the iiig has always appealed to me. however, i have never used one extensively as a general purpose camera. with the abundance of screw mount lenses out there -- new and used -- it seems like a compact screw mount leica might be a fun purchase. would somebody who has used exclusively m cameras likely enjoy the screw mount (specifically iiig) experience??

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 04, 2002

Answers

I prefer earlier models, specifically the II or the IIIF.

-- Bill (bmitch@comcast.net), March 04, 2002.

I prefer earlier models, specifically the II or the IIIF.

Your answer might be more helpful and meaningful if you explained why.

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), March 04, 2002.

The IIIg is the way to go. It has the modern shutter speeds and flash capacity. Also, has the framelines for the 50 and 90. Cost has always been the key here. You can pick up a IIIc for next to nothing but, the IIIg has always been relatively pricey, even for a user. Although, it appears the prices have really come down in the last year. I got a great user IIIg for $500(but it did need a CLA) last month.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), March 04, 2002.

I've been using a IIIg for most of my photography for about 4 years now. In the past I've owned M4 and CL cameras and find that I like the screwmount the best. More compact than the M cameras (except the CL) it is more discrete, which is an important consideration for my shooting style. For candid portraits it seems nearly invisible, and I've often fired off 1/2 a roll of film from 10 feet away and not be noticed. The CL worked fine for this as well but it just didn't have the Leica 'feel' that the IIIg has. I use primarily the 35 ASPH (though I probably would have saved the money and bought one of the Voigtlander lenses had they been around 4 years ago), followed by the 50 and very occasionaly the 90. With the 35 finder attached and the included framelines for the 50 and 90 it is still a pocketable camera. Unfortunately the collectors have driven the price of the camera through the roof and one in really good shape will command as much as a used M6, so if you don't mind cosmetics get one that is a little 'rough' looking, but that functions well. The only other thing I would suggest is trying to find the leader cutter made for trimming the tonque of the film to the proper size for loading. Even with practice and a pair of scissors, without the trimmer I found I was misloading every 4th or 5th film, often fishing out film chips at the most inconvenient times. Since buying the trimmer over a year ago (probably 200+ rolls) I have only had one misload. The camera makes you slow down. It makes you think. Neither of which is bad for your picture taking.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 04, 2002.

I regularly use and M2 or M3 D.S. but enjoy using the IIf and IIIf's as well. A year ago a friend wanted several shots of his brother's funeral, (outside the church and at the cemetery). I was very uncomfortable with this "assignment", but my dear friend insisted. I decided on the IIIf and Tri-X. The "f's" are very small and quiet and I was able to conceal it under my coat most of the time. On a brighter note, the f's are quite affordable and don't demand the collector prices of the g's. I'm told the IIIa's and IIIc's are excellent cameras but suffer from plating problems; chipping and peeling chrome. The size of the older III's and II's is unbelievable and they are very retro looking, which may actually draw attention to you in a street shooting situation. I've never had a problem with the older shutter speeds....I use an old Weston meter with them which has the old speeds on it.

-- Ben Hughes (ben@hughesbros.com), March 04, 2002.

I don't know what you guys have been smoking, but to me, once you use a modern M (like M4 or later), you would never ever want to use any SM camera. The VF is mall and very hard to see through (especially if you wear galsseds), the RF couples only to 1 m (3 ft 4 in) and you only get frames for 50 and 90 mm (with the IIIg, 50 mm only with all others). Even w/ IIIg, any other lens than 50 or 90 requires a separate VF. Finally, the film loading is very annoying, and you have to cut the film leader to the proper shape, otherwise the shutter mechanism will "geht kaput".

The IIIg is a great collectible and probably the best of the SM Leicas, but as a user its not too swift.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 04, 2002.

All the deficiencies of the LTM's pale in comparison to one: needing to focus through the rangefinder window and view through the viewfinder window. No matter they're close together, it's still slow and awkward. But for shots where you've got time, the LTM's are kind of fun. I've had a couple since I was a teenager and still take them out to shoot from time to time to keep them from gumming up. I wouldn't consider them for daily use, though.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 04, 2002.

I'm currently shooting, on a regular basis, two IIICs, one DS M3 & a new M6 TTL. All have their utility. Since this query was about the older SM cameras, I'll say that I use the IIICs for the quality of the vintage lens. There ARE great differences between the current Leica lens and the 50-60 year old Leitz glass. Shooting Tri-X with a 1936 Elmar 50 produces shots that look, as they should, as if they were from that era. There's a charming difference that I particularly love between the old & new lens. So that's where the old cameras shine. They're a pain in the butt when compared to an M6, but after a short time, become second nature. I'd go for it--!

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), March 04, 2002.

