Leica IIId

Although I can't afford one of these at the present time, I wouldn't mind trying one. Does anyone on APUG have experience of using a IIId.

are you referring to the pe-war IIId that was really a IIIc with a self-timer? If so, get a IIIc instead. the IIId was issued in such limited numbers that it must be considered a collectable only -- whereas a IIIc is pretty common and can be had for relatively little money.

A IIIf is newer and not much more expensive, and can be had with a self-timer if you look around.

As to usability -- they're all screw mount leicas which means they're nice to use, but the viewfinder is separate from the rangefinder and you have to use supplementary finders for any lens but a 50, and the finder is not as big, nor does it adjust for parallax, like the M-series.

I have a III a? first version. on other cameras I focus and move over to compose on the viewfinder and get confused because I can't find it.

summicron1 said:

are you referring to the pe-war IIId that was really a IIIc with a self-timer? If so, get a IIIc instead. the IIId was issued in such limited numbers that it must be considered a collectable only -- whereas a IIIc is pretty common and can be had for relatively little money.

A IIIf is newer and not much more expensive, and can be had with a self-timer if you look around.

As to usability -- they're all screw mount leicas which means they're nice to use, but the viewfinder is separate from the rangefinder and you have to use supplementary finders for any lens but a 50, and the finder is not as big, nor does it adjust for parallax, like the M-series.

Click to expand...

How can you tell the difference between a IIId and a IIIf, or is it only the serial number?

The IIIf has built in adjustable flash sync, earlier Leica's were often fitted with two flash sockets after the War, it was a job often done by trainee repairmen. It's also an updated version of the IIIc/d.

Get yourself a 1960's copy of The Leica Way, it's cheap on Amazon.

Ian

The selftimer on the IIId was pretty unreliable as I recall, that's why only so few were produced, and I think the war had something to do with it as well; Production time/cost.

If you really need the flash and self-timer; a IIIf is the first choice. But if you have no need for either of these features, look at a pre-war III or IIIa, or post-war IIIc. These usually aren't that expensive.

I have a iiic.
Having separate focusing finder and viewfinder is both a pro and a con. Pro is that the focusing finder has built-in diopter correction and is magnified, allowing augmented focusing accuracy. Con is that it is separate from viewfinder and makes it difficult to get shots of randomly moving objects (children). As with anything, with practice, the above mentioned con will probably get better.
I know with the iiic there is also an issue with the film sometimes slipping down on the take-up spool and your exposures might partially end up on the sprocket holes, but I haven't had that problem and I don't know if it was fixed on the iiid or not.
Anyways, good little tank of a camera. Classic. Shutter is VERY quiet. Needs a CLA every 10 years or so for all those tiny mechanical parts and the shutter curtain may need to be replaced as well (rubberized cloth, eventually starts deteriorating) but otherwise will outlast you and your grandchildren, probably.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you're really strapped for cash you could get a Zorki I. That's what I did to see if I would like the Leica and ended up getting a Leica III. They are very similar since they were made with the same factory equipment taken to the Ukraine by the Soviet Union after WWII. The Zorki I is a good camera but there are definite differences in quality when you hold them side by side.

BAC1967 said:

If you're really strapped for cash you could get a Zorki I. That's what I did to see if I would like the Leica and ended up getting a Leica III. They are very similar since they were made with the same factory equipment taken to the Ukraine by the Soviet Union after WWII. The Zorki I is a good camera but there are definite differences in quality when you hold them side by side.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I did as well. And yes, the Zorki I is an excellent camera.
The Leica III is just better.

Zorki is an different animal as much as FED. Leica is easy to focus but copies not. And good zorki and IIIC price difference is less than you can think. I saw at apug 125 dollars III C bodies.

125 is hell of money but you are buying a leica , think if you would want to buy a rolls royce and you have only 125 dollars.

BUT BUT there is even other story. If you carry the FED or Zorki with your hands and when you are approaching to the photographic subject , if you prepare your distance , speed , aperture and if you use a leitz glass on the soviet , you would notice no difference.

If you try to follow everything with visor and try to focus with visor , thats not leica photography.

Your senses and camera must always ready to take picture. Dont blame the camera.