Leica M or Leica IIIF?

[Axelwik]

Voigtlanders go as wide as 15mm, and Leica Ms can handle up to 135mm natively, perhaps more with a Visoflex, I dunno.

But I think the analysis looks more like this:

• Use an SLR if your need long lenses
• Use an SLR if you need exact framing
• Use an SLR if you need macro

For all other use cases:

• Use a rangefinder if you want stealth
• Use a rangefinder if you want light/compact
• Use a Leica, specifically, if you prefer their cooler color balanced lenses compared to the Japanese
• Use a rangefinder if it makes it more likely you will carry it with you (try hiking with a 5 lens, 2 body, 3 back 'Blad bag for four or five hours - it's most instructive)

Or ... save your shekels and own a bit of both.

Cameras and lenses are paintbrushes and no one brush does everything well.

Good analysis. Right tool for the job - I've missed opportunities because I wasn't carrying the right camera, or any camera at all because what I had was too heavy or unwieldy.

 

[cliveh]

Voigtlanders go as wide as 15mm, and Leica Ms can handle up to 135mm natively, perhaps more with a Visoflex, I dunno.

But I think the analysis looks more like this:

• Use an SLR if your need long lenses
• Use an SLR if you need exact framing
• Use an SLR if you need macro

For all other use cases:

• Use a rangefinder if you want stealth
• Use a rangefinder if you want light/compact
• Use a Leica, specifically, if you prefer their cooler color balanced lenses compared to the Japanese
• Use a rangefinder if it makes it more likely you will carry it with you (try hiking with a 5 lens, 2 body, 3 back 'Blad bag for four or five hours - it's most instructive)

Or ... save your shekels and own a bit of both.

Cameras and lenses are paintbrushes and no one brush does everything well.

• Use an SLR if you need exact framing ?

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Good analysis. Right tool for the job - I've missed opportunities because I wasn't carrying the right camera, or any camera at all because what I had was too heavy or unwieldy.

One possible option: the tiny Pentax SLRs (MX, ME, MG) are about the size of a Leica M. With one of the shorter lenses, they are not too bulky front to back. My MG does not have the tactile feel of a Leica M or LTM (of course not!), but the Pentax K mount lenses are excellent and reasonable price. It does its job of exposing 35mm film well.






l

 

[Sirius Glass]

Voigtlanders go as wide as 15mm, and Leica Ms can handle up to 135mm natively, perhaps more with a Visoflex, I dunno.

But I think the analysis looks more like this:

• Use an SLR if your need long lenses
• Use an SLR if you need exact framing
• Use an SLR if you need macro

For all other use cases:

• Use a rangefinder if you want stealth
• Use a rangefinder if you want light/compact
• Use a Leica, specifically, if you prefer their cooler color balanced lenses compared to the Japanese
• Use a rangefinder if it makes it more likely you will carry it with you (try hiking with a 5 lens, 2 body, 3 back 'Blad bag for four or five hours - it's most instructive)

Or ... save your shekels and own a bit of both.

Cameras and lenses are paintbrushes and no one brush does everything well.

I thought that I had read that rangefinder cameras could go as short a focal length as 15mm, but I skipped rereading the thread. You have added reasons for slr and rangefinders ==> great summary.

 

[Sirius Glass]

• Use an SLR if you need exact framing ?

I always select SLR if and only if the field of view matches the film plane.

 

[chuckroast]

I thought that I had read that rangefinder cameras could go as short a focal length as 15mm, but I skipped rereading the thread. You have added reasons for slr and rangefinders ==> great summary.

I forgot to add:

When you want absolute best image quality but don't want to hump around a large format system, Hasselblad is always a good choice

 

[Axelwik]

I forgot to add:

When you want absolute best image quality but don't want to hump around a large format system, Hasselblad is always a good choice

My 5x7 and 4x5 large format setups are lighter and easier to carry than my Hasselblad setup.

 

[anta40]

Voigtlanders go as wide as 15mm, and Leica Ms can handle up to 135mm natively, perhaps more with a Visoflex, I dunno.

But I think the analysis looks more like this:

• Use an SLR if your need long lenses
• Use an SLR if you need exact framing
• Use an SLR if you need macro

For all other use cases:

• Use a rangefinder if you want stealth
• Use a rangefinder if you want light/compact
• Use a Leica, specifically, if you prefer their cooler color balanced lenses compared to the Japanese
• Use a rangefinder if it makes it more likely you will carry it with you (try hiking with a 5 lens, 2 body, 3 back 'Blad bag for four or five hours - it's most instructive)

Or ... save your shekels and own a bit of both.

Cameras and lenses are paintbrushes and no one brush does everything well.

Indeed. My photography preference (macro/close up and medium-tele lens) is best served with SLR (both in 35mm and medium format). But once you go bigger than 6x6, SLR felt pain in the a**. You'd want a RF, which is lighter.

 

[David888]

I like using Barnacks when they have a new mirror and are CLA'd. The Leica IIIa with Summar lens is my favorite setup. The Ms are nice but a tad on the heavy side. It's always a compromise......

 

[cliveh]

When I buy a Barnack, the first thing I do is get it serviced and cleaned. Using them after that is tactile perfection.

 

[John Wiegerink]

My 5x7 and 4x5 large format setups are lighter and easier to carry than my Hasselblad setup.