Patrick, couldn't you use a screw mount adapter to put the old lens on your new camera, and get the best of both worlds?

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), March 04, 2002.

Phil, sure. On one level, that sounds ingenious. And if you owned an M camera, that might be the way to go. In my case, I first bought a IIIC with a couple lens to save money (this was in the early '80's), loved the camera, bought an M3, liked it even more & eventually bought the TTL, acquiring SM & M lens along the way as I could afford to do so. Now I can appreciate the differences in images between the old & new glass, & shoot accordingly... If I didn't own the M system & just wanted to shoot old SM lens, a IIIC or IIIF is still worlds cheaper than buying an M... My point was not so much the body, I suppose, as noting that we shouldn't all turn up our noses at the older glass. There are a lot of great tools for different jobs, right? No one lens remains the answer for all images (as the endless debates in this group illustrate). I've even stooped to buying a couple Soviet Jupiter lens in the last year just to get the wacky, soft edges & funny signatures that the worst Leitz lens can't convey, yet that I can get predictably w/ these Soviet-era lens. But w/ these I'm specifically seeking a certain image, versus using a new M lens that's tack sharp...

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), March 04, 2002.

Bob Todricht:

>> I use primarily the 35 ASPH

How do you use an M lens on an LTM camera?

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), March 04, 2002.

There is something about the old Barnacks, especially the postwar ones, that make you forgive the pains they give you. If you can get a IIIG at a reasonable price get it. I occationally use a IIIf and IIf. When and if a rapidwinder comes along I'll use them more often.

I've seen Leicavits for sale here in Japan for 165,000 yen. Passed them up for some reason....

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), March 04, 2002.

Mitch - I suspect Bob uses one of those recent special-release LTM lenses that were made specifically for the Japanese market. A number of those lenses reached North America. I have the 50mm LTM version, which is the current lens with thread mount. I use it on my IIIg from time to time. I use the older lenses, too, depending on the look I want.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), March 04, 2002.

Mitch - to clarify more - Leica put out 3 of their current lenses (50 f/2, 50 f/1.4, 35 f/2 ASPH, I believe) in screw-mount a couple/three years ago - about 1000 of each (I think). Sort of their response to V'lander's success.

Inspired by the concept of 2001 lenses in 1925-55 lens mounts, they then worked their way back to the 1924-era "0-product". Eventually they will produce a commemorative version of Ernst Leitz I's original 1854 spectacles (complete with case). =8^o

Roger: The IIIg is less compact than the earlier screw-mounts - slightly taller finder. The best deal IMHO is a reasonably clean IIIc (or IIIf with flash sync), which can run $300-$500. They can be fun - I had one for a couple of years in college and learned a lot using it alongside my SLRs. Even the 50 f/3.5 taught me something about contrast and resolution.

The biggest drawback (for me) was always lens speed - I like the f/2s and f/1.x lenses myself. They were extremely hard to find in screw- mount (even the Canikon versions) - and usually pricey even beyond Leica-M - and I just wasn't interested in a 28 f/6.8 with an impossible-to-locate finder.

Now that V'lander is producing lots of 1.9s and 1.7s and 1.5s - very cheap and with nice finders included for the wides - the whole screw- mount thing makes a lot more sense.

The film loading (with removable spool and rewind 'knob') really IS a pain compared to the post-M4 quick-load system (although at least I never had to resort to the 'credit card' technique).

But for fun? - sure, those exquisitely machined and knurled little levers and dials and knobs are a trip-and-a-half.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 05, 2002.

how your questions is answered depends on what you are looking for in a good user. for the price of a good IIIg you can probably come close to well worn M3 if you shop carefully. the M3 is much more camera. for myself, there are times when my M3 seems too modern and then i pull out my old contax IIIa. while the camera is not quite up to leica ltm standards the lenses are a little better, especially the 50 f1.5. the contax IIIa also sells at a fraction of the price of a IIIg. you should check out steve gandy's site at cameraquest.com. it has a wealth of very opinionated information from someone who uses cameras and does not simply collect them.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), March 05, 2002.

In response to Greg Mason's advice re: his Contax IIIa--I would disagree to the extent that I've found the Zeiss Ikon Contaxes, pre or post-WWII, to be far superior to "LTM standards" (w/the possible exception of the IIIg) in features & usability (e.g., combined RF/VF, single non-rotating shutter speed dial, self-timer, etc.). As to the lenses, the general consensus is that Zeiss glass, w/superior designs & coatings, handily beat its Leitz competition until the mid 1950s, when the field started to even out.

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), March 05, 2002.

Chris, I don't think that Zeiss Contax cameras were "far superior" to the contemporary Leicas. While there is no doubt that the Zeiss had better lenses, and more "features," but many of those features looked better on paper than in actual use. The Leica had better engineering and design, (thanks to Herr Barnack), and was at least as well constructed before WW2, and much better after it.

