I finally got a Leica

[mhcfires]

After nearly fifty years in photography, I have a Leica! It is a wonderful little Screw mount Leica IIIa with Summitar 5 cm lens and Elmar 9cm f4 lens. Haven't yet used the Elmar, but have run a roll of tri-x with moderate success. Love the quiet shutter and the small size of this thing. It fits my hand so well, is like a feather compared to the old Topcon RE Super I carried for so many years. I have been shooting my 4x5 Speed quite a bit of late, this little camera is perfect for street shooting. I will be getting a 35mm lens as soon as I can come up with some more money. Glad I don't have to argue with a wife over more camera gear.

 

[fattyale]

Congratulations!! I'm jealous..

 

[LaGrassa]

Not too long ago, I acquired a IIIc with a 5cm f/2 Summitar and have added the same 9cm f/4 Elmar, and most recently a 3.5cm f/3.5 Summaron. I have run several rolls of film through it using combinations of all three lenses, mostly with B&W film. I am pleased with the results and I agree that it's a very nice "little" package. Enjoy! Remember to "trim" the leader of film when you load it. If you don't know what that means, let me know. It makes it much easier to load, although still not a very intuitive loading system. A Leica quirk I imagine.

 

[Ian Grant]

The IIIa is a great little camera, if you're lucky and have a good Summar then your lucky. My firts was poor, so I bought a far better Elmar, although I've a decent Summar too now. Mine needs use

Ian

 

[mhcfires]

I discovered early on ( with the first roll) that the leader must be trimmed. Having taken care of that problem, I have put one roll thru the camera, have another one in for the rest of this weekend. It has been raining (a rare event in Southern California) and I have to work tonight, so I probably won't get out today, but I'll have some time in the next few days to enjoy my new toy. I still like the Speed, but this is going to be fun, it is so spontaneous.

 

[vedmak]

the nice thing about leica ltm is that you can get tons of russian gear for cheap, try industar 61 LD, Industar 22, Jupiter 8 - all are cheap just make sure you pick those from man date 50-70 (best production years) they are newer and mostly better performers than old leica glass, that was probably mishandled and has scratches/fungus.

 

[Steve Roberts]

the nice thing about leica ltm is that you can get tons of russian gear for cheap, try industar 61 LD, Industar 22, Jupiter 8 - all are cheap just make sure you pick those from man date 50-70 (best production years) they are newer and mostly better performers than old leica glass, that was probably mishandled and has scratches/fungus.

Like the OP, I bought a Leica (1935 III) a few weeks back. Weekends have been wet and miserable since then, so I'm saving my first roll for the Christmas break. However, I did a bit of web research about using Russian lenses and one of the things that was thrown up was that the manufacturing tolerances of the Industar etc can cause the focussing to be considerably out when used on a Leica body. Apparently it's the luck of the draw. On the other hand, there are several references I've found to the Industar being actually better than the Elmar in terms of image contrast and no slouch in the other areas.

Steve

 

[Rhodes]

I have a IIIc and love it. After I adjusted the rangefinder, I liked her even much. You can load the film without triming the leader, but you have to put the shutter at T, with out the lens and with the shuter fired, adjust the film. Of course that triming the lead is possible better! Enjoy the camera and lens!

 

[Leighgion]

Yeah, you're a Leica owner alright. You're already referring to lenses by optical formula.

 

[df cardwell]

Have fun. Shoot, shoot, shoot.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Congratulations, but you are still not in the Hasselblad club.

Steve

 

[mhcfires]

Congratulations, but you are still not in the Hasselblad club.

Steve

I can barely afford the Leica, the 'Blad is too big. I have plenty of bigger cameras, if I want 2 1/4 I can use my old Rollei or one of my Mamiya TLR's, and I always have my Baby Speed with a 2 1/4 square back. The Leica is for travelling light.