But are they a quick and responsive camera compared to a Hasselblad or even my slightly bigger P67 or Bronica GS-I?

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

• Use a rangefinder if you want stealth
• Use a rangefinder if you want light/compact
• Use a Leica, specifically, if you prefer their cooler color balanced lenses compared to the Japanese
• Use a rangefinder if it makes it more likely you will carry it with you (try hiking with a 5 lens, 2 body, 3 back 'Blad bag for four or five hours - it's most instructive)

I'd like to add...

• Use a rangefinder if you need to be quiet.

 

[flavio81]

Voigtlanders go as wide as 15mm, and Leica Ms can handle up to 135mm natively, perhaps more with a Visoflex, I dunno.

But I think the analysis looks more like this:

• Use an SLR if your need long lenses
• Use an SLR if you need exact framing
• Use an SLR if you need macro

We can also add:

- Use a SLR if you need tilt/shift or shift lenses. Which are very relevant to me.

• Use a rangefinder if it makes it more likely you will carry it with you (try hiking with a 5 lens, 2 body, 3 back 'Blad bag for four or five hours - it's most instructive)

Exactly. The best camera is the one you have with you, and a more compact/lighter camera increases the chance of being there with you at the right moment.

And the size and weight difference of carrying 3 rangefinder lenses vs the comparable 3 SLR lenses can be dramatic!

Cameras and lenses are paintbrushes and no one brush does everything well.

+1000... although my Bronica comes close to doing everything well.

 

[flavio81]

One possible option: the tiny Pentax SLRs (MX, ME, MG) are about the size of a Leica M. With one of the shorter lenses, they are not too bulky front to back. My MG does not have the tactile feel of a Leica M or LTM (of course not!), but the Pentax K mount lenses are excellent and reasonable price. It does its job of exposing 35mm film well.

I'm a Pentax M-series fan, but there's no comparison on using a Pentax ME + 4 lenses (from wide to tele) vs a rangefinder + 4 lenses. The rangefinder kit is still lighter and smaller.

Yes i've had the Pentax-M 40/2.8 pancake lens too, on a ME. I'd better bring a Minolta 7sII (40/1.7) instead. It is significantly smaller, lighter, faster lens, and quieter.

But are they a quick and responsive camera compared to a Hasselblad or even my slightly bigger P67 or Bronica GS-I?

Exactly.

And, 6x7 fitted with really good film like Acros, Tmax 100 or others, bring you image quality comparable to 4x5" with a conventional film like HP5 or FP4. The speed difference is offset by the brighter lenses on medium format (particularly the Pentax lenses, which are really fast).

That's why 6x7 triumphed for pro photography of everything except sports/action/photojournalism.

 

[Eric Klingberg]

And, 6x7 fitted with really good film like Acros, Tmax 100 or others, bring you image quality comparable to 4x5"

I have a Pentax 67 and I love using Acros with it. However I often worry about camera shake since holding the camera steady is a challenge, and Acros is a relatively slow speed film.

 

[flavio81]

I have a Pentax 67 and I love using Acros with it. However I often worry about camera shake since holding the camera steady is a challenge, and Acros is a relatively slow speed film.

Use the wood grip on the left and a 3D printed grip on the right.

 

[Pieter12]

I have a Pentax 67 and I love using Acros with it. However I often worry about camera shake since holding the camera steady is a challenge, and Acros is a relatively slow speed film.

Do you see camera shake in your photos or just concerned it might happen?

 

[Eric Klingberg]

Use the wood grip on the left and a 3D printed grip on the right.

I actually use this setup! It's in low light settings where I'm more concerned, so I'll usually carry a tripod with me.

 

[Eric Klingberg]

Do you see camera shake in your photos or just concerned it might happen?

Haven't noticed it yet because I'm pretty careful. More paranoid than anything lol.

 

[flavio81]

I actually use this setup! It's in low light settings where I'm more concerned, so I'll usually carry a tripod with me.

I think low shutter speeds are not the best situation for the Pentax 6x7. A RB67 or a TLR performs better in those situations. If I recall correctly I found a way to diminish shutter slap on the 6x7 via reducing the spring tension of the mirror actuator (i'm a camera tech), but I haven't tested the result.

 

[4season]

When film was cheap and I was shooting a lot more of it, I preferred M, and in particular, M6. But 3F is beautifully made, relatively inexpensive, and, considering 2025 film prices and the digital alternative, I don't need my film cameras to be so speedy anymore.

 

[GregY]

ll & lll are elegant, but in the long run i prefer the M series.... especially the M2 & original M4.
The multiple framelines in the M6 & MP i find just get in my way.

 

[Eric Klingberg]

If I recall correctly I found a way to diminish shutter slap on the 6x7 via reducing the spring tension of the mirror actuator (i'm a camera tech), but I haven't tested the result.

Interesting idea with the spring tension. I've also used handheld MLU in a pinch, but blindly maintaining composition is a gamble.

 

[JerseyDoug]

Apologies if someone has already mentioned this. A possible compromise between a IIIf and an M3 might be a IIIg. It combines the parallax compensating M3 viewfinder (without the 135mm frame lines) with the superior (IMHO) IIIf rangefinder.

 

[Don_ih]

Apologies if someone has already mentioned this.

I don't think anyone did. But IIIG cameras are quite expensive to be a compromise - they rival the price of M3 cameras without being able to use M lenses.