Any interest in more 'Retro' Leicas?

[kevin m.]

I handled a IIIf yesterday for the first time. Lovely, tiny thing.

It does make an M seem rather large in comparison. I'm leery of

buying one because of what I've read about loading difficulties and

its lack of a meter, however. But the size and jewel-like quality

are really attractive. If Leica were to build a 'new' IIIf with

modern loading and a meter, would anyone be interested in one besides

me? Hey, the MP was impossible, too, right?

[john_a.]

I wonder if they could? It is smaller than the M body. I would like the idea though. They are wonderful little cameras.

[a m]

There are thousands of lovely IIIc, IIIF, and IIIG Leicas in circulation, so I doubt it would make a profit for a company to make a new one. Why be leery of buying one? The loading is no problem at all, just use scissors to trim the film leader. And what the problem with the lack of a light built-in meter? Just use a hand-held meter.

[al_kaplan1]

With the correct leader length a pre-M Leica is extremely easy to load, you can leard to wind rapidly by running the length of your index finger against the wind knob, and you'll get much more consistant exposures if you don't constantly "chase" a moving needle for every frame. Either get the little Voigtlander meter or pick up a Weston Master IV or V (no batteries!).

[kevin m.]

"There are thousands of lovely IIIc, IIIF, and IIIG Leicas in circulation, so I doubt it would make a profit for a company to make a new one."

 

You could have said the same thing about the MP:

 

'There are thousands of lovely M2, M3 and M4 Leicas in circulation, so I doubt it would make a profit for a company to make a new one.'

 

It's my understanding that MP's are selling like hotcakes and spec-wise, they're nothing more than an M2 with a meter built in and updated loading. See my point?

 

And for all the hand-held-meter, film-snipping traditionalists out there, let's put it this way: If DAG could install M4-style loading and a TTL meter in your user IIIc/IIIf body for a reasonable price, wouldn't you jump on it? I'd have one in my bag tomorrow. Or better yet, in my pocket.

 

The screw-mount bodies are so finely made, I will likely get one regardless their limitations. But with a little tweaking, they could be a no-excuses bag-mate to an M.

[walt_delesandri]

while we're dreaming.....Leica M2 series 2....28-90, using

EXISTING (read'cheap') .58 RF assembly...rapid load since

it's cheaper to build than M2 loading....manual counter...

no self timer....no preview....top of whatever the hell they

want to make it out of (black only?)....oh, and 21/35/50/90

lenses of "older" design, tiny lenses, 3.5 is fast enough for

21/90....PLUS!!!!!--- the body must have a street price of

<1K....lenses around $500 bux.....what I'm describing is a

sensible RF system for photographer/artists to actually BUY AND

USE.....

 

OOPS---I forgot----C/V already did it....

 

Walt

[jay_.]

Considering Leica is now able to reproduce old-style parts with whatever slight alterations are necessary for a new application, using CNC, I think the best thing Leica could do would be to forget about making runs of standard-production bodies, and do nothing but made-to-orders using a cafeteria approach. So for example if I like the MP's shorter profile, updated meter and lack of nonsensical TTL flash metering, but want mine otherwise identical to an M6 classic (i.e. I want the lustrous body covering, and faster wind and rewind hardware)I could get it made that way in a reasonable time-frame...or if someone else likes everything about the MP as-is except they want the larger correct-turning shutter dial, they could have it their way. Just like placing an order for a car. BTW, with CNC I doubt that whipping up a repro IIIf would be a huge deal--at least not as huge as it was when they had to make up parts and dies for parts "the old way".

[roger c]

The big problem with LTM cameras - which I use and absolutely love for their amazing build quality - is that you can't use the modern Leica lenses on them. If Leica ever started re-releasing screw mount lenses (it would be trivial for them to do it - a different lens mount is all that is required - and they've done it quite recently with limited editions, eg the 35 Asph) lots more people would be using the old bodies. But that wouldn't make as much money as flogging M7's and MP's, would it?<p>FWIW, I like to use a hand meter, although in windy weather when the light keeps changing it can be a little trying.

