Leica, screw mount or M camera?

[Neil Grant]

...clearly the earlier cameras like the 3f provide a relatively affordable entry to the Leica way of doing things than an M3 or M2. But am I right in thinking that additional LTM lenses are much more scarce than those for the M mount? New lenses for the latter are even available from 3rd party manufacturers, but maybe not LTM.

 

[NB23]

LTM lenses are in less demand versus M lenses. therefore easy to find, and not so expensive.

The leica Barnack world is amazing and it’s so easy to fall in love and truly use the system in a sustained way.
Voigtlander did issue a few LTM lenses a decade ago.
Vintage Canon LTM gear is affordable.
Leica did issue special edition 50 summilux and 35 summicron LTM lenses a decade ago as well

 

[Don_ih]

I agree with @NB23 -- LTM lenses way, way cheaper than M lenses - often 1/10th the price. You need to get used to focusing using one finder and composing with the other - but, once you do, it's pretty much natural. People who wear glasses, however, often have a lot of difficulty with the very small finder windows on a screw mount Leica. But some non-Leica LTM cameras have more convenient viewfinders.

I've only used the M4-2 that I own, so I can't say much about other M cameras. The camera is great. And the LTM lenses work the same as the M lenses if you buy adapters for them.

 

[guangong]

As a user of both ltm and M cameras, my own evaluations: the ltm Leicas are very pocketable and a little more convenient for much of my photography. On the other hand, the M cameras are generally more convenient and faster in everyday applications. Note, Canon ltm cameras offer combined vf-rf window, and also seemingly better build quality.
In a way, Leitz spurred the development of the SLR, with the appearance of the M3, which killed the market for all other rf cameras. So history testifies to its ease of use.
Prices on many Leica ltm and M lenses are reflective of Leica collector interest and have little relationship to practical value. However, ltm lenses were made by many: Minolta, Nikon, Canon, etc. Age does take its toll. Leitz lenses often have dendritic fungus, Canon’s often have haze, but clean lenses can be found. But for staters, only one camera and lense is needed, so use rather than difference in cost should be quiding factor.
Russian lenses are not an option. Look similar, but flange to film distance is different.

 

[btaylor]

I would think about how you are working. I have a number of rangefinder cameras and I find the IIIf I have to be significantly slower to use that the M’s or other viewfinder integrated cameras. It’s not to say it isn’t enjoyable to use- it’s small size is great. If you’re thinking about lenses in other than the 50mm then the auxiliary finder on a Barnack is another slow down. The Canon 7 has a big viewfinder with 35, 50, and 85mm frame lines, is LTM and less than a Barnack. I have a mix of LTM and M mount lenses, and a simple adapter will put any of the LTM lenses on an M mount camera.
I wear glasses and the squinty Barnack viewfinder has my glasses going up and down to focus and then frame- this is compounded when using an auxiliary finder for focal lengths other than 50mm.
YMMV, have fun.

 

[xkaes]

But am I right in thinking that additional LTM lenses are much more scarce than those for the M mount?

LTM lenses are easy to find and generally inexpensive, but another thing to keep in mind is what focal lengths you might want to use. You may find that what you want is not available in LTM -- or too expensive/hard-to-find. If your focal length needs are strictly "pedestrian", then the LTM makes a lot of monetary sense.

 

[JerseyDoug]

LTM lens prices are up from where they were a few years ago because the mirrorless camera crowd has discovered them. That said, they are still widely available and much less expensive than M lenses.

I owned two M2's at one point, but I also had my Father's IIIc and found I enjoyed using it more than the substantially larger M cameras. The M2's are gone now and several other LTM Leicas have joined the IIIc in the upper compartments of my roll top desk.

The solution to the glasses and viewfinder issue for me is the SBOOI 50mm viewfinder (amazingly bright, 1:1 magnification, projected frame lines). I use it with both eyes open to see the frame lines projected on the actual scene. I also have auxiliary viewfinders for other focal lengths but I am more likely to carry two cameras with different lenses/viewfinders.

 

[Nitroplait]

Leica Barnacks are slow and odd to use. Leica Ms are vastly more modern and easy to use.

I own samples from both types. I buy barnacks only to own a piece of photographic history.

Knowing what I know, I would never buy a Barnarck Leica as the first step to enter the Leica eco system. The Leica lure is satisfied only by a Leica M.

There are so many better alternatives than the Barnacks if you just want a great camera.

Voigtlander made a good number of excellent m39 lenses which are not exactly cheap any more, but still much better than than anything available at the same price-point from Leica.

 

[mshchem]

Leica made more IIIf cameras than any other model. Beautiful camera

 

[Besk]

I am on my third M6 but just like carrying and shooting with my IIIf RD more. And I wear glasses. And do sometimes use the 50mm viewfinder.

It can be because I primarily use large format and medium format cameras without built-in meters.

 

[BradS]

It really depends on what you want to do with it.

The Barnack Leicas are slow, quirky, challenging, fun, frustrating and quite capable of making great photos.

The Leica M also have their quirks, irritations and challenges but are far more user friendly than the bottom loaders.

The LTM lenses can be very easily and economically used on an M body - you sacrifice nothing in doing so.

In summary, the Barnacks are charming but ill suited to actual regular use. If you want a camera to use regularly, get an M2, M4 or M6 or MP or M-A.

 

[4season]

At the moment, the M bayonet is better supported by Leica, Cosina Voigtlander, and various Chinese lens makers. So if you desire brand-new or recently manufactured lenses, M may be the handier option.

On the other hand, there's a wealth of legacy Leica-compatible 39 mm screw mount lenses out there, and occasional new ones too.

No doubt about it, the M-system is the more modern, efficient, picture-taking tool. And film was king, I favored the most modern M cameras and lenses. But in 2022, this matters less to me: I have access to far more modern mirrorless cameras! So my current Leica outfit is a 3F body + 50 mm lens, and I've discovered that I really, really like the prewar FED-1, which is a copy of the Leica II.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

There are lots of great rangefinder cameras so you don't have to get a Leica if you are budget conscious. I have a couple of Canon 7's and they are fantastic for the paltry sum they sell for. I use them at least as much as I use my Leica M3. LTM lenses fit on them, and of course if you find you like rangefinders and later want to get a Leica M then any lens that fits LTM will also fit the M mount, like others have said. Personally I never liked the tiny Leica screw mount cameras. Viewfinders are just too small.

 

[Rayt]

Barnacks are works of art especially the IIIf RDST but for photography I like the Voigtlander Bessa L. It has a built in TTL meter and 1/2000 max shutter speed whereas I wouldn’t trust a Barnack’s top speed. Although the Bessa L has no rangefinder it isn’t necessary for street when you can zone focus a 35mm Elmar or Summaron at f/8 and 3 meters. The most expensive part will be the external finder.

 

[jimjm]

Unfortunately, the cost of Leica M gear is at an all-time high right now. The older all-mechanical M3, M2 and M4 bodies are well over $1500, while M6's seem to be in the $2K range. I bought my M2 about a decade ago when they were 1/2 to 1/3 of those prices. I don't even look at M-mount lenses anymore.
If you just want the experience of owning/using a Leica, then the screw-mount bodies (and lenses) will be much more affordable. Excellent build quality, but a different shooting experience. A bit fiddly with peephole RF and VF windows, slower wind/rewind and film loading.

Canon made their own copies of Leica ltm cameras and lenses, and the build quality is close, if not equal to Leica's. Prices seem to be more reasonable and Canon introduced some nice features that Leica never did (until the M-mount bodies). Tons of ltm mount lenses out there from Canon, Leica and other makers. Voigtlander also made a number of "modern" lenses in this mount, up until about a decade ago.
If you want to find a top-quality rangefinder with interchangeable lenses, I'd look at something like a Canon P, 7 or L-1. Compared to older Canon and Leica ltm bodies, these have much better viewfinders, easier loading and levers for wind/rewind rather than knobs. These feel much closer to the experience of shooting with a Leica M body. If you haven't looked at the Cameraquest site, some good information about halfway down this page under "Classic pre-1972 Leica Copies and Lenses".

 

[Ian Grant]

In my youth there was a chance to buy probably the best made LTM camera and lens for £21, (might have been 21 Guineas) these were the Leicester, UK, made Reid III cameras, and the TT&H lenses were better than the Leitz equivalents, that led to Leitz working with TT&H.

The release of the M series Leica's which had been prototyped as the IV before WWII (and the designs hidden from the Nazi government), killed sales of the Reid cameras. Then in the early 1970s a company specialising in surplus stock (mostly ex-government/military) came across boxes of partially assembled cameras, but with all everything needed to finish them plus the lenses. So they were finished and sold.