-- Bill (bmitch@comcast.net), March 05, 2002.

Pull an HCB and use a Zeiss lens on a Barnack Leica. I've been using a new LTM summicron 50 on my IIf, and it's a sweet combo. It's faster to focus and shoot with an M, but I find I can focus a screwmount more accurately than any other camera.

-- John (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), March 05, 2002.

In response to the comment about prices, a IIIg user will be more expensive than an M3 user (and more expensive than M2, M4-2, M4-P users). Leica IIIgs have for years been the province of collectors. Even one in SB excellent in working condition is likely to run abotu $ 1250 or more. A truly SB mint example could cost $ 2500 or more. On the nother hand, you can get user examples of any of the above models for less than $ 1000. With IIIgs, you are definitely competing with collectors. On the other hand, the IIIf red dial can be obtained for about $ 500 (a little more if it is the self-timer model). The cost plus its inconveniences are among the reasons I don't usually recommend a IIIg, except as a collectable. The IIIf is probably a better choice as a user, though it has all of the same incoveniences and lacks the 90 mm framelines.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 05, 2002.

i went ahead and bought a very minty iiig at a photorama show in lanham, md. this past weekend. i got a great price and couldn't pass it up. i like the compactness of the body as well as its superb construction. the late fifties must have been the zenith of leica quality. i also like the high mag RF window. even though you have to move your eyeball back and forth between the two windows (although there is a way, indescribable in words, of look through both at the same time), i find it much quicker to focus because the focus point is so large and clear by comparison with the m6. the camera is very quiet and precise. i've been using it with the voigtlander vc meter. i like this beter than the m6 meter because (a) you don't have to look through the finder to meter, minimizing the time you must have the camera to your eye (important for candid photography) and (b) you can see the meter readout and the aperture/speed settings at the same time. i also find it to be very accurate. leica should really think about a top-mounted readout for the m7 as an improvement down the road. i guess for me, when i want a mechanical camera, i want a real 100% mechanical device. when i want an electronic camera, i mite as well have all the mod-cons. i'm not sure that there are many mechanical contrivances as well made and functional as the iig. i'm glad i've added it to my stable.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 05, 2002.

Bill: I guess we can agree to disagree (no reason to revive the long-dead "Contax v. Leica" flame war, although it would be much cooler than the "Canon v. Nikon" debate). Whether the Leica has better engineering, design, & construction is certainly debatable, especially if you're talking about the TM Leicas. I would only point out that the innovative Contax features that I mentioned (combined RF/VF, single non-rotating shutter-speed dial, & self-timer) were far more than just "paper" features @ the time--perhaps that's why they were eventually adopted by Leica in the M3 . . . 17 years later (as even Leica-phile Stephen Gandy observes). In many ways, the M3 is just a rounded Contax II w/framelines & lever advance--so maybe we should credit Zeiss Ikon for inspiring Leitz to bring us the M series! ------------------ Chris, I don't think that Zeiss Contax cameras were "far superior" to the contemporary Leicas. While there is no doubt that the Zeiss had better lenses, and more "features," but many of those features looked better on paper than in actual use. The Leica had better engineering and design, (thanks to Herr Barnack), and was at least as well constructed before WW2, and much better after it.

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@cris.com), March 05, 2002.

Chris, if nothing else, I have always considered the Contax IIa to be the most beautiful 35mm camera ever made. I am lucky to have one of the very last ones (with the take-up spool retainer, so it doesn't automatically fall on the floor when one removes the back). I had an earlier one which a nearly full set of lenses, which I foolishly gave to a friend (who lost it in a divorce), and have been trying to replace them ever since. Right now I have a f:2.8/35mm, 50mm f:2 Sonnar and f:4/135mm (all West German). I particularly covet a 50mm Tessar, but the price just keeps ahead of what I'm willing to pay. I must agree with those who claim that "the best Contax ever made was a Nikon SP." (But it wasn't nearly as pretty!)

-- Bill (bmitch@comcast.net), March 05, 2002.

Bill:

Agreed! The IIa is indeed a beautiful camera (@ least if you love chrome like I do). I've also been looking for the 50/3.5 Tessar, as I always loved the look provided by the 45/2.8 in my Contessa.

FYI, last week on the Topica RF list I posted a link (provided earlier by Paul Cotnoir on the IDCC list) to some scans of a Jason Schneider article that include shots of 2 of the prototype Contax IVs (to think what could have been!):

http://pages.cthome.net/pdcmec/VKS.JPG

http://pages.cthome.net/pdcmec/vks2.JPG

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), March 05, 2002.