[mike dixon]

Leica <i>did</i> make some modern lenses in screw mount

just a few years ago. I think they met with an underwhelming

response.

[kevin m.]

To me these cameras only make sense when used with compact lenses, so that might explain - as Mike pointed out - why the recent run of modern screwmount lenses didn't sell well. Too damned big. I think a collapsible summicron is about as large a lens as I'd want.

 

Voigtlander lenses are just the right size, and they certainly are good performers, but their bodies leave me cold. Tinny and cheap.

 

I think you're right, Jay, they could do this relatively easily. And I'd also be willing to bet it would sell much better than the Leica '0' as it would be a genuinely useable camera.

[ed_balko3]

I can only echo the comments about screw mount Leicas not being particularly difficult to load. Just trim the leader with a pair of scisors, taking care not to cut through a sprocket hole, but between them.

 

A hand held meter isn't particularly terribly to use and offers the option of incident light readings. For about 80% of what most of us shoot, one can estimate exposure, particularly for B&W work. Some large format schools have exposure estimation as "lesson number one".

 

A screw mount Leica with a collapsible lens with a collapsible lens, best an Elmar or equvalent, is a real joy to carry and use.

[Richard Williams]

I suspect that a modern Leica 'IIIp' would be a much more expensive proposition than we'd like. I've read that the original tooling was discarded when they moved out of Wetzlar, so the camera (which would have very little in common with current production Ms) would have to be largely recreated from scratch (not cheap even by modern methods). I know we've seen the O-series replica since the move to Solms, but that's a _much_ simpler body than (e.g.) the IIIf. To recoup the investment, I'd guess that the selling price would have to be significantly more than that of the MP (i.e., several times the price of an original LTM body in really nice condition). I think that there'd also be 'financial issues' with a custom-built M - even Leica has some economies of scale when producing reasonably large runs of identical cameras. A modern (and hopefully not radioactive!) version of the collapsible Summicron in LTM would be a nice thing to have, however, and I'd be happy to be proved wrong about the 'IIIp'!

[charles_stobbs2]

Just be sure to put the scissors

in the checked luggage.

[paulstenquist]

You don't have to put the scissors in checked luggage. You simply trim your leaders before leaving home. I went to Amsterdam last week with my IIIf and five rolls of film. I trimmed all the leaders before I left. And for all those who contend thread mount Leicas are too difficult to load, I reloaded on the street with the camera hanging from a strap around my neck. I would guess it took about a minute and a half, perhaps less. It's really quite simple. An LTM is a wonderful machine. If you've never shot a roll of film through one, you owe it to yourself to do so. As far as lens quality is concerned, the Summicron 5cm/2 is quite adequate, as it is in M mount. In fact, I like the fact that it's a bit less contrasty and a bit less saturated than my contemporary lenses. It's a very fifties thing, and that's a lot of fun.

Paul Stenquist

[jsbc]

Loading and lack of meter is the greatest challenge to using a IIIf, but not insuperable.

 

Too bad the new Leica screw-mount lenses have disappeared. The old ones, such as the 90mm Elmar and 50 collapsible summicrons (the 50 elmar is fun but F3.5 is just too slow for slides). The Summicron is actually a bit heavy, but there are plenty of Cana, Russian and Cosina wideangles available for the lens selection is not bad for a 'fun' camera rather than a professional one.

 

On Loading; I use to pre-cut the leaders, but this is a bit of a pain if you are travelling with another 35mm setup such as a SLR. On one or two instances, the leader actually broke, and one specific case, caused a split in the film all the way to the 36th frame.

 

I now take my time and load the film using a business card, and just fire one or two frames with the bottom removed to check whether the teeth of the loader catch the sprokets. Don't have any problems with film-loading anymore.

 

Johnson

[tony_brookes]

Kevin - try a Leica III - it's even smaller, 3mm shorter.

[cameron_sawyer]

Only people warped enough to think that an M6 loads "normally" could think that carrying around scissors to carve up every film leader is no big deal. Yikes, the things we put up with.

[h._p.]

>>Yikes, the things we put up with<<

 

Yep, ain't it fun? :-)

[douglas_hagerman]

I wouldn't buy a new IIIc even if it had a meter. The separate viewfinder and rangefinder window setup is frustrating, the rangefinder baseline is too short, the speed setting system is a hassle, etc. If Leica fixed these problems they'd have a CL (except the rangefinder baseline is still too short). And if I wanted an unmetered IIIc I would just go out and buy one--they're cheap even if you have to pay to get them cleaned up.

 

What is nice about the LTM and CL/CLE cameras is that they are compact, unlike the M camera with any of the latest generation of lenses. The LTM cameras can easily fit in a coat pocket, partly because the cameras are small and partly because the lenses are small.

 

The current nostalgia-theme M cameras make business sense--apparently, because there's demand for them--and what's missing now is a range of lenses to match the cameras. The new fast wide angle lenses are great, but they're TOO BIG. What's needed is a set of newly computed compact lenses to go on the MP:

 

- f/4 90 collapsable

 

- f/2 50 collapsable

 

- f/1.4 35 SMALL like the pre-ASPH Summilux and Summicron

 

- f/1.4 28 SMALL, not like the current f/2.0 ASPH

 

- f/2.8 24 SMALL

 

- f/2.8 21 SMALL

[tony_brookes]

Kevin - you only need to carry scissors if you aren't prepared. Forethought - shape before travel. If you slide a businesscard/creditcard down between the back and the shutter guide you don't need to cut the leader. I know several people who do this. I simply shape my leaders before I leave home - now that's a real pain isn't it.

[Rob F.]

I agree with Douglas. I want smaller, shorter wideangles. My wish is for a 35 ASPH Lux and 28 ASPH Cron that don't intrude in the finder. Everyone always says the 35 Lux isn't "that much" bigger than the 'Cron; but it is, "that much" bigger in my view, and in my viewfinder. And once you put the hood on the 28 Summicron, it intrudes just as badly into the finder as my version III with hood.

[bobtodrick]

As many here know I've used a IIIg for years, primarily with the 35 Summicron Asph they brought out a few years ago, and pretty much everything that has been said here has validity IMHO. The lens is great...but it is too big for the body, looks wise. The 50mm Canon F1.8 I also have feels more 'right'...but is no comparison for the new glass in sharpness. I also don't think there are that many people out there who pick up an early screwmount who are going to be willing to spend $1000+ for glass. But take one of the SM bodies in good shape, plus a selecton of Voigtlander lenses and you've got a great compact shooting kit. At first trimming the leaders was a pain, and I found about 1 in 4 miss-loaded. Not that I'm used to it I can load a film in under a minute and haven't had a leader 'hang up' in the past year (I put about 250-300 rolls a year through this camera). Finally the seperate viewfinder/rangefinder is a non issue in my mind. Firstly, with any camera other than the IIIg you'll be using a seperate viewfinder for anything other than the 50mm anyways. As well, if you have an M3 (for example) you'll be using a seperate veiwfinder for wideangle, and if you use any of the extreme wides (21mm or wider) on any rangefinder you'll also be using a seperate viewfinder. On the later Leica screwmounts the range/viewfinder is so close together you don't move the camera at all, you just roll your eye back and forth to switch from one window to the other. To sum up...I don't think Leica could possibly make money on these cameras. As with the lenses they would still cost what, say a new MP would cost...and there are probably 3 people out there willing to pay $2500 for a IIIc, especially when they can pick up a really mint user for a few hundred on *bay which would probably be better made. But for a inconspicuous camera that makes fantastic images, makes you think, and will last a life time there is no better.

[kevin m.]

Thanks for all the input and the loading tips, in particular. I don't need one of these cameras, but I'm really starting to want one!

[roger c]

The rangefinder in the III to the IIIg cameras is nearly as accurate as an M3 or an M6 0.85. The 1.5x magnification makes up for the shorter base length.