I do not see any advantages to this.
Originally Posted by Someonenameddavid
My main objectives are to:
1. Try Leica LTM glass. Mystical or not, I want my own eyes to judge. I do not think Zeiss makes bad glass, but it's Leica LTM that I've always wanted to try. Moreso, than Leica M, even.
2. It isn't smaller (I don't think). I wouldn't even get a IIIg. Leica IIIc + Collapsible Summitar, is considerably smaller without feeling too small (like an XA).
I don't want to get into who makes better glass or cameras but I view the Contax more of an alternative rangefinder to the M not really a compliment....but that is beyond the point of this discussion.
I may not even like a screwmount after a few rolls, but reselling the body would be very easy at minimal loss.
Great cameras but hard to find good ones
I love my Contax IIA's, but it's not so easy to find a good one. Aside from Henry Scherer, I'm not sure who I would trust who can really fix these cameras when they have issues. And he's just one guy so it can take forever to get through his queue. If you get a good one, the lenses are really excellent for the era (and not so bad for today). But even then, the ergnomics aren't as good as the Leica screwmounts, and are further behind the M's. But they're great cameras. They are much easier to load and they're easy to focus if you're using the 50. If you're using any other lens, you can't use the finger focus control so it's the same as the Leicas.
Originally Posted by Someonenameddavid
No, if you want a retro classic, the IIIc or IIIf is probably the way to go. If you want a camera to be your workhorse which you will grow to love as a photographic tool, buy an M2 or M3 and, if necessary, the same screwmount lenses you were considering and upgrade later to a nice summicron 50/2.
After using Summitar or Summicron , you will not be able to believe how colors can be so natural and degrades elegant , how glass , winter light is elegant with the first one and if you go dark , it will turn wild and gives the most elegant skin details than any other lens , cron is a magic also , it is more colorful than summitar and you will not believe your eyes how street photographs , most ordinary pictures keep many other picture subject in it , post box , telephone box , any ordinary thing turn in to painting. They are matchless and I dont like M camera bodies.
a canon 25mm f 3.5 lens is one of my favorites, although it does go soft at wide open so I keep it to f 5.6 or smaller, but it is amazingly sharp and has a lovely feel. It works great on my Leica CL or my IIIf, or M3 for that matter.
so some canon glass is really good and worth looking at.
Originally Posted by summicron1
The 28mm f/3.5 is an excellent lens and the 50mm f/1.4 is wonderful too. But for $100 or so an Elmar 9cm can't be beat and as you already know, the Summitar is a uniquely excellent lens. Many options in the LTM world
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The film leader does need trimming, other techniques like the card insertion or removing the lens are hazards risking shutter damage, and slow, i.e. web techniques & not how it was designed, you need scissors and care to cut the recommended leader, 22 or 23 holes, factory cassettes (or loads) all used to come with the correct leader (before '71 or so). If you fly commercially you will lose swiss arm knives, with little scissors... dont ask... You can get leader templates Leica >>$ or plastic clones.
The only ergonomic problem with a Barnack and many of the early clones is the shutter dial rotates, when the shutter is release and if you are accident prone and snag the dial you get un-even exposure across the frame. You need to be deliberate.
Most lenses will clean up when dismantled, but some will re-fog after a short interval.
The old lenses do give a nice signature with both colour or mono film, (even with d&&&&&&, oops). They do need hoods, more than modern lenses.
And if you insert an SD card you will lose it
Originally Posted by Xmas
There are certain skills people used to have, like loading a Leica III or using a metal developing reel or even estimating exposure without a meter. You can get good at these things, but I'm not sure that today a lot of people would want to put in the necessary practice when it's really not necessary. Even a 1950s camera like the M3 or M2 is a LOT easier to load and an M4 (or an M2 with the M4 quick loading kit) is even easier -- though I kind of like the standard M2 loading scheme. And Contax IIAs, Canon screwmounts, and others of the period are far easier.
I think the Leica screwmounts are an experience everyone should have at least once, but I just don't see them as working tools in the 21st century. M2's and M3's yes, but not Leica IIs and IIIs. Using a Leica III regularly is probably a lot like driving a 1950s car. It has to be something of a crusade on the part of the user -- possibly a labor of love. Nothing wrong with that, but the average photographer who wants to use a rangefinder for the pictures he will get is better off with a M. It's just as seductively well made and a HECK of a lot easier to use.
Thank you all for your advice.
Actually, Leica LTM's bodies are bit smaller, but now i'm having some doubts. I'm mostly interested in shaving of the thickness/depth, but the difference isn't that much:
I'm still interested in the lenses, however.
Last edited by puketronic; 08-04-2012 at 06:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.
You're right the size difference isn't much nor is the weight, and the LTM Leica's are more limited in practical usage than say, an M2 or M3. Only with external finders or guesstimation can you frame anything but a 50mm on the Leica LTM cameras. I have a iiic but honestly its kind of a novelty for me, just not as easy or versatile as my M Leica's in use. The ltm lenses are still worth looking into though..