Leica IIIf relevant if one has an M3

[vpwphoto]

The CL was great, but fool me once; fine, twice; shame, never a third chance with those things. I had a "top guy" service it and it still caused me issues on a cold day.

I do have to ask why Leica's need so much servicing, and if a 20 or 30 year old lens has "haze that does not effect the image" why Leitz didn't make them hazy to begin with, and why do LTM Russian lenses not have Haze after 40 years? I understand the flint glass issues, the haze is silly, LTM Canons don't get all misty.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Hmmm, I'm another lucky CL owner. Had it for 7+ years with no issues. Sherry did a CLA for me after I got it used just to make sure all was in spec, never an issue since. Have been using my IIIf and M2 much more lately though. Maybe I'll sell it soon. vpwphoto, want to try a third time? ;-)

 

[Xmas]

Hi

A damaged shutter in the middle of no where is no fun.

But before '71 all the commercial cassette loads had the full length leader and there was never a problem, the film just drops in every time.

Noel

 

[250swb]

You don't need to trim the leader, and don't need to use a card to load a Barnack Leica. I just take the lens off and set the shutter to 'T', load the film and check that it has engaged the sprockets by looking through the shutter. While sticking a finger in to 'adjust' the film should be done with care you can only trip the shutter curtain if you actually turn the slow speed dial away from 'T', so its not likely. The big advantage is that it is a 100% certain way to get it right and avoid sprocket holes appearing in the pictures.

Steve

 

[Spicy]

One thing that is important and was only mentioned once above (but I feel needs restatement) is the shutter adjust on the III -- I'm not sure if you can do it without cocking the shutter first. I don't know if that's just because it doesn't really line up with anything, or whether it can damage the shutter mechanism (I recall reading that somewhere, don't know if it's true). That and the film leader crap is really what bothers me most about my IIIc, but I still love using it and it's taken some great pictures of mine. They're great fun if you're willing to put up with a bit of prissy nature, like dating a fun and beautiful but high-maintenance girl.

 

[puketronic]

I decided to try one. My reason is simply because it is one of those cameras that I've always wanted to own. The CL might be a "better" camera but those barnack leica's are just so alluring. Some cameras I buy and I know I do not like so I sell them. So I can perhaps try one and sell it if it doesn't work for me. But I have two questions regarding the bodies.

1. I'm mostly considering the IIIc/IIIf because they are consistently cheaper but the IIIg is larger/heavier right? Even though it is more expensive I would consider one if it were similar in weight/size as the IIIc/IIIf's...

2. Slow shutter speeds. This is very personal but do you consider yourself able to hold these just as slow as the Leica M's? although very different, I couldn't hold my XA's at very slow shutter speeds. This isn't a major deterrent, I am mostly curious.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

The g is much more expensive and has a better viewfinder. Between the c and the f Youxin Ye mentioned to me that the c was made right after the war and things weren't great then, and that the f has a better ball bearing shutter. Slow speeds rarely matter so a straight IIf can work but the IIIf might have better resale?

 

[Xmas]

A g is the same size as a f, bottom plates should swap I think.
If you trim the film first a pre M is easier to reliably load than a M3 or M2, unless you are clumsy.
The c finish post war did not last any stress, any c with intact chrome and no impact damage is a real collector.
They went to ball bearings some time during the war don't know if any (sic many) c were made with plain bearing but collectors will want one of each... any war ones have a premium without even e.g. any 'heer' markings

Noel

 

[thegman]

I used to have an M3, and now have a IIIf. I find the M3 unquestionably easier to use, the finder is a great deal better, it's easier to load, and you don't have to faff about with the two shutter speed dials, focus the RF etc.

However, the IIIf, with collapsible Elmar will literally fit in my jeans pocket, and it's not even that big a pocket. The M3 with Summarit (obviously you could use a different lens) is really quite a lot bigger. For all the talk about Leicas being small, they are not that small really until you go back to the LTM models. My M3 with lens was bigger than my Zeiss 6x6 range finder, which is crazy really. The IIIf however is even more portable than a Rollei 35, as the latter's "boxiness" makes it difficult to pocket.

If you don't mind the extra size, M3 is the better camera in my opinion. If you want as small as possible, and of course the old-world charm, then a IIIf is just lovely.

Finally, the IIIF with lens cost less than half what I sold my M3 with lens for.