Buying Leica LTM

[Xmas]

Hi

The film leader does need trimming, other techniques like the card insertion or removing the lens are hazards risking shutter damage, and slow, i.e. web techniques & not how it was designed, you need scissors and care to cut the recommended leader, 22 or 23 holes, factory cassettes (or loads) all used to come with the correct leader (before '71 or so). If you fly commercially you will lose swiss arm knives, with little scissors... dont ask... You can get leader templates Leica >>$ or plastic clones.

The only ergonomic problem with a Barnack and many of the early clones is the shutter dial rotates, when the shutter is release and if you are accident prone and snag the dial you get un-even exposure across the frame. You need to be deliberate.

Most lenses will clean up when dismantled, but some will re-fog after a short interval.

The old lenses do give a nice signature with both colour or mono film, (even with d&&&&&&, oops). They do need hoods, more than modern lenses.

Noel

 

[Someonenameddavid]

Hi

The film leader does need trimming, other techniques like the card insertion or removing the lens are hazards risking shutter damage, and slow, i.e. web techniques & not how it was designed...


Noel

And if you insert an SD card you will lose it

David

 

[carbon_dragon]

There are certain skills people used to have, like loading a Leica III or using a metal developing reel or even estimating exposure without a meter. You can get good at these things, but I'm not sure that today a lot of people would want to put in the necessary practice when it's really not necessary. Even a 1950s camera like the M3 or M2 is a LOT easier to load and an M4 (or an M2 with the M4 quick loading kit) is even easier -- though I kind of like the standard M2 loading scheme. And Contax IIAs, Canon screwmounts, and others of the period are far easier.

I think the Leica screwmounts are an experience everyone should have at least once, but I just don't see them as working tools in the 21st century. M2's and M3's yes, but not Leica IIs and IIIs. Using a Leica III regularly is probably a lot like driving a 1950s car. It has to be something of a crusade on the part of the user -- possibly a labor of love. Nothing wrong with that, but the average photographer who wants to use a rangefinder for the pictures he will get is better off with a M. It's just as seductively well made and a HECK of a lot easier to use.

 

[puketronic]

Thank you all for your advice.

Actually, Leica LTM's bodies are bit smaller, but now i'm having some doubts. I'm mostly interested in shaving of the thickness/depth, but the difference isn't that much:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/holgergrosz/5445235071/

I'm still interested in the lenses, however.

 

[kokoshawnuff]

You're right the size difference isn't much nor is the weight, and the LTM Leica's are more limited in practical usage than say, an M2 or M3. Only with external finders or guesstimation can you frame anything but a 50mm on the Leica LTM cameras. I have a iiic but honestly its kind of a novelty for me, just not as easy or versatile as my M Leica's in use. The ltm lenses are still worth looking into though..

 

[summicron1]

Thank you all for your advice.

Actually, Leica LTM's bodies are bit smaller, but now i'm having some doubts. I'm mostly interested in shaving of the thickness/depth, but the difference isn't that much:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/holgergrosz/5445235071/

I'm still interested in the lenses, however.

If you want something to use regularly, and want it to complement the M system you seem to already have, you should go no farther than the Leica CL -- I have one purchased in 1974 and it is my constant travel camera -- I've used my Leicaflex SL2 for travel as well, and it is a joy, but for quick street shooting action the CL is hard to beat -- the meter is a spot meter, quick and easy to use, the lenses are small and wonderful, and in addition to the 40 it came with it can use a wide range of Leica, Canon and modern Voigtlander lenses -- the Voigtlander lenses including the 15 and 25 super-wides will work on it nicely and make an extremely flat and compact unit.

The only usage considerations are lenses that poke back too far into the camera and interfer with the meter cell which is on a little flag that pokes in front of the film plane -- the earlier 21mm super angulons and collapsible lenses that work fine except you can't collapse them.

Worth serious consideration, they go for around $400 and are a lot newer than any LTM you come across.

 

[John Koehrer]

If you have the M camera find a ltm to M adapter.

 

[carbon_dragon]

The CL was my travel camera for years. The only issue with the CL is the oldstyle battery which needs some kind of replacement like a zinc air or a "converter". If you can overcome that, there isn't a better "no compromises" machine. The Minolta CL is the same camera and the CLE is an improved model.

 

[mhcfires]

I have a IIIa from 1935, I have been using a Summar 50/2.0 collapsible lens. It doesn't match the Summicrons, but it has its own personality. I really like it. I have started using it on my M2 of late, just something different and fun.

 

[summicron1]

The CL was my travel camera for years. The only issue with the CL is the oldstyle battery which needs some kind of replacement like a zinc air or a "converter". If you can overcome that, there isn't a better "no compromises" machine. The Minolta CL is the same camera and the CLE is an improved model.

never ran into that problem -- i buy the battery with the proper number at radio shack --675 i think it is -- I did have meter adjusted so it doesn't need mercury batteries. That would be part of a regular service anyway, and ur CL needs one of those every decade or so. The current battery I am using is an alkaline and it is doing just fine.