As a long time user of Leica M series cameras, I think that I would like to try a thread mount camera. I would want to go as simple as possible. this camera would be sort of a return to the essence of photography thing... my little rebellion against all of the plastic, auto, thoughtless process that it seems to be enveloping cameras and photography today. This would be like an airline pilot that goes out with his Piper Cub on the weekends... to remember what it is like to really fly.

Enough philosophy. Based on my reading, I have decided to go with a 111F or 111G. I have also decided to really minimize and stay with a 50mm lens. Probably a collapsible f3.5 or f2.8 Elmar. I am not locked into anything firm though, and would gladly entertain any input from users of these old camera. Specifically, things to watch out for, problems that might arise and a hierarchy of desirability. I have read all of the articles on Steve Gandy's site, but I would rather have more than one person's opinion(s).

I will not be getting rid of my Leica M's or Nikons. I just want a fun basic camera for those time that the thrill of the process is as pleasurable as the resulting pictures. Any input from actual users would be greatly appreciated.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), November 28, 2000

Answers

Al, having been raised on the M series, you may not like the older ones at all. About all they really have in common is the rounded body ends (good) and the baseplate loading (bad). My favorite has always been my very first Leica, a IIIFRDST. Recently, however, a friend gave me his late father's Leica II. I was surprised how much smaller, lighter, and even "more Leica like" this old warhouse is. No wonder they sold 10 godzillion of them, right in the middle of the depression. I even like the black paint and don't miss the slow shutter speeds, though I'm still not completely adapted to the eye- piece separation. With a 50mm f:3.5 Elmar it's truly pocketable. Don't forget that you must always carry a film leader trimming template. I hope you enjoy your "new" experience as much as I have.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 28, 2000.

I have a IIIc and IIIg and I enjoy both from time-to-time. They are certainly more compact than the M's, and certainly have that robust feel. But all screw mounts have drawbacks that were solved with the M's...

Film loading - no hinged back. It can be tricky loading film unless you have the film template and trim the leader. I highly recommend this.

Viewfinder & rangefinder separated. One window for framing, another for focusing, (assuming you have a model with built-in rangefinder). Going back and forth can be distracting when you're accustomed to doing both functions through a single window.

Also the viewfinder is very dim compared to the large M viewfinder. My IIIg has probably the best among screwmounts - it's really pretty good and an obvious precursor to the M3 viewfinder. Less than that though is dim indeed.

Shutter speeds - old sequence. If this bothers you (and it's certainly something people can get by easily) you have the 1/5, 1/10, 1/25, 1/50 sequence, rather than the modern speed sequence. Certainly not a big deal for those used to inexact light readings anyway. You probably won't shoot a lot of successful chromes with it though. Black & white negs are its forte.

Also, you have to set the shooting speed after you wind the shutter. The shutter dial rotates during winding and release. Hitting it with your shooting finger interferes with exposure.

The slow shutter speeds - 1 sec through 1/30 - on a separate dial (assuming you have a model with slow shutter speeds) are definitely a pain in the butt.

Softer lenses - not the high resolution and high contrast that started coming out with the Summicrons. Some people prefer this though.

Despite all of this I enjoy the screw mounts on occasion. It makes me appreciate the M's so much more! (kind of a back-handed compliment). I think all rangefinder users should try at least one screw mount for perspective.

For best balance I do agree you should use a collapsible 50. Rigid screw mounts just seem too large for the smaller body. The collapsible also makes the whole rig more pocketable, which is one of its major strengths anyway.

You should be able to get a post-WWII IIIc for reasonable $$$'s. However, if limited to a single screw mount I would hang on to the IIIg for the viewfinder alone. Check the shutter operation carefully - usually the weak link - especially the slower speeds. Probably can be adjusted easily enough, but figure into the cost. Regardless of legend DO NOT hammer nails with it, although I swear you could.

Have fun!!!

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), November 28, 2000.

I find the most useful to be the IIIc, or IIIf Black Dial. Earlier models have the focus and viewfinder eyepieces further apart, which isn't anywhere near as nice as the split rangefinder/viewfinder eyepiece on the IIIc and later. I also have a IIIf RDST, a very beautiful camera but they run at least twice the price of a IIIc. I've never owned a IIIg, because for that money you can buy a Leica M.

In my view, these are perfect pocket cameras, to have with you at all times, with full manual control over focus and exposure. That's why the IIIc or IIIf BD make more sense to me, as I'd be reluctant to carry around a IIIg all the time.

I find that in many situations, I actually prefer having the separate, high-mag rangefinder eyepiece to focus with. Switching to the viewfinder eyepiece after focusing is a tiny, split-second movement, very easy to get used to.

The built-in 50mm viewfinder is a good reason to shoot primarily with a 50mm lens. The compactness of my 3,5 Elmar is wonderful, but since getting a 2,0 Summitar I find myself using that more often. The Summitar is also collapsible (but not as compact as the Elmar), faster, and to my eye performs better.

I've never bothered with trimming the film leader, and lots of other folks don't either. I suppose this is somewhat like the argument over whether to use a "protective" filter on a lens. Decide for yourself.

Beware, Leica Screw Mounts are extremely addictive. I now find myself with four of the puppies. Problems I've encountered, that you might watch out for, sticky slow shutter speeds, dim rangefinder image, leaky shutter curtain (run a test roll of film), stiff focusing mechanism (not the lens, but the camera).

Good luck. There's a good chance that you'll end up like me, with a screw mount camera and 50mm f3,5 Elmar in your pocket,loaded with negative film, all of the time.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), November 28, 2000.

I've used a friend's IIIf fairly extensively. I strongly recommend you get an auxiliary 50mm brightline finder. Fortunately, Voigtlander/Cosina these days make a Leitz brightline lookalike finder. About $75. A Leitz original mint condition SBOOI would set you back for $300+ for no additional benefit.

I swear by these finders, even on my M6, for portraiture and street pics. But they really come into their own with the old screw mounts.

BTW, I'm sure you've seen this and been inspired, http://www.cameraquest.com/3frdst.htm

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 28, 2000.

Sorry, Al. The Cosina brightline finder is about 75 UK pounds, not US dollars. Somewhat over US dollars 110.

Cosina also sells a meter that you can get for about $175 from RobertWhite in the UK, but that seems to defeat the purpose of your exercise.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 28, 2000.

Al, when I was 12 I started using my dad's black-paint Leica model D, also know as the Leica II. I seem to remember the lowest couple of shutter speeds were 1/20 and 1/40, or something like that. 50mm uncoated elmar. One day he left it in the car for a few seconds and someone stole it. The insurance company bought him a IIIf, red-dial I think. I used it until I was about 20, when I bought my own M2. I never experienced the model D or IIIf as hard to load. It was what I had. I loaded it. It worked. At 14 I shot a picture of Sharon, the most beautiful girl I had ever seen, from my seat next to her in biology class. Only took a second, nobody noticed. I wish I had this camera back. (serial #685475) Also used it to photograph my Air Force friends for several years. It is a very handy camera, but lacks a built-in meter, of course. When my dad started letting me use it, I think the speed of Kodachrome was 8. I think the basic daylight exposure was 1/50 at 6.3, if memory serves. We had a Weston meter, in case it was needed.

Unless you do flash photography, you wouldn't have to have a IIIf. I always sort of liked the IIIc. I don't think it has flash sync (who needs it?) But it is improved over previous models: die-cast frame, one-piece top cover. I don't remember with which model they added the ball bearings.

I think I would go with the 50mm collapsible Summicron. It was available in thread mount. After all it has always been the world standard.

There is a question in my mind about whether one would be better off with an old Leica, or a a modern compact. I am a little partial to the Olympus Stylus. My girl friend, a philosopher, came back from a philosophy convention in Russia with great shots of the Kremlin, and shots of Doestoyevsky's home in (I think) St. Petersburg, as well as some relatives in the Ukraine, all done with her Stylus. But I digress. I have also been hankering after a screw-mount Leica. So, let us know what you decide!

Regards,

Bob

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@juno.com), November 28, 2000.

Al

I agree with the others (I don't have a screw mount Leica, but wonder a good deal about it) the IIIc (if flash is not an issue) or the IIIf seem to be the best choice. In purely practical terms the IIIg is the nicest as it has the extra 90 frame and is parallax corrected too, which has to be a big plus) but the money is silly. The only thing that has held me back is the fact that I would have to make do with the original LTM lenses, and I think I am spoilt by the speed and quality of the modern optics. I know the Cartier Bresson used one, but I am not HCB and even he probably uses something else today. You could of course get one of the Votigtlander Noktons to use on the screw mount and that would be a nice combo, but it does seem to me that a collapsible 2.8 or 3.5 coated 50mm Elmar is the thing to have with it as the size match is good. It would be nice to have one of the new LTM Elmar-M types for it -- if you can find one and are feeling wealthy.

I do think I would find the viewfinder squinty and the lack of parallax correction a pain, but equally I too would like to try one out. So, I suppose the answer is to get a nice user and see how you get on. Let us know what happens. My carry everywhere camera is the Leica CL with 40mm Rokkor and this is just wonderful and more sophisticated than a Leica screw, but equally there is no doubt the the IIIs are much tougher and even more compact (depending how you look at it).

-- Robin Smith (rsmith@springer-ny.com), November 29, 2000.

Thanks to all that have replied. I really enjoyed reading your inputs and will thoroughly digest all of the information.

One other question... Gandy's site mentioned something along the lines of, (paraphrased) "Do yourself a favor and get the Leitz reloadable film cassettes... just do this!" My question is: Can you use standard commercial film as it comes in the box? I understand the need to trim the leader, but does the actual cassette fit in the chamber of the LTM body?

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), November 29, 2000.

Al I went back to the Gandy site, and he was referring only to bulk loading of film. Standard out of the box 35mm cassettes work with all Leicas (except possibly the original models A or B). Believe me, if there was any possiblity of having problems I would personally have first-hand knowledge of it. Incidentally, I'll second all the other recommendations for a IIIC as a starter.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 29, 2000.