 

[vedmak]

Like the OP, I bought a Leica (1935 III) a few weeks back. Weekends have been wet and miserable since then, so I'm saving my first roll for the Christmas break. However, I did a bit of web research about using Russian lenses and one of the things that was thrown up was that the manufacturing tolerances of the Industar etc can cause the focussing to be considerably out when used on a Leica body. Apparently it's the luck of the draw. On the other hand, there are several references I've found to the Industar being actually better than the Elmar in terms of image contrast and no slouch in the other areas.

Steve

I am glad you can use google, however Russian lenses from the fifties have the same same focal distance as LTM so your statement about the manufacturing tolerances is false.

 

[Steve Roberts]

I am glad you can use google, however Russian lenses from the fifties have the same same focal distance as LTM so your statement about the manufacturing tolerances is false.

A strange reaction to my post!

>>>I am glad you can use google
Yes - I've managed to master Google (after a bit of a struggle), though I didn't say I used it in this instance - it could have been any one of several search engines.

>>>so your statement about the manufacturing tolerances
It wasn't my statement. I only reported what was said elsewhere (and I believe made that clear to anyone who took the trouble to read the post carefully).

>>>Russian lenses from the fifties have the same same focal distance as LTM
They may be supposed to have the same same (to quote you exactly) focal distance, but the question is whether the Russian manufacturing processes were capable of working (or chose to work) to the necessary tolerances to achieve the desired result.

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can barely afford the Leica, the 'Blad is too big. I have plenty of bigger cameras, if I want 2 1/4 I can use my old Rollei or one of my Mamiya TLR's, and I always have my Baby Speed with a 2 1/4 square back. The Leica is for travelling light.

Just jerkin' you around because I can't afford to get a Leica now that I have two Hasselblads [503 CX and 903 SWC] and four lenses.

Steve

 

[mhcfires]

Just jerkin' you around because I can't afford to get a Leica now that I have two Hasselblads [503 CX and 903 SWC] and four lenses.

Steve

OOF! Makes my back cringe just thinking about lugging those two gems! (or is that two settings for four gems?) Sounds like a really cool setup.

 

[agfarapid]

Congrats on your purchase! I bought my first Leica lllc about 40 years ago and it still is as much fun to use now as when I first bought it. I've got the 3.5 Summaron and a 85 f2 Canon Seranar. The Summaron has given me some great shots and it is indeed much lighter than my own Topcons (which I purchased after the Leica). I've been successful at loading film with short leaders, just be careful and observe the first few frames as it moves through the camera. Have fun!

 

[mhcfires]

Congrats on your purchase! I bought my first Leica lllc about 40 years ago and it still is as much fun to use now as when I first bought it. I've got the 3.5 Summaron and a 85 f2 Canon Seranar. The Summaron has given me some great shots and it is indeed much lighter than my own Topcons (which I purchased after the Leica). I've been successful at loading film with short leaders, just be careful and observe the first few frames as it moves through the camera. Have fun!

I think my Leica with a lens is lighter than the Topcon 1.4 lens.

 

[Schlapp]

Congrats on your Leica. Why you would pay $$$ for such a thing when a Zorki and Industar 61 will do just the same thing

 

[mhcfires]

Congrats on your Leica. Why you would pay $$$ for such a thing when a Zorki and Industar 61 will do just the same thing

Cuz I can!

Merry Christmas to me!

 

[michaelbsc]

They may be supposed to have the same same (to quote you exactly) focal distance, but the question is whether the Russian manufacturing processes were capable of working (or chose to work) to the necessary tolerances to achieve the desired result.

Without trying to start a war, let me pass on some things I've learned, and I believe to be true. Clearly I wasn't in the Soviet Union when these things were occurring, so I can't be totally certain, but the details of the lenses match the story I've heard.

First, the Soviet knock offs were superb, and I have a few. I cannot afford a REAL Leica, and I promise you that in my hands not a person on this board could tell when I was using a real Leica, my knock offs, or my old Yashica. I'm just not good enough that the build quality of the stuff, so long as it's not plastic Holgas, matters. In my case the photographer is the limiting factor, not the equipment.

But the arguments come up all the time about Leicas and LTM mount FEDs, Zorkis, etc.

