Any reason for a IIIg?

puketronic · Mar 10, 2014

I want a camera/lens combination that is more compact and lighter than my M3 + DR Cron. It must be an all-mechanical rangefinder with have a 50mm lens --the lens doesn't have to be fast or a show-stopper. The Rollei 35 is great, but it isn't 50mm. I don't like the CL, I just don't.

Anyways, I've narrowed it down to either a IIIc/IIIf + 50mm f3.5 Elmar (or Industar) or just an M3 with that lens..The way I see it, the IIIc/IIIf compared to an M is more portable but with an inferior viewfinder (I don't think I mind the quirky ergonomics or divorced RF/VF settup). I can add an external viewfinder, but then I don't really save on bulk.

Should I consider a IIIg? It doesn't really cost less than an M3. Will I save on weight and bulk? Is it noticeably bulkier than a IIIc/IIIf or noticeably more compact than an M3?

darkosaric · Mar 10, 2014

Buy Industar and put it on M3. That way you can see is it small enough for you - for little money.

Nick Merritt · Mar 10, 2014

The IIIg is a little taller than the earlier III models, owing to the viewfinder. I'd say it's not terribly larger than those models, and lighter and a little smaller than the M3. So it may be just what you are looking for. It's a really nice camera. The thing is, I think you'll find them to be more expensive than the M3 -- more in M4 territory based on prices I've seen recently.

puketronic · Mar 10, 2014

thanks.

Maybe not the best value, but it is something that I will consider.

Jim Jones · Mar 10, 2014

I shot Kodachrome in a iiiF for years and found the tiny viewfinder to be no great handicap, despite the need for accurate framing of slides intended for projection. The compact size of the camera more than compensated for the viewfinder. The separate rangefinder/viewfinder enhanced focusing accuracy. Two lenses that aren't much bulkier than the f/3.5 Elmar, but have improved performance, are the Summicron and the f/2.8 Elmar.

puketronic · Mar 10, 2014

I am at a conflict.

I have an M3 + rigid lenses and I find those combinations too bulky daily users. I have tried alternatives but none really fit my needs. Which should I do next? Downsize the body, or the lens, or both?

Ofcourse nobody can really answer this question but anyone go through something similar? Where an M + rigid lens just wasn't compact enough?

Right now I am thinking of getting an LTM (leica a IIIc/IIIf) and an 50 f3.5 collapsible (industary, most likely) to start with the smallest practical settup and then from there I can add bulk.

darkosaric · Mar 10, 2014

I have elmar 50mm f3.5 in M mount, and on my M3 it is little too big and heavy for everyday "just in case" carrying. So everyday with me goes Leica mini II, and when I plan to take some photos - then I bring M body, and mini as spare.

snapguy · Mar 10, 2014

hated it

I had a 3F with four lenses and hated it. I also had an M2R and really liked it. There are a lot of other great rangefinders out there -- Canon, Nicca, Bolshie. I am saving my pennies for a nice later Nicca.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Mar 10, 2014

I had a 3F with four lenses and hated it.

California desert

hahaha

John Shriver · Mar 10, 2014

I've never looked through a IIIg finder, so I don't know how much better it is than the earlier III-series cameras. But I'll note that the IIIa is lighter than the IIIc and IIIf, and has a viewfinder without a reflecting prism in it. I find my IIIa, with a collapsible 50mm lens, or a Canon 35/1.8 lens and CV 28/35 mini-finder, to be wonderfully small and light, and not a "pain in the shoulder". But everyday? I dunno. That's dedication for any camera that doesn't fit in a pants pocket.

Considered the Olympus XA?

snapguy · Mar 10, 2014

Dear Moderator --
I feel compelled to object to this person's obnoxious responses and snotty attitude. I have been thinking about becoming a paying member of your group but if this type of mindless Flaming is to be allowed I will go elsewhere. It is large Internet out there.

puketronic · Mar 10, 2014

John Shriver said:
Considered the Olympus XA?

Been there, done that.

I always carry a (film) camera on me / in my bag. The Rollei 35 is inobtrusive and so I like it. An M3 + rigid lens is honestly a bit of a burden. I don't mind it when I'm actively shooting, like on weekends, but when I'm commuting I just prefer something smaller and lgihter.

So far I find my Rollei 35 OK. Actually, I love the camera but only for certain types of photography (mostly scenes). I just wish it were 50mm because I prefer 50mm for street. I don't even need a rangefinder. I'm passing on the retina's and folders because of the ergonomics. I prefer something that is more "ready".

MDR · Mar 10, 2014

If you also accept fixed lens RFs the Voigtländer Vitomatic (IIIB) aren't bad and they are smaller than a M3 with rigid lens. Look for ones with Ultron lens (Double Gauss type). They also have brightline viewfinder and are very quiet. You could also get on of the older Canon RF with m39 mount, they offer different viewfinder magnification that equals different focal lengths. They are also a lot cheaper to buy than a IIIG

puketronic · Mar 10, 2014

thanks! I totally forgot about those.

I will consider them.

Oren Grad · Mar 10, 2014

If you don't mind a folder, how about a Retina II or IIa with 50/2 Xenon or Heligon? I have a IIa. Handling is more awkward than an M-Leica and fit-and-finish aren't quite so sublime, but it is smaller. Feels like a little brick, too, with all that heavy metal.

http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/retinaiia.htm

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/retina.html

elekm · Mar 10, 2014

There also is a Retina IIS. It has a fixed Tessar-type f/2.8 45mm Schneider Xenar.

It's not a folding camera. It has framelines and a bright coupled rangefinder and meter coupled to the Synchro Compur leaf shutter. It also has the EV system, which can be overridden.