The company who bought TT&H (Cooke) and Reid & Sigrist, as well as many other UK manufacturers were J Arthur Rank, film studio and cinema chain, but they lacked the management and marketing skills outside of their core movie field. They were the Pentax importer/distributor for a while here in the UK.

Ian

 

[4season]

For me, shopping for film cameras is kind of a balancing act: Want to spend enough to get something which pleases, but not so much that I feel a bit foolish every time I look at the thing. And when it comes to Leica, one combo which might still strike me as a fair value would be 3A body + 50/3.5 Elmar lens. And I would not overlook deals on older cameras with shutter speeds limited to 1/20th - 1/500th second either.

 

[250swb]

Voigtlander make many LTM and M lenses and all are excellent and probably better than any equivalent older LTM or M lenses due to better coatings etc., and also cheaper. But while the LTM bodies are cheaper you have to factor in the enjoyment of using the camera. So while LTM cameras are wonderful to use generally speaking (as an LTM user) it is only because you tend to like something different from an M every now and again, not because it is 'better'. I'd urge against getting an LTM camera and go with an M2 or M4-P as a first Leica, simply because it is easier to use, more versatile, and far less finicky to use. I love LTM cameras, but I'm glad I didn't introduce myself to Leica that way or I may never have continued.

 

[ic-racer]

A bayonet, M body and adapter allows the best of both worlds. That is what I did.

 

[Don_ih]

I don't see much difference between using a Leica III and using a meterless M Leica - although I've only used one M Leica. There's nothing magical about either of them. You can get the same photo with either one. You get used to wind advance. You get used to switching finders. You're probably better off not trying to use either to shoot fast action.

 

[NB23]

In summary, the Barnacks are charming but ill suited to actual regular use. If you want a camera to use regularily, get an M2, M4 or M6 or MP or M-A.

This is only your opinion, though. The Barbacks are totally seamless to anyone using them at at least more than a fee rolls every year.

I spent last summer, and a big part of every year using my IId, IIIC and IIIG doing serious photography, and the Barnacks deliver in a big way.

It’s all about getting used to. By this I mean to at least shoot more than 2 rolls.

Ask eggleston.

 

[gone]

Knob wind cameras are fun. They're just so tiny, especially w/ something small like a Summar on them. But I wouldn't want one for a daily shooter because they're slow to shoot, as almost any knob wind camera is including folders.

But horses for courses: if you want unobtrusive and quiet, the little Leicas are hard to beat. I always liked the IIa models, they used to be quite reasonable to purchase, assuming you didn't need a CLA.. Probably not now.

The M cameras were so smooth, but big and heavy compared to the screw mounts and Bessa rangefinders. It finally occurred to me that a SLR was not that much bigger and I went back to them. My little Pentax MV is pretty much as small as a screw mount camera and a lot lighter.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the Air Force we had both M2 and M3, while a working PJ I had a IIIG and Canon 7S, had both Leica and Canon glass screw mount. While the Canon 7 did not have the build quality of the IIIG or the M2/3 it was much easier to load film, in pretty good lighting the meter worked fine. LTM glass, unless a newer model, will not the same quality of coating, and newer lens with computer aided design are likely sharper. On the other hand you can get a Leica M body serviced, don't know who works on LTM or Canon LTM bodies. I've looked into a Canon 7S, finding one with a accurate meter, might need to buy from Japan. Then there is the unmetered P.

 

[Jim Jones]

I bought my first Leica, a IIIf with the f/3.5 Elmar, new in 1953. The compact size and decent optical performance made it competitive with the more convenient M2 bought in 1967. Other LTM cameras I've also used were Nicca, Canon P, and Canon 7S. The Leicas gave better service. A M4 bought new in 1970 was used hard for 40 years until retired in favor of digital gear. It still seems in perfect working condition.

 

[mrosenlof]

I agree with most of what's been said here so far. In my experience, the Barnak Leica is a bother to load but you get used to it, while the M2/3 is much easier, and the later quick loading Leicas starting with M4 mostly are super easy. Once loaded, the Barnak is a little less convenient, but they're fun to use. I like an external viewfinder for even a 50mm lens on the bottom-loader.

There are enough LTM lenses on the used market to keep most photographers happy, but not that many made today. Given the choice between otherwise identical LTM or M I would buy the LTM lens. Voigtlander is making a 40mm f/2.8 in both mounts these days, but that's the only one I'm immediately aware of.

As others have mentioned, Canon made a nice range of LTM cameras that have most of the conveniences of an M and are an affordable way into rangefinder photography.

Have fun!