Al, I currently use M4-P, Model C and Model llla. Each has its' attractions. The C lacks rangefinder but has standard Leica thread mount - it is photography at its most basic. The llla introduces slow speeds and rangefinder focusing - circa '30's, '40's & '50's. Finally the M4-P brings me to the end of the non TTL metering generation. Each is used and enjoyed for what it is, the only warning is for the two oldies, trim the film leader - you do not need a template, but simply use the width of the camera as a guide. Failure to do so invites jamming the shutter with the short leaders on store bought film.

-- Peter J. Hanlon (peter.hanlon@cityofsaintjohn.com), November 30, 2000.

I have owned two IIIf's over the years. I have some great negs from them and I liked the cameras [I had one lens (horrors a Canon, which was superb)]. Both were in great condition when I bought them and both suffered the same problem. Total shutter failure. Fortunately, there were collectors who wanted them sans shutter. I don't think that I will go back there again. Just my opinion.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), November 30, 2000.

Al, I currently use Leitz reloadable film cassettes in my IIIFRD. Almost no resistance when advancing the shutter, I just roll the advance knob with my thumb when the camera is near my eye. There are no any scratches on the film. But before using, each cassette is to be check up how easy it enters into the film chamber. I had a few cassettes which are slightly more in diameter than the IIIF’s chamber is. It is a good choice to return to a classic IIIF or IIIG. You probably know that Leitz redesigned Leica’s shutter and body starting from the IIIc. The body appeared is more robust and keeps its working distance (28.8mm) even when it is incidentally dropped on a pavement. The lens flange of IIIC/IIIF/IIIG is set on the “inner” body consisting of precise casting details, no any adjusting paper washers under the lens flange as its predecessors have. But pre-IIIC Leicas have flanges set on the external casting of the body. This is the reason why the working distance is slightly changed when the camera is gripped very tightly (I saw this on the indicator), or if it was dropped. There are a few paper ring washers between the flange and the body casting in pre-IIIC Leicas. It was a pain to adjust a working distance of the body to 28.8(-0.05) mm with its paper ring washers. The shutter of IIIC /IIIF/ IIIG have appeared more precise and correct, no vibration. An interesting thing: it’s strange, but my IIIFRD has been manufactured so that the frame dimensions are about 25X38 mm, and almost no frame bars (0.1mm), long sides of frame just touch perforation holes. It is very noticeable when printing in a dark room, standard magnifier's frames are not adequate to camera’s frame. The advantage is larger angle of view, so my 21mm is approximately as 19’30’’ and 20mm is 18’30’’. Meanwhile the IIIFRDST I had before has normal size of the frame. Bad news is that all old Leicas need pro’s CLA: cleaning gears, axles, optic elements lubricating, adjusting RF, shutter speeds and working distance, inspecting and gluing or change curtains and much more. But after these procedures they are working gratefully. The only drawback of the IIIF is PARALLAX. When you forget to correct this, it is very unpleasant to discover when the frame center on the neg is displaced and composition is ruined. So, the IIIG is much better than IIIF with its parallax auto compensation. But it is more expensive, bigger and is looking worse than the IIIF (as for me:-). There is no any ideal Leica. But I regret that I traded my two IIIG’s and Leicavit. I shot with 90mm on my IIIG’s very rarely, as the Nikon is for tele-lens. The IIIG was created for 50mm lens! I don’t like any accessories in the hot shoe of my IIIF, I like to shoot mostly with 50mm or 35mm lens. Good luck, --Victor

-- Victor Randin (www.ved@enran.com.ua), December 05, 2000.

I have been using a IIIg now for three years anc am completely happy with it. Admittedly I sprung for the new 35mm Summicron Aspheric that is available in thread mount (the lens I use for 80% of my photography), but find that the compact size of the camera, even with the viewfinder attached is a potent picture taking machine. The reasons for going this route were as follows. I owned an M4 but found it a little big (what, a Leica M too big??!!). I do a lot of shooting in cafe's plus a lot of portraiture in peoples homes where I want them to feel totally comfortable. For this reason I switched to a CL with 40mm Summicron, but just didn't like the feel. When Leica came out with a selection of modern glass in the screw mount I was hooked. It doesn't matter (to me) that the view/rangefinder windows are seperate because I use the clip on viewfinder supplied with the lens. Once the camera was checked (the shutters can develop pinholes), the rangefinder calibrated and cleaned, I was left with a deadly little picture maker that everyone ignores while I happily snap away.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), December 05, 2000.

If you like 35mm lenses the Canon L1 (or VL or VI-L) is nice, particulasrly with the sterling Canon 35/2.

A 35 Summicron Aspheric would be optimal, albeit pricey...

-- Marco Grande (hektor73@yahoo.com), May 07, 2002.

The IIIf RDST with the current 50mm Summicron mounted is pure joy, I use this combination more and more.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), May 08, 2002.