Leica, screw mount or M camera?

[Saganich]

Over the pandemic, I went down the Barnak rabbit hole, so my experience is recent. The first navigational issue was just to get one that worked correctly. Eventually, I did. The number of potential issues is staggering so getting a really nice working example is more difficult than expected. Same with the LTM lenses. The level of vaguery of description and flagrant omissions by amateurs and professionals alike was an eye-opener. Nice, unmolested, clean examples of these lenses are worth the effort and extra money but difficult. Once you have a good body and clean lens the rewards are multiplied. My favorite is the magnified rangefinder but only in daylight. I still find it difficult to use the RF/VF in dim light...fine. My other favorite is the nooky and sooky adaptors....just nice.

 

[Moose22]

Aaahhhhh Soul machine

I joke about that, but I have the summitar and also a particularly nice summicron for the M3. Considering the 1952/53 vintage of that thing, it's a nice lens.

Again, the quality of my images has about nothing to do with the gear, but that beast DOES have its own look.

 

[GregY]

I've used both, and currently for 35mm my black paint M4....but photographically both (like all other cameras) are capable of producing great images. It has more to do with how much or what kind of quirkiness you can happily work with IMO

 

[btaylor]

Seems clear to me a purchase of an M and a Barnack with an LTM lens or two are the answer. You can decide which you like best, sell the less preferred body and keep the lenses. Or… purchase both and keep both- I don’t see how that could be a bad thing!

 

[flavio81]

My recommendation: Screw Leica. And I don't mean "buy a leica screwmount camera".

If you want a LTM camera, the Canons are nicer.

If you want a M-mount camera, there are those Voigtlander machines for an affordable price.

 

[peoplemerge]

I may have not been entirely fair with how much I favored the LTM system. I found shooting the m6 vs the iiif or iiia were the addition of working lightmeter, a nicer viewfinder experience, and the option of faster lenses.

 

[NB23]

I joke about that, but I have the summitar and also a particularly nice summicron for the M3. Considering the 1952/53 vintage of that thing, it's a nice lens.

Again, the quality of my images has about nothing to do with the gear, but that beast DOES have its own look.

Oh! I don’t joke about them being Soul Machines, which they are.

I also found a MINT summarit f1.5 with perfect glass, and a Summitar and Summicron V1 collapsible which both seem to have never been used, New front element. Got lucky... but I’m 30+ years into this game so I have to get lucky sometimes!

Yeah, I use them all.

 

[Huss]

My recommendation: Screw Leica. And I don't mean "buy a leica screwmount camera".

If you want a LTM camera, the Canons are nicer.

If you want a M-mount camera, there are those Voigtlander machines for an affordable price.

Agree with the LTMs, the Canons may not be nicer made but my P was more pleasant and easier to use.
Disagree with the Voigtlanders. Those now can be more expensive than an M!

 

[David888]

Love the Ms but if I had to spend a whole day with just one camera then a IIIa is with me all the time.

 

[guangong]

My recommendation: Screw Leica. And I don't mean "buy a leica screwmount camera".

If you want a LTM camera, the Canons are nicer.

If you want a M-mount camera, there are those Voigtlander machines for an affordable price.

A sensible reply. Also, Canon ltm cameras (at least those I own) have combined vf/rf. I own both Leica and Canon ltm cameras. Also Canon has better overall build guality. Leica M feels better in the hand but the Voigtlanders are very good cameras. New Leicas are aimed at luxury market, the Rolex or Lamborghini of the camera world.

 

[Don_ih]

Also Canon has better overall build quality.

Canon made their own copies of Leica ltm cameras and lenses, and the build quality is close, if not equal to Leica's.

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.

So.... how are people assessing "build" quality?

 

[gone]

but there's something funny about the oddball accessory to "fix" a "problem" with the design being way more expensive than the core machine.

Heresy! That's not a problem, it's a feature.

 

[gone]

My other favorite is the nooky

Yes, mine too, but I better stop right there :>)

 

[Huss]

My recommendation: Screw Leica. ..

If you want a M-mount camera, there are those Voigtlander machines for an affordable price.

ahahaha. Guess you haven't checked the price of those Voigtlanders - they now are more than many Leicas!

A lower quality item that is more expensive than the real thing. Excellent recommendation!

 

[Sammydesinas]

If it's your main camera, get an M and just adapt LTM lenses to it. If it's for a collection then yes a Barnack has it's advantages and can be fun to shoot with.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If it's your main camera, get an M and just adapt LTM lenses to it. If it's for a collection then yes a Barnack has it's advantages and can be fun to shoot with.

Welcome to APUG Photrio!!​

 

[cliveh]

A Barnack Leica is the Holy Grail of film photography cameras.

 

[MattKing]

A Barnack Leica is the Holy Grail of film photography cameras.

I assume you mean this Holy Grail?

 

[Arthurwg]

ahahaha. Guess you haven't checked the price of those Voigtlanders - they now are more than many Leicas!

A lower quality item that is more expensive than the real thing. Excellent recommendation!

The Voigtlander 35mm F2.5 is now selling at $420.00, which is a pretty good deal and somewhat cheaper than my Leica M 35mm F2. You might be able to tell the difference wide open, but that's about it.

 

[Thomas71]

I own a Leica IIIc, beautiful design and built quality. I can't say anything about M; imho M are too expensive for the results produced.
In my darkroom I can only see a great improvement in prtints only using a MF negative; for 35mm works I can hardly distinguish prints by Leica IIIc, Leicaflex SL or Olympus OM.
In field use, my Leica IIIc is a pain for a glass wearer and slow to point-focus-shoot sequence.
Considering compactness, lens quality, easy to focus, my Oly OM1 is overall better than Leica IIIc at 1/4 price

 

[David Reynolds]

I own a Leica IIIc, beautiful design and built quality. I can't say anything about M; imho M are too expensive for the results produced.
In my darkroom I can only see a great improvement in prtints only using a MF negative; for 35mm works I can hardly distinguish prints by Leica IIIc, Leicaflex SL or Olympus OM.
In field use, my Leica IIIc is a pain for a glass wearer and slow to point-focus-shoot sequence.
Considering compactness, lens quality, easy to focus, my Oly OM1 is overall better than Leica IIIc at 1/4 price

My experience goes this way.
I started with a Praxtica ? (can't remember the correct spelling or model number) Quickly moved on to the Olympus OM1. I agree with Thomas it was a great camera. As my skills developed I added a Rolleiflex 3.5F and started to use a hand held meter (Gossen) with the Olympus. Wow two formats- what could be better? A Leica M5. I had moved on to the the Mercedes of the camera world. Sold my Olympus and Rollie. After using the M5 for a few years I added a M3 and M4 and eventually a 111F. The M3 for color work and the M5 for B&W. I hated to change film so I dedicated each camera to a specific film type. The M4 was used periodically . As my career developed I added a Linhof 4X5 and a Bronica 645. The 4x5 was used for commercial studio work and the Bronica used as I felt the use of 120 color transparency film was far superior to any 35mm film or 4x5 for it's sharpness. For the next 30 years I used this combination of cameras to fit the process at hand.
To get back to the subject of this forum. There is no better camera . Each process has one that fits the final product better than the other.