First, the Soviet lenses were very good glass, and build quality of the shipped lenses varied from superb to so-so. This differs from Leica build quality. At Leica, if it got out the door, it was right. But if you get the Russian lenses serviced properly they're excellent. This is an artifact, so I'm told, of the fact that the lens craftsmanship was tied to the Soviet satellite imaging, and they spend money on it to make it good glass.

Second, the Soviet LTM lenses will screw in to a real Leica perfectly, but they don't focus properly without adjustment. Likewise, a perfectly adjusted FED will accept a real Leica lens, but it won't focus properly. And this is the tricky part.

The Soviets usurped two sets of lens technology after the war, Contax and Leica. But they got far more parts and manufacturing machinery for Contax. The Soviet LTM lenses use a Contax helix pitch standard (instead of the Leica helix pitch) as a way to consolidate manufacturing and reduce costs. The two are close enough that you can fit them into the lens, but they are *NOT* the same. Ergo, the rangefinder cam on a FED or Zorki is shaped to match a Contax helix pitch instead of a Leica helix pitch. Consequently, while they screw together, the rangefinder doesn't work right if you mix the Leica and Industar lens. (Unless, of course, you have the lens modified to work with your Leica.) So everyone complains - unfairly - that the Soviet lenses are junk.

Like I said, some details may be wrong. I wasn't there. But this is the basic story I got from a Ukrainian guy.

MB

 

[Steve Roberts]

Thanks Michaelbsc (above).
This is the kind of helpful and constructive post that I'd hoped my own first post on this thread would prompt.
Best wishes,
Steve

 

[furcafe]

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

Without trying to start a war, let me pass on some things I've learned, and I believe to be true. Clearly I wasn't in the Soviet Union when these things were occurring, so I can't be totally certain, but the details of the lenses match the story I've heard.

First, the Soviet knock offs were superb, and I have a few. I cannot afford a REAL Leica, and I promise you that in my hands not a person on this board could tell when I was using a real Leica, my knock offs, or my old Yashica. I'm just not good enough that the build quality of the stuff, so long as it's not plastic Holgas, matters. In my case the photographer is the limiting factor, not the equipment.

But the arguments come up all the time about Leicas and LTM mount FEDs, Zorkis, etc.

First, the Soviet lenses were very good glass, and build quality of the shipped lenses varied from superb to so-so. This differs from Leica build quality. At Leica, if it got out the door, it was right. But if you get the Russian lenses serviced properly they're excellent. This is an artifact, so I'm told, of the fact that the lens craftsmanship was tied to the Soviet satellite imaging, and they spend money on it to make it good glass.

Second, the Soviet LTM lenses will screw in to a real Leica perfectly, but they don't focus properly without adjustment. Likewise, a perfectly adjusted FED will accept a real Leica lens, but it won't focus properly. And this is the tricky part.

The Soviets usurped two sets of lens technology after the war, Contax and Leica. But they got far more parts and manufacturing machinery for Contax. The Soviet LTM lenses use a Contax helix pitch standard (instead of the Leica helix pitch) as a way to consolidate manufacturing and reduce costs. The two are close enough that you can fit them into the lens, but they are *NOT* the same. Ergo, the rangefinder cam on a FED or Zorki is shaped to match a Contax helix pitch instead of a Leica helix pitch. Consequently, while they screw together, the rangefinder doesn't work right if you mix the Leica and Industar lens. (Unless, of course, you have the lens modified to work with your Leica.) So everyone complains - unfairly - that the Soviet lenses are junk.

Like I said, some details may be wrong. I wasn't there. But this is the basic story I got from a Ukrainian guy.

MB

 

[Jeff L]

Enjoy your Leica. Later you can move up to a Contax...
I running to hide under the desk now.

 

[michaelbsc]

Enjoy your Leica. Later you can move up to a Contax...
I running to hide under the desk now.

And the nice thing about the Soviet Contax clones is that the Zeiss cameras and lenses fit and work properly, but you can't put some of the older Soviet lenses on the newer Contax II. [Not that I have a real (german manufactured) Contax body or lenses for it. But I do have a Yashica made Contax body and lens, and they're excellent.]