• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Leica rangefinder appreciation

cliveh

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,929
Format
35mm RF
I have always thought that the best Leica design is the Leica II. However, I have used a Leica M2 for many years, in the belief that it is the best practical design for optimum speed and function. More recently I am thinking the Leica IIIF is probably preferable to any M series camera, due to its smaller size and tactile handling, coupled with the dual magnified focus and composure viewfinder. Please note I mention this with a view to only using a 50mm lens. What do others think?
 
Le t me know what you are taking, because spiritually I'd love some way to think a Barnack Leica is better than an M Leica on any level. Disclosure, I have two IIIF (which I enjoy using), and four M Leica. And if only limited to 50mm lenses then a Nikon rangefinder, such as the SP is a better option because of it's viewfinder magnification.
 
Last edited:
I like the Barnack Leica in terms of size, but find the dual finders squinty. If i were primarily a 50mm shooter, i'd be happy with a lllg. I love using the accessory finders especially working with hyperfocal distance, but honestly when all is said & done I prefer the M (especially the M2 & M4)....when/if size is an issue...the the CL is a charm for me
 

I just think the Barnack Leica has a tactile quality that is unique. Granted, it may not be as fast to use, but it has that je ne sais quoi that makes it so special. Some years ago I had a Leica IIIg which is often considered as the ultimate Barnack Leica and I could not get on with it. It felt like it had over stepped the mark in form and function. I only took one picture with it that I put on the gallery:-

 
Last edited:
When in the Air Force we had M2 and 3s, a couple of lens, when a working PJ I picked up a IIIG, smaller, I did like the duel rangefinder viewfinder combo, loading could be pain, but build quality was so good. Never had the money to invest in a M4, 5 or 6. Saying that my dream rangefinder was the Nikon Sp with motor drive.
 
cliveh said:
I just think the Barnack Leica has a tactile quality that is unique. Granted, it may not be as fast to use, but it has that je ne sais quoi that makes it so special.
Click to expand...

I don't know then, what is more important, tactile quality, or making photographs? This touchy feelie approach is OK, but appreciating the feel of a Barnack Leica is a long way from appreciating everything else. Even HCB changed cameras as soon as he could, so he didn't look back over his shoulder by hanging on to wistful longings for the old days. I love Barnack Leica's but they are for 'happy days' when you leave an M at home and when practicality is never going to come into the equation. Clearly people could applaud them in their day because they were the best option, but we don't need to uncritically carry that applause on into another era. They are worthy of appreciation, everybody should have one, but that's about it.
 
your post suggests that improvements in design and technological advantages are chronological. I don't agree with that and the Leica II is a perfect example of the best camera design in the history of photography.
 

When i bought my my '34 Leica iii i prowled the shops in Tokyo. It was my intention to buy a lllg. But despite the better finder i bought the black paint iii. Aesthetically it was the more beautiful camera. If i collected cameras, i would still have it but in time, the need to cut the leader and shim modern 35mm cassettes... became more inconvenient.
 
In the UK there's a garden hosepipe company called Hozelock. Their washer slection packet contains a perfect shim (which would also do for Soviet cameras).

As in practical terms it's the lens rather than the body that puts the image on to the emulsion for you, using the body you like best seems to me the way to go. I have a II and a IIIf, along with an MDa (with a Bessa-T for the M lenses as well). As the OP limits discussion to 5cm lenses, I'd say that my screwmount Summar and Summitar are as good as my M mount Elmar 50/2.8. I enjoy using the II most, quite often putting on a viewfinder for convenience. The only inconvenience is the absence of strap lugs.
 
cliveh said:
I have always thought that the best Leica design is the Leica II
Click to expand...

Why the II instead of the III? The only difference is the II has no slow speeds - which limits its usefulness.

I don't actually see much difference between any of them. Different viewfinders, different loading, different advance - but you get used any of that quickly. I like the smaller size of the III (or IIIa, IIIb). That may be because I've used a III more than any other camera.
 
Another paean to the Barnack cameras. Barnack camera owners can't seem to get enough.
 
13-year-old troll thread, yay! (No, really, yay!)

I used to have a IIIg - stolen alas. Darned thing was always scratching my glasses. M, not so much!
 
Last edited:
Don Heisz said:
From Yesterday at 3:36 PM?

Leica III cameras are not great for people with glasses.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I didn't think it made much difference. They're squinty even without glasses, but not unworkable. Although not my favourite....they're pretty nice with a SB00l. I no longer have one, but i sure liked the aesthetic & especially the build quality.
 
GregY said:
Honestly, I didn't think it made much difference. They're squinty even without glasses
Click to expand...

I've heard from people that they just couldn't use them because they wore glasses (a guy bought one then sold it immediately). I don't actually find it particularly squinty - but maybe I'm used to it.
 
bjorke said:
13-year-old troll thread, yay! (No, really, yay!)

I used to have a IIIg - stolen alas. Darned thing was always scratching my glasses. M, not so much!
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha my bad. I read the "join date" of our illustrious comrade @cliveh.

Must be my old scratched glasses
 
Don Heisz said:
I've heard from people that they just couldn't use them because they wore glasses (a guy bought one then sold it immediately). I don't actually find it particularly squinty - but maybe I'm used to it.
Click to expand...

Don, If I'm using 35mm i'm most often shooting lots from the hip. I'm not saying that as a criticism, but putting the smaller rangefinder to your eye requires more precision that with an M camera. I've used a number of them and loved the build quality of my '34 lll.
 
Count me in for the IIIF as my favorite. I have an M6 and a CL but hardly use them.

Sometimes I use Leica 50 finder but mostly don't bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register