I would like to know why some amateurs like the old Screw Mount LEICA. I studied many of these old cameras, and I did not find great interest ( except the IIIG ). I think the best period for Leica was when the intoduce their M3 in 1954 until 1970. Is SM cameras are very poplular for Leica enthousiasts ? Any technical and historical considerations are welcome.... Jean-Pierre Auger, Montréal, Canada.

-- Jean-Pierre Auger (paphoto@videotron.ca), December 26, 2001

Answers

Try this on: http://www.cameraquest.com/3frdst.htm

-- Joe Brugger (jbrugger@pcez.com), December 26, 2001.

Other long-time posters here are infinitely more qualified to address the technical or historical aspects of screw-mount Leicas than I am. But I can offer what this "definite amateur" finds interesting about them.

I used to have a IIf with a 5cm Summitar. The lens aperture was so stiff it took two hands to change settings. The focusing viewfinder was a little greener than the water in an aquarium. The B and 1/20th shutter settings were interchangeable about half the time. And successfully loading a roll of film into it was almost cause for a two-day celebration. I owned it for three years and ran exactly six rolls of film through it - one Kodachrome and five B & W.

So what was there to like about it? To me, it had a quirky, primitive charm at least equal to my aunt's fifty-year-old Chambers gas kitchen range which gave birth to thousands and thousands of cookies. And then despite the very small amount of film I shot with it, several of my especially favorite images were made with it. These are just personal favorites and have nothing to do with technical quality. Probably a higher "kill" ratio than with any other camera I've ever owned. Why? Maybe because I carried it around to more places because of its small size. But then I've probably carried my Olympus XA2 around even more. And I've shot many times more film with the XA2 than the IIf, but have fewer special favorites from the XA2. And unlike any other camera I've ever owned, I can look at the prints made from the IIf's negatives and specifically recall the details from when I made the photograph even after 15 years. Maybe because it seemed such a hassle just to make an exposure with it the details have stuck with me. I'm glad I owned it. I've considered replacing it in recent years. If I wanted a collectible to sit on a shelf that I could take down and fondle from time to time, I'd definitely replace it. But for me a camera is to use at least a little and not just to look at. So when I remember what it was like to actually use, I get over it.

-- Tod Hart (tghart@altavista.com), December 27, 2001.

I have a IIIa with original Summar and a beautiful leather case. Everything seems to work fine. I like its compact size and watch-like precision, as well as the feeling of using a historic camera. Of course, there are plenty of other lenses for it. Focusing is harder, especially in low light and close up, but not impossible. I also have an M3 which has a magnificent viewfinder. Check clarity of the rangefinder, and especially check slow shutter speeds. I recommend a lenshood for any old lens. Altogether, a lot of fun.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), December 27, 2001.

Small, really small. I have two M cameras and a IIIa. The IIIa goes on trips, and when I don't really want a camera. With the wide angle lenses I often use I need a separate finder anyway, so the finder doesn't matter.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), December 27, 2001.

My first Leicas were a IIIa and IIIf I inherited at the age of 12-13, and I used them through high school. I still own them and their set of lenses, keep everything in tip-top condition and display them with fond remembrance. The first day I got an M series was the last day I regularly shot with a screw-mount. Other than sentimental/collectible value I personally can't understand why anyone would want to use one if they didn't have to.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 27, 2001.

Sorry Jay, bit I have to disagree with you (why use other than sentimental value?). I have a IIIg (admittedly my main lens is the 35 Asph Summicron Leica made in limited numbers) that has become primary picture maker (and not to brag - okay, maybe a little - this camera has paid for itself many times over in image sales through the galleries that represent me). It is small - much smaller than my previous M4. It has a great viewfinder (though I realize the IIIg was the cream of the crop in this respect). Even with the 35 viewfinder attached it fits in my coat pocket and is alway with me (nearly always ;-( ). I may be a retro kind of guy (my super-duper PC with a gazillion megh isn't all that much better than my ancient Texas Instruments TI-99/4A computer IMHO), but it;s the photo that counts. My 1957 IIIg has takes just as good an image as a brand spanking new Nikon F5 (or Lieca R8. As they say - it's all in the min

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), December 27, 2001.

The IIIg is a fine camera with the best viewfinder of all the screwmounts. It has modern-day progression of shutter speeds and bright-frames for 50 and 90 lenses with coupled parallax correction. I wanted one years ago until I got my 1st M2. But the IIIg still requires looking through separate finders for focusing and framing, has 2 dials for setting the shutter speeds, the finder magnification is only 0.5x, no lever for winding, no provision for a rapid loading kit, and screw-mount lenses are still much slower to attach (moreso in the dark) and detach. And until just recently you had a choice of very old, often fogged lenses for it. And the price of a nice IIIg is higher than a brand-new M6. I didn't mean to imply the screw- mounts (including the IIIg)aren't perfectly usable cameras...just that using them entails making quite a few sacrifices in comparison to an M--and the M6 is hardly state-of-the-art itself.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 27, 2001.

Ergonomics.

-- (bmitch@home.com), December 27, 2001.

My hands are quite small (although, unfortunately, my body, especially my mid-section, isn't). My IIIa & IIIf fit better than any other camera. Also, I'm left-eyed. The lever wind of an 'M' hits me in the face. I can wind the screw-mount cameras more rapidly than an 'M' by running my index finger along the edge of the winding knob. The rangefinder is more accurate than any 'M' except the M-3. The diopter adjustment lets me focus it for my aging eyes. Lastly, all the little knobs, numbers, and levers look soooo cool!

-- Robert Marvin (marvbej@earthlink.net), December 27, 2001.

My IIf with elmar or summitar fits in my pocket. It is the most accurately focusing camera I've ever used. It is still compact with a SBOOI finder; with this finder, shooting with both eyes open is a pleasure. And other reasons listed above.

-- John (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), December 30, 2001.

I agree with Jay. Any SM Leica (including the IIIg), although perfectly useable, is just too inconvenient for me. Start with the tiny windows, very difficult to use if you have glasses, the highly demagnified view, the lack of any frames beyond 50 and 90 mm (which is only present in IIIg), separate windows for VF and RF, RF limited to 1 m (3'4") closest focus, take-up spool, requirement to cut film end to proper shape (otherwise you can gunk up film wind mechanism), separate shutter speed dials for high and low speeds and inconvenient useage, no hot shoe, bottom loading, etc. etc.

Leica rangefinder useage is already inconvenient compared with the SLR, why handicap yourself more. On the other hand. it's great if you have the patience to put up with what you have to do to use a Leica SM camera. They are elegant little machines. many of which are still functional (or can be brought up to specs) after more than 40 years since the last one left the factory.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), December 30, 2001.