):</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>That wasn't an overcast day; in fact there was a clear blue sky.<br>

I do have a question for people who know about such things. I'm aware there are very, very good lenses for Leicas, legendary in their performance. From a bit of online reading I gather that the summitar is better than the summar, and the summicron better than either--though of course I could be seeing someone's prejudice or have misread something. Is there an uncoated (=prewar) lens for the thread-mount Leica that is significantly better than the summar and elmar?</p>

[heqm]

<p>Thanks for looking. I have many more pictures from this camera, but not many scanned.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

<p>Thanks for posting the Leica III. IT is plebain in comparison to the others as you said but fits the ticket. I found your uncoated ultraviolet project as ..well interesting. I liked very much the examples you posted. I used to live in the DC area and loved visiting Old Town Alexandria. The black vegetation is similar to what I get with a red filter but your result seems more tonally rich. The camera with TLM lenses, while excellent indeed, are not fairly comparable to the mid 70s Contax you constrasted. Better to compare the one you didn't buy. The Contax for the fomidable "nothing but business" appearance. I can't agree with you more though using these beautiful machines is the best reward ever. Please post more images and info on the ultraviolet light project unless it's.. Pentagon top secret of course.</p>

 

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Alan, really good to read of your exploits with the Leica. You are quite right, they are not for the faint hearted, but once mastered, the Barnack Leicas really do get under your skin. I still think that all classic camera users should try one at least once.<br>

Your images show that glow and flare that you expect from early uncoated lenses, and when you learn to work with that, the results can be really pleasing. I think your first pic is a good example of this.<br>

I do have an uncoated Summar, a coated Summitar and an early Summicron so I can tell you about their relative merits. Surprisingly there is not a lot of difference in the performance for everyday shots, but the Summar will show much less contrast, although the detail is still there.<br>

It is often hard to find a Summar or Summitar that has clear unscratched elements as the glass is quite soft. But find a good one, fit a lens hood and use it within the limits of it's design and the lens will produce lovely images.<br>

Of course each design was an improvement over the last, but that was incremental, so I wouldn't bother too much with trying to find a Summicron in thread mount. The Elmars have better contrast due to having less elements, but don't have that nice glow at wide apertures.<br>

Also a note of warning, these Leicas can become addictive!</p>

[SCL]

<p>After 40+ years of using Leica M cameras and lenses, about 2 years ago I ventured into the screwmounts, and what a wonderful journey it has been! I was delighted to find not only the older uncoated lenses, the newer coated versions, and when I needed them, the modern super crisp ones from Voigtlander which really surprised me, some very competitive with modern Leitz & Zeiss formulations, but at a fraction of the cost. My favorite for the Barnacks, BTW, are the Elmars...not fast, but I'm pretty relaxed with screwmounts. They do occasionally draw attention by curious onlookers. Thanks for sharing your journey.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>What lens was that first shot taken with? I do still have a IIIf BD and a 50/2 Summitar but haven't used them in a while. I've long since switched to digital Leicas. </p>

<p>The Contax SLRs are great cameras but the electronics are problematic these days. I still have an RTS III, II, I, and an Aria. The II and I's are inoperable but the III and Aria still work. The III is heavy and a delightful camera but it too has problematic electronics. I had it repaired after years of effort and was lucky finding a contact that could actually replace the bad part (viewfinder display).</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>There are uncoated Summitars, and they are better lenses than uncoated Summars.<br>

But the uncoated 50mm (5.0cm) f/3.5 Elmar is almost certainly sharper than both of those. Speed costs sharpness.<br>

Check your Summar for haze, it might need a cleaning.<br>

Prewar Zeiss Sonnars (50/1.5 and 50/2.0) are really excellent lenses. Getting a real Leica thread mount one, rather than a counterfeit made from a Soviet lens, requires some caution in buying. Although most are coated, as Zeiss invented hard lens coating.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>You know I kind of like the dreamy effect on that first shot. </p>

[heqm]

<p>Thanks for the encouraging comments. <strong>Chuck</strong>, the UV project is still in progress; I'm not sure where to post it, here or in the "alternative" section. Few things reflect much in the UV, the sky is bright, so in general it looks like a bright overcast day on the coal planet. There is an old-time feel, because of course in the old days emulsions were only sensitive to UV and blue. It's not spectacular and surreal like infrared. (If you can make it out, in the picture of the building there's a street sign. You can't read it because the white and dark green paint look the same in the UV.) <strong>David</strong>, the first picture (inside at the party) was taken with the Summar, the first UV with the Summar also, the building with the Elmar. <strong>John</strong>, point well taken on the importance of condition for prewar lenses, as well as Soviet counterfeits. I will keep my eye out for opportunities, but it appears there's no drastic need for a different lens.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>A tale well told, along with some very nice samples. Thanks, <strong>Alan</strong>.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I have a IIIb, which I rarely use these days, in part because I don't have a fine lens for it. My Summar is pretty rough, and soft. My local repairman/dealer was about to sell me an Industar, but then he tested it and by the luck of the draw apparently it turned out to be utterly fantastic, so he decided to keep it. In any case, though, apparently there are some really nice Industars out there, if you get lucky.</p>