Thinking of a LTM...

[Vics]

I recently bought a very nice IIF and was AMAZED at how tiny it was! Perfect pocket camera. I had to send it right back for reasons that were particular to me, but I still have daydreams about that camera. I think that it might be better as a shooter with modern-ish glass, though, unless you're after a vintage look in the pics.

[Stuart John]

I'm really pleased with my IIIa sync, the small size makes it a perfect camera to bring along anywhere.

[literiter]

I have the Lieca iiif red dial with an Elmar 3.5 and a Fison hood. I love it, but must say It's a little tricky to use.

-To set the shutter speed the camera must be wound on.
-Set the shutter speed dial, after being wound on, by lifting it and turning.
-There are two shutter speed dials. 1 for speeds from 1/25 to 1/1000 the other from 1/25 to 1.
-If you touch the top shutter speed dial when tripping the shutter you may affect the speed.
-To advance the film, while cocking the shutter, you wind the large knob.
-To rewind the film flip a tiny switch, located on the top plate and rewind using a tiny knob.
-Loading film requires either trimming the leader or fiddling usually with the shutter open, lens off etc. or some magic using a credit card.
-manually reset the film counter.
-You focus using the left finder widow and compose using the right.
-flash sync requires some intelligent manipulation of the ring surrounding the shutter speed dial. ( never done it )
-flash sync is 1/25 sec!!
-Remote shutter release requires an adapter.
-since I have the Elmar 3.5 and the Fison hood, I must remove the hood to adjust the f stops. Not removing the hood may get your finger on the lens glass.

In short, the camera is a real swine to use, if you compare it to say a Nikon FE.

But, it is a lovely little camera and if you don't mind a some archaic ergonomics you can actually do some nice work with it.

[agricola]

Ah Paul, I loved the shot of that book by our aviator friend! I remember reading it and him describing lying on the ground of the desert in North Africa and looking at the firmament above.

A french lady friend gave me the little Prince after I expressed my admiration for St Exupery - you have good taste. I too have a IIIf red dial and an FE! My new D600 pales by comparison for reasons which are inexplicable to most.

Dan

[Chemophilic]

Thanks for all the suggestions!

I think if I do find a decent deal, I might give the LTM a try. Something about a mechanical camera that can get me to start making illogical decisions. I shot with 35mm before so I know what the tradeoff is, and if it doesn't work out I still have a Hassy for MF. With that being said, the choices for camera/lens are overwhelming. But I am narrowing down to:

Leica iiic
Canon IVsb - vf/rf combo?
Nicca - they have a lever winder instead of knobs?

Lens wise, I don't think I am good enough to appreciate the individual "character" yet, but thinking a f2 lens like a Summar or the Nikon ones might give me a taste.

Thanks once again for all the suggestions!

[digitalintrigue]

Some Niccas have lever winder, some even have a flip-back, but not all -- they otherwise feel very similar to Barnacks, with perhaps very slightly less of a quality feel. Otherwise they are excellent machines and as a rule their leather (ette?) covering seems to be much longer-lasting than the ever-crumbling Leica vulcanite...

[ChrisPlatt]

Never had a Leica LTM body- I'd never consider a camera with separate range- and viewfinders.

Had a Canon P. It was okay, but the 35mm framelines are hard to see, and I missed having a built-in meter.

OTOH I absolutely love my Bessa R...

Chris

[Dez]

It all comes down to what you want to get from the camera, and everyone has different priorities.

I have a couple of screwmount Leicas, a Leica 1 from 1929, which is gorgeous but very clumsy to use, and a late IIIG, which is a magnificent beast, but too expensive to expose to the cruel world very often. The one that gets used is a IIIB, which combines the later less-P.I.T.A. view/rangefinder with the smaller body and generally jewel-like design of the early cameras. Compared to the M's though, they aren't the most practical of cameras, with the loading and viewing being really inconvenient.

The back loading Canons are much easier to use, and I would say the Canon P is my favourite as a practical vintage LTM. The combined RF/VF gives a large, sharp image that works perfectly for me without my -2 dioptre eyeglasses. It's much easier to use than a Leica, and built like a tank. But it doesn't seem to have the same hyper-quality aura of the Leicas, and it's pretty big.

Then there's the reverse snobbery route, going with a Russian camera. Here I believe it's a matter of honour to pay the least possible amount for the camera and lenses, and you can get some wonderful results with something like a Zorki 6. But the build quality is not on the same planet as the Leicas and Canons.

The Bessa R has by far the best set of features of any LTM camera, has a superb range/viewfinder, and it is small and light. But the %$#@ thing screams PLASTIC at you.

So I guess you pay your money and you take your choice, and you will probably not find another RF fancier with exactly the same set of priorities. And those differences of opinion, and the heated discussions they cause are some of the most entertaining things about Rangefinder Forum.

Me, my favourite RF camera is a Kodak Ektra, so I'm obviously not someone whose opinion would be very useful!

Cheers,
Dez

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Sorry Dez, but I just can't agree with "Then there's the reverse snobbery route, going with a Russian camera. Here I believe it's a matter of honour to pay the least possible amount for the camera and lenses, and you can get some wonderful results with something like a Zorki 6. But the build quality is not on the same planet as the Leicas and Canons."

Firstly "reverse snobbery" has nothing to do with photography but a lot to do with photographers.

Secondly, I own a lot of Leicas and ex-USSR made variations. So when I say that a Leica II and FED II behave and feel just the same but the FED has the edge in that the lens is coated I reckon I'm talking about photography, based on practical experience.

And, when talking to newcomers I reckon it's sensible to point out that both makes and models are elderly and not exactly trouble free until properly checked and serviced. And the Leicas do cost a lot more to buy and repair. But looking at the prints no one can tell them apart.

Of course, there's the small matter of the engraving on the top plate but that's nothing to do with photography, but a lot to do with snobbery and glamour and so on.

I have also noticed a few who comment, rudely, on the politics of the USSR when discussing the FED and Zorkis cameras but are strangely silent about the guy in charge of Germany in the 30's. But balanced views are not, I guess, what people like as it involves decisions.

The condition of old Leicas and FEDs etc has nothing to do with the factory these days when compared with the cameras' history and previous owners. Many of them believe that the cameras can be repaired at home, sitting at the kitchen table and just using the bread knife as an all purpose tool. Sadly it happens a lot and the makers, especially in the old USSR, get the blame for it. Looking at build quality; you'd need a set of the factories' blue prints and a couple of hundred unused "as new" cameras all made the same year. Then all you need do is take every one of them to bits and measure every component. Then compare with the factory spec, allowing for the techniques used in assembly and you'd be able to give a reasonable answer about build quality to within about 3 or 4% accuracy. I've yet to see it.

Most comments about FEDs and Zorkis are based on one old, second-hand camera bought on ebay. Need I say more? (I hope not as I get fed up of typing this over and over again.) But, as an example, would you like my opinion of a very famous make based on one old battered camera I bought for pennies at the local tip? It's as valid as a lot I've seen...

Regards, David

[wolves3012]

I tend to agree with David, it's a little harsh to call the USSR-made cameras reverse-snobbery. I agree also it's very little to do with the cameras and a lot to do with former owners. After all, a Leica is worth money and worth spending out on servicing, a FED or Zorki is of low value and not worth the same investment. However, the lower number production-run FEDs and Zorkis are mostly quite well made and (when properly serviced) they offer a very similar experience to Leica for a far lower cost. That makes the "experience" affordable and accessible to many who can't afford or can't justify the price of a Leica or contemporary model.

For cameras like the Zorki 4 and FED 5, where production numbers were huge and quotas were higher priority than QC, it's rather pot luck what you'll get, especially given their age.

I have a 1939 FED NKVD that is almost as smooth as my Leica IIIC. The Leica has slightly better-cut gears and hence a smoother action but the chrome on the FED is far better! The quietest focal-plane shuttered RF I have is a 1955 Zorki 1, fully dismantled and thoroughly CLAd - I'd pit that against any Leica II for "experience".

[Rangefinderfreak]

The film loading is a pain in the III, almost as bad in M3 with original spool. For me a M4-P with Tom`s rapidwinder and IXMOO cassettes is the only way to go in M analog cameras.

[JohnTF]

You seem to like MF for quality. Heading down that road, and trying to make the cost fit the return, wanting something to carry, not break your bank, and not limit your ability to more easily capture a handsome image when you see it---

There are RF's in MF -- I used to keep a Fuji MF with me almost all the time when in Europe, almost forgetting I had them, until I saw something I really wanted a quality image, or just a situation involving an interesting subject.

I've had most of them, and most of the Leicas save the M5, I shot a roll or two once in Paris with a Leica Standard I had bought in Czech-- (and also a lot of other cameras as I used to often pass through Paris) -- but some of my favorite images came from the Fuji 645 cameras, the very wide one, and the folder.

I have heard chatter about the bellows, build quality, etc. But, you are not likely to wear out the camera, and folded it fits easily in a pocket, plus you have the great VF, an accurate meter, and 15 shots (16?) (perhaps double that if you can find 220) to close the deal on an interesting photograph.

Obviously, I think a number of cameras are neat, lord knows I have enough, but if I am looking for IQ and equipment that lets me think more about the subject, I really cannot say much against the Fuji 645s, and yes, I have the AF ones as well, - but they are not as pocketable , but do fit in to a small shoulder bag.

Size wise, they give a lot of bang for the buck and by today's standards a large negative.

You can also probably consider the Contax G series in to your budget, but that is another cyber can of worms.

I used to take several systems when I traveled, picking out one for the day when I went out-- Right now I am selling out to digital, and again Fuji, partly because I know I use it more and partly because of increasing physical problems, I can only carry so much.

I should sell off a lot of stuff, you can pm me if you are interested, I pretty much have a lot of what is mentioned in this thread, and not the time to exercise them, and you can drop a line to Campus Camera or Igor, dealers that I know you can trust.

I bought something on eBay recently and was shocked to see the condition, first time I had to send something back, wonderful stuff, but all had evidently been in a damp basement for 50 years, prior to the camera body being used to drive some ten penny nails.

Sorry for the long post, I hate to read them as well, but my interest was drawn when you said you liked the Pentax 6x7- I had one and I too liked it, but knew I would never travel with it or take it out to use, sent it to a good home.


Regards, John

[goamules]

These are all interesting, and related topics to the question "why we choose a certain tool." I think we have to acknowledge that a large part of photography is pride of ownership and justifying the tool we choose. It's not just about the results, the photos. For many it's the means to that end. Some have pride carrying an old Leica, some a Canon, some a Fed. It's all good.

On the FSU quality debate, I agree with David. I have an early prewar NKVD Fed that is a little jewel. The smooth wind, quiet shutter, nice covering, all speak of pretty darn good quality. I will say the viewfinder in these really old ones is TINY, and no where near as good as the later Leicas and Canons, but that was one thing they all worked at constantly to improve.

[Chemophilic]

Thanks for all the suggestions. After some considerations, I think the combined VF/RF is quite important for me. Looking around the auction site, I found a reasonably priced Canon P with a 1.8 lens on it. Pull the trigger on it for $320. A bit different from what I had intended at first but I know that this may really be the gateway drug to more RF gears!

[Dez]

Originally Posted by wolves3012

I tend to agree with David, it's a little harsh to call the USSR-made cameras reverse-snobbery. I agree also it's very little to do with the cameras and a lot to do with former owners.

Absolutely! It has everything to do with the owner, rather than the camera. The various breeds of RF cameras seem to convey a specific image, and this image is an important part of the presence of the cameras. I maintain that you can find lots of people on the FSU page enthusing about how little something costs, or grumbling about shoddy fit and finish, for example, the conventional wisdom that one usually needs to adjust the shimming in a J3 lens. Practicality and value for money, and all part of the image.

I have actually met ardent Leicaphiles who worry about things like the orientation of the screwheads on their cameras, and get horribly upset with a vendor if a 60 year old lens they buy has a speck of unreported dust. Such people will sometimes make a point of telling you how much their treasures cost, and probably not to brag about what a good deal they got. Precision above all, and cost is no object: all part of the image.

One piece of conventional wisdom that I believe completely is that fine photographs are created by fine photographers, not by fine cameras. and there is no reason why a splendid image cannot come from a $50 Zorki rather that a $4000 Leica.

But it's interesting that RFF is divided up in forums by type of camera, rather than type of photography. People are interested and often passionate about the equipment, especially beautiful old RF cameras that are used more for enjoyment than practicality. It's great fun to work with these lovely old machines, and there is nothing at all wrong with that. However, if I really want to make sure I will deliver the goods where I go somewhere to get some images, I will probably pack something like my Ektra, but the camera that I will really use is my Nikon D700.

Cheers,
Dez

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by goamules

These are all interesting, and related topics to the question "why we choose a certain tool." I think we have to acknowledge that a large part of photography is pride of ownership and justifying the tool we choose. It's not just about the results, the photos. For many it's the means to that end. Some have pride carrying an old Leica, some a Canon, some a Fed. It's all good.

Dear Garrett,

For sure. But there comes a point where the results have to count too. Perhaps "a large part of photography is pride of ownership" is less and less true as we grow older. At least, if we're photographers, not collectors/pure gear heads. Cameras that we once owned 'because we could' become everyday tools. Also, 'because we could' changes as we get older. Leicas and Leica lenses are a lot more affordable for me now, at 62, than they were when I was in my early 20s. And I'm reasonably confident that I'm a better photographer, partly from practice, and partly from learning which cameras suit me.

Cheers,

R.

[goamules]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Garrett,

For sure. But there comes a point where the results have to count too. Perhaps "a large part of photography is pride of ownership" is less and less true as we grow older. At least, if we're photographers, not collectors/pure gear heads. Cameras that we once owned 'because we could' become everyday tools. Also, 'because we could' changes as we get older. Leicas and Leica lenses are a lot more affordable for me now, at 62, than they were when I was in my early 20s. And I'm reasonably confident that I'm a better photographer, partly from practice, and partly from learning which cameras suit me.

Cheers,

R.

I agree. It's a 50/50 thing with me. While I enjoy using something for it's ergonomics or history once, if it cannot deliver a good picture after a few rolls I move on. I have a few lenses that "should" be really good, but I just can't make them work for me. Same with cameras. I know the gearhead mentality is at work with me somewhat, because I know I can take better pictures with an SLR or even my digital. But I keep using the rangefinders because I like the anachronism.

[tunalegs]

I had a Fed 5, it was actually well made, but also large and unwieldy - awkward to use. Not exactly my cup of tea in a rangefinder. Certainly though a capable machine in the right hands. Just not mine.

[Brian Legge]

I wish the pre-FED 2 FSU cameras had a unified viewfinder/rangefinder. Or at least a IIIc style finder. I found the early FSU cameras to be difficult to used in the same way the Leica III was hard enough to use to sell (despite being a fantastic camera otherwise). It was simply slower to focus and compose than cameras where I could more quickly look between the rangefinder and viewfinder.

The FED 2 was a great camera but given the size and feature set, I'd go with the Canon P over it.

A FSU body in great condition is a solid user but personally I found the Canon LTM cameras and the Leica IIIc and later were better for me personally. If I was budget limited I'd probably go with a barnack style LTM canon.

Below that, I'd go with a FED 2 in good condition.

[David Hughes]

Hi,

This is a little(?) off topic but prompted by Dez's comment on screw slots.

40 to 50 years ago I helped out with the family firm to pay the mortgage etc at weekends. We used to sell some excellent but rather old fashion East German stuff which, imo, was far too cheap to convince people it was any good. But we could point out that every one of them had all the screw slots lined up as they left the factory and, of course, once they had one in their hands they realised that they were perfectly good.

I mentioned this to someone all those years ago and he said that, when he was an apprentice, all the screws and bolts were made with oversized heads. They would fix them and torque them and then he had to mark the heads with a new line for the slot alignment. Then the head was turned down to the correct size and a new screw slot cut so that they all lined up correctly when finally fitted.

I can imagine the reaction to that these days can't you?

Regards, David

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by wolves3012

I tend to agree with David, it's a little harsh to call the USSR-made cameras reverse-snobbery. I agree also it's very little to do with the cameras and a lot to do with former owners. After all, a Leica is worth money and worth spending out on servicing, a FED or Zorki is of low value and not worth the same investment. However, the lower number production-run FEDs and Zorkis are mostly quite well made and (when properly serviced) they offer a very similar experience to Leica for a far lower cost. That makes the "experience" affordable and accessible to many who can't afford or can't justify the price of a Leica or contemporary model.

For cameras like the Zorki 4 and FED 5, where production numbers were huge and quotas were higher priority than QC, it's rather pot luck what you'll get, especially given their age.

I have a 1939 FED NKVD that is almost as smooth as my Leica IIIC. The Leica has slightly better-cut gears and hence a smoother action but the chrome on the FED is far better! The quietest focal-plane shuttered RF I have is a 1955 Zorki 1, fully dismantled and thoroughly CLAd - I'd pit that against any Leica II for "experience".

Hi,

Yes, I think that's it. Having paid good money for a U/S camera we spend more to "maintain its value" as it's an "investment" but buying a cheap one we don't "throw good money after bad".

As I see it, if you like and intend to use the camera, then it pays to get the problems sorted out.

Funnily enough I always had a Leica for years and years (and still have it and still use it) but lusted after a FED to find out what was so wrong with them and why people made so much fuss about them. My only complaint about them is the sharp edge to the eyepiece surround on the FED 3.

But, itoh, having an excellent copy of a Zeiss Contax lens on an excellent copy of a Leica II with one of those cheapo Chinese vented hoods and the little Walz exposure meter is a real fun/dream outfit.

Regards, David

[NeeZee]

Originally Posted by pete hogan

Roger and Michael are right. Nothing else feels and handles like a Barnack. I also use an M2, and it has the clear edge in film loading and VF, but now I go more to the IIf for less demanding shooting. For more demanding applications an M would be a better choice IMHO.

clear edge in film loading? it's exactly the same process with both cameras.

what is a 'more demanding application', by the way?

[Spicy]

Well the Barnack needs to have the film leader trimmed and also does not have a back door...

I'd imagine "more demanding applications" being anything where loading needs to be done quickly and reliably. Pre-trimming your leaders is nice, and certainly speeds up the process when you're out and about shooting and then need to reload, but if you're going to be shooting all day, it can be annoying.

[pete hogan]

Not the same loading. The open back on an M and no need to trim the film leader makes the M easier to load than a Barnack.

"More demanding" would include subjects with motion, higher rates of shooting, less time to get the shot. Lever wind on an M is quicker than knob winding-on with a Barnack.

Really like the Barnack too, it's my favorite. My IIf came back yesterday from Youxin Ye doing a CLA and rangefinder service. It's good to have it back.

[NeeZee]

well, i always cut all my films just after i bought them and the open back is nice to check if you have loaded correctly but doesn't really speed up things, definitely not up to a 'clear edge'. both are bottom loaders and thus more slowly to load than other cameras. on the other hand loading on both can probably be done quicker than rewinding (the most annoying thing with these cameras if you ask me).

to shoot subjects in serious motion with a rangefinder scale focusing is almost a must, so it doesn't really matter if you have one window or two.

the lever winding is quicker, i give you that, but it's not that slow on a barnack either, once you found out that you shouldn't do it by turning with thumb and index finger, but use only the index finger (much quicker).

well, just my personal view, of course. I've been using a IIIf as my main camera for about 5 years and once you got used to it, you see that all these online moaning about film loading and separate viewfinders is quite exagerated. the things i would add to that camera are a rewind lever and real back loading (and aperture priority if i could ) - but these are both things missing in the early M's too...