I think the body is about the right size.

If you're looking for interchangeable lenses, then you might also consider one of the Cosina Voigtlander Bessa M-mount bodies. Nice viewfinders with modern meters. Very reliable and overall a decent alternative when you're looking for a lighter-weight camera.

Nick Merritt · Mar 10, 2014

Taking it a step further, there's the Retina IIIS, with coupled meter and interchangeable lenses. It's all manual -- if the meter isn't working, the camera will still work. Another one to look at is the Retina IIc -- meterless version of the folding IIIc, with the 45/2.8 Xenar also, as I recall.

The original poster wanted a 50mm lens -- don't know whether 45mm is too wide.

Nick Merritt · Mar 10, 2014

snapguy said:
Dear Moderator --
I feel compelled to object to this person's obnoxious responses and snotty attitude. I have been thinking about becoming a paying member of your group but if this type of mindless Flaming is to be allowed I will go elsewhere. It is large Internet out there.

Which response were you referring to? I didn't see anything objectionable in the string. Just wondering.

Paul Howell · Mar 10, 2014

I had both a IIIG and a Canon 7S and shot with M2 and M3s. What I really like about the III G was the over all "feel of the camera", although somewhat trickey to load and slow to wind, it well just felt right. The Canon 7S is more functional, built in parallax corrected framelines, although not TTL and fairly useable meter, easy to load. My first 35mm was a Retina III C, still have it. The so called interchangable lens are slow to use, first you need to foucs then transfer the distance to the wide or short tele which are large and slow. The 50mm is a great lens, loading is slow, you need to reset the film counter, and meter is linked to the shutter and aptature. The film advance is on the bottom of the camera. Over the last 40 years or so I have just gotten use to the oddies, but for a new user, it takes some getting use to.

gone · Mar 10, 2014

Buy a Bessa R. You get a meter (very accurate) and a big, bright viewfinder. You have no idea how slow a knob wind camera is to use. Wasn't for me. It's impossible to keep the camera up to your eye and get a second shot, you have to take it down to your waist, swlooooly advance the film w/ the knob, put it back up to your eye, and see that your second shot is gone like the wind.

Ian Grant · Mar 10, 2014

Way back as a student I used a Leica IIIa and Summar when I was a student. 1st time around 1972. Very portable nad I could cope with the viewfinder.

These days I've added 3 Russian cameras, a pair of Fed 2's and a Zorki C, I picked up 2 excellent Jupiter 7's for £10 (under $17) each, and also have an Industar. With 2 Leningrad 4 meters (remarkably accurate) I'm well equipped to meet the world. Only problem is our local Poundland has stopped selling film.

I have an M3 with a 50mm Summicron, I love it, best 35mm camera I've ever owned/used, and used it extensively for years but switched to a Yashicamat or Rolleiflex because I needed higher quality negatives for my major projects (when I wasn't shooting LF). I'd like to shoot more 35mm again for more spontaneous less serious work and the Leica IIIa and the Fed's or Zorki are ideal.

Despite being significantly older and having had more use the IIIa body and shutter is still the smoothest and most accurate of my M39 cameras, Summar's not up to much though, I have a better but still uncoated f3.5 Elmar.

I'd go for a IIIg and a Summitar/Summicron if I became me=ore serious about miniature formats.

Ian

cliveh · Mar 10, 2014

I have a Leica IIIg and although it is a beautiful design (probably why I keep it), it didnt quite fit with me from a user point of view. When I first got it, I tried for a long time to get used to it and maybe I didnt try long enough, but there is something about it that just doesnt quite fit with me. I think it is because I thought this is a camera not much bigger than a Leica II, but not as big as the M series cameras that will do almost the same as the M series and that is a fantastic idea. However, I think it is just over spec for its size. A bit like the Oskar Barnack equivalent of putting too many functions into a digital camera, because there is room on the chip, but at the same time destroying simplicity of functionality.

vpwphoto · Mar 10, 2014

I wanted to like the CL... but that sticky little shutter broke my heart. 4 of my favorite photos were made with a CL though and its dorky looking 90mm Elmar. I must at the iiig to, but they aren't cheap. I have a Canon vt?? something for my rangefinder needs now.

Pioneer · Mar 10, 2014

I love my IIIg and use it frequently. But I have to say I am with Cliveh on this one. It is just a tiny bit smaller than my M3 so it doesn't provide a great advantage over that M camera. Likewise it is a fair amount larger than my IIIa, so loses the advantage on that side of things.

For general walking around I slide my IIIa in my shirt pocket and go about my business.

However, for travel I pack my IIIg. The camera, the 35mm Nikkor, the 50mm Elmar, the 90mm Elmar and my 35mm viewfinder make for a very small travel package.

I am not put off by the Barnack viewfinders. They work just fine for me but I have never considered any rangefinder viewfinder to be a tight framing aid.

Regular Rod · Mar 11, 2014

puketronic said:
I am at a conflict.

I have an M3 + rigid lenses and I find those combinations too bulky daily users. I have tried alternatives but none really fit my needs. Which should I do next? Downsize the body, or the lens, or both?

Ofcourse nobody can really answer this question but anyone go through something similar? Where an M + rigid lens just wasn't compact enough?

Right now I am thinking of getting an LTM (leica a IIIc/IIIf) and an 50 f3.5 collapsible (industary, most likely) to start with the smallest practical settup and then from there I can add bulk.

Very compact (smaller than a Leica), well made, with 2.8 50mm Tessar, coupled accurate rangefinder, parallax adjusting viewfinder. It's a folder so it goes in your jacket pocket...

Certo Super Dollina II

RR

Any reason for a IIIg?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency