Retina vs Barnack?

Retina vs Barnack?

  • Barnack

    Votes: 175 55.9%

  • Retina

    Votes: 138 44.1%
  • Total voters
    313
M

mh2000

Well-known
Local time
12:45 AM
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,247
I just can't ever seem to bring myself to shoot my Leica IIIc and always seem to grab my Retina IIa... wonder how others who use both feel and which you prefer actually shooting photos with.

thanks

:)

(This is just for fun, I love both cameras)
 
Last edited:
Since I use both on a fairly equal basis I chose not to vote for either. Most times both are loaded and used together..
 
My Retina II has taken a back seat when it comes to picking cameras since I've acquired my Leica cameras.

The retina is a very nice and compact system though. Definitely no complaints about the Xenon lens.
 
More used to the IIIf/IIIc (and the other Barnack copies) than the Retina IIa. Whilst these Kodaks are superb and capable machines, they never seem to be as sprightly or 'ready' all the time for me, compared to the Barnacks. I tend to miss more shots with the Retina than the Leica.
 
While I no longer have a IIa, my Ia works fine,
but it's an even 'squintier' view than any of my Leica or Leicalikes.
(maybe cause my nose gets in the way?)
The lever wind is a definite plus though.
 
Well, my Retina IIa is broken & I have a working IIIf with Summicron. Not really much of a choice there... ;)

William
 
don't know about the Retina Ia Rick, but my IIa has a much larger and brighter VF than my IIIc... not as large as a M-series of course.

Before shooting mine, I never understood my friends with Retina love... seemed like a sorry substitute for a Leica. After shooting one I am getting more and more attached.

Other than the VF/RF, I like the normal film loading, no trimming, lever wind and the smaller size (IIIc is much bigger with any available 50 f2 or faster lens).
 
The folding Retinas are wonderful cameras. You can load film quickly. They're compact -- even the later b/B and c/C models. The rangefinder cameras have a unified rangefinder/viewfinder. They're easy to service. They don't cost that much. The Xenon lenses are excellent.

A poor man's Leica? Perhaps. But certainly not a poor-quality alternative. Judge them on their own, and you'll see that they're incredible value and just as incredible photographic devices.
 
I think they're like comparing apples and oranges...

Both are quality pieces of machinery, and do their intended job well: take pictures.

My first "real camera", was a Retina IIIc outfit, which I acquired from a high-school friend's father = he bought the camera new around 1956, I received it in 1985.

It came with the 2.8 /50 Xenar, and 85 mm lenses, accy finder, close-up lens kit and finder, and a few other goodies.

It was my only 35mm camera for nearly 15 years.

I got my first Barnack several years ago, and although these are now my "favorite" shooters, they are a generation behind the Retina IIIc in many respects.

Here's my pro's /con's of each, as users based on my experiences:

Retina IIIc

Pros: single VF eyepiece w/ RF.
great lenses
built-in meter
compact, folding design
lever-wind
Flash sync, for both bulb and electronic
no film trimming

Cons: fixed rear lens element
"linked" shutter / aperture system - inconvenient when bracketting
"fragile" lever advance


Leica Barnacks (say IIIc)

Pros: focal-plane shutter, speeds to 1/1000
excellent glass, but fragile
fully interchangeable lenses
more versatile, given the range of special accessories
easier to get serviced

Cons: have to trim the film
no flash sync
knob-wind
divorced VF / RF - both pretty "squinty"
everything "Leica" is more pricey

Based on my experience, I would probably take the Retina for "Casual" shooting, and the Leica when doing "technical" / documentary photography.

Both will take excellent or lousy pictures, depending on the operator... I think the Retina is more convenient to manipulate, but the Leica offers more options.
 
Both are great picture takers... I'm more comfortable handling the Leica than the Retina. For more than thirty-five years my Dad used his Retina IIIC more than any other camera he owned, bought it new and only recently gave it up for digital (thanks Dad ;)).

Contax wasn't an option but for the last four or five years my first choice when shooting film has been my Contax I (1935 version 5). Believe it or not, even with its idiosyncrasies, it has become an everyday user and the camera I am most comfortable with. Second choice, and a camera I usually carry with the Contax I, is a Contax IIa.

I have my Grandfather's Leica IIIa now and it has much the same feel as the Contax. I usually don't complain about camera ergonomics because I adapt fast to different control layouts (Alpa with front release, Rollei SL66, Super Ikonta, etc.). However, the shutter release on the Leica seems a little awkward to me -- next to the tall wind knob and towards the back of the body. It's not intuitive yet but as I use it more this should not be a problem... I'm already developing a "feel" for using the wind knob as a finger rest which I will likely come to appreciate.
 
Last edited:
Something about the Barnacks that I just love. I have a IIIa, IIIc, and IIIf. They are the ones I use for my fun shooting. I love how they feel and sound and so I wind up loving their shortcomings as well. And, when I use the cv Nokton 1.5 with any of them, the results are as good as you can get on a 35mm film format.
 
Last edited:
Honu-Hugger said:
However, the shutter release on the Leica seems a little awkward to me -- next to the tall wind knob and towards the back of the body. It's not intuitive yet ... .
Click to expand...

That was my feeling, as well. If you're not a frequent user of the Leica LTM cameras, you tend to hunt for the shutter release when the camera is at your eye.

As well, when wearing gloves in the winter, occasionally, you'll get too close to the shutter speed dial and it will drag on your gloves.

Leica didn't do enough to advance the design through the years. (It's also too bad that Zeiss Ikon never advanced the design of the Contax IIa.)

Great little camera, nonetheless.
 
Agree about the glove/finger-drag issue with the shutter-speed dial in cold weather... that's a pain.

Having mostly been a Nikon S / Barnack user, I find the shutter-release position on my Contax IIIa "unusual" - I really have to curl my index finger to find the release...

But, I think that's simply a matter of getting used to the camera; I haven't shot the Contax very much.

I also agree with the comment about Leica's slow, grudging improvements; but the beast was pretty good from the start.

A comment about pre-War vs Post-War Retinas - I have a lovely Retina I, circa 1940, that is a delight for compactness and straight forward operation; my biggect issue with the knob-wind Retina is that one has to remember to also cock the shutter; I've missed a few shots because I didn't wind the shutter after advancing the film... I have similar issues with my Zeiss & Voigtlander folders...

They're all really good cameras, in spite of their individual quirks / shortcomings.

I need to find someone to do a CLA on my Retina IIIc - the shutter has gotten gluey...
 
Mr_Flibble said:
My Retina II has taken a back seat when it comes to picking cameras since I've acquired my Leica cameras.

The retina is a very nice and compact system though. Definitely no complaints about the Xenon lens.
Click to expand...

I must agree with our Belgian colleague. I just acquired a Retina IIIc. The Xenon lens has lots of character (and I mean that in a good way). Overall I like the camera, but the shutter mechanism is a pain.

I still favor my Leica IIIf RD ST.
 
Not quite Belgian, Dan, though sometimes I wish I was. ;) (The Belgian-Dutch border is only 20 minutes away)

Frank, forgetting to cock the shutter on an early Retina does not mean the frame is lost though, the release-button will be locked after the press, but you can still set the shutter and fire it by working the release lever on the shutter itself. And yes, I've lost a few moments too because I forgot to set the shutter.

I think it's time to run another roll of film through the Retina in the next couple of weeks.
 
My IIc/IIC and Retina IIIc's RF patch are much better that my Leica IIIc's...so yes it's easier to use the Retinas.
 
I like them all, Retina II, IIa, Leica IIIc, even the FED 1. Although I tend to frame while shooting, I don't use transparencies any more, so I can crop if I include enough in the shot. Just picked up a Tewe variable focal length viewer and it makes a world of difference. Just have to remember parallax.
 
I can wax eloquently for hours over the Leica yet it was always the IIa that I grabbed for shooting. I gave away the Leica and have never missed it.
 
I've had two Retinas (I and II) for a while but I just can't seem to warm up to them. Awful ergonomics.

I - Squintiest VF ever, DOF scale on the bottom, shutter speed on the front

II - Door hard to open, aperture scale on the front

Both - Too many knobs and sharp edges to catch on your clothing, so not really pocketable despite the small size. And then there's that gawd-awful return to infinity before folding up routine.

When I want the most capable tool, I'll deal with the Leica's slightly bulkier size. When I want something truly pocketable, it's a Vito II every time. Brooke Shields in 1980 could have slipped one of those into the back pocket of her Calvin Kleins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top