M Film User's vs LTM

[ktmrider2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, I have used Leica M film bodies since 1975 and have owned them all except the MP and M7.  I presently have an M5 (best shooter of them all) and an MP240 along with seven M mount lenses with focal lengths from 24-135.  What I have never owned is a LTM and am looking for input.  There is a very nice 3F Red Dial with 50f3.5 Elmar over at Classic Connection which I am thinking about acquiring.

Now, I have watched several videos so know about the film loading, separate viewfinders and limitations using a 70 year old camera but I think it might be fun for travel as it is so small.  Sherry was telling me about the watch like build and that a CLA uses 8 different types of lubrication.  I think it might be fun.  What are your experiences?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[TomB_tx]

Similarly I’ve used Leica M since 1968, also all but M7, MP, & M-A. I got a nice IIIf in 1969 just before being drafted to the army, and used it with 50 Elmar & 35 Summaron during that period. As you say, very nice and small, with precision feel. I had DAG give it a CLA almost 10 years ago, and it has a lighter and smoother feel than any of my other LTMs that were serviced by other techs. (The others feel like more spring tension.)

I use mainly the .72 M models because I wear glasses full time, so can’t really see the full frame well on the ltm models. The IIIg gives a better view with glasses. (Canon ltm prior to the V series are even worse for glasses with a tiny peephole VF. But I think the build quality of Canon IVSB is better than the Leica IIIf.)

So go for it! IIIf if you don’t wear glasses, or IIIg if you do.

[adan]

I had a IIIC/50 3.5 for a couple of years in college.

Most pleasant viewfinder for "50mm" I've ever used (revised IIIG just not the same) - small and easy to "take in" the whole composition; no lines, just the black edge for framing; faint barrel distortion that makes a 50 "feel more" like a 35.

Rangefinder window has adjustable diopter setting* - something people have been begging for in the M's for years! (but would add bulk).

Didn't have much trouble loading the Barnack-Leica, but the solid back was a problem when trying to diagnose why my pictures were fading out across the frame at higher shutter speeds (shutter was self-capping as the second curtain caught up with the first during an exposure, closing the slit).

The lift-and-turn main shutter dial - which can only be set when the shutter is cocked - was a bit of a pain. As was having to set two dials for slow speeds - although since I was making hand-held snapshots, I rarely needed it. The slow-speed dial does add to the "engineering work of art" cosmetics, of course.

You need good fingernails to adjust the titchy little aperture "pointer" on the 50 f/3.5.

Ultimately, my all-time favorite LTM camera was the Canon P. In functionality, a "Leica M4" - 9 years before the M4 arrived. A pretty piece of engineering in its own right (note the clutched, fold-away rewind crank, later revived in Cosina's Voigtlander Bessa R). Metal-foil shutter curtains (although not quite as sophisticated as Nikon's - and these days they often squeak). Life-size 1.00x viewfinder. And not as big and lumpy as the later "7" series.

https://www.casualphotophile.com/2017/08/11/canon-p-camera-review/

But - it's not a Leica, and it doesn't have the same steam-punk, art-deco "circles and arrows and portholes" that smell of the sea air, and a trans-Atlantic voyage on one of the "Queens."

_________________________

*lever around the base of the rewind knob

[ktmrider2]

Having second thoughts about adding another camera to the collection.  I don't use what I own enough.  It is not the money but having cameras in the cabinet that don't get used enough makes me feel guilty about adding another.  I should use my Nikon F or M5 more.  Of course, neither of them is exactly small.

[a.noctilux]

Somebody said or wrote " From two types of devices with same functions we begin to become "richer" using them or not " .

[earleygallery]

I just replied to your other thread on this subject 

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, adan said:

...my all-time favorite LTM camera was the Canon P. In functionality, a "Leica M4" - 9 years before the M4 arrived. A pretty piece of engineering in its own right (note the clutched, fold-away rewind crank, later revived in Cosina's Voigtlander Bessa R). Metal-foil shutter curtains (although not quite as sophisticated as Nikon's - and these days they often squeak). Life-size 1.00x viewfinder. And not as big and lumpy as the later "7" series.

I agree the Canon P is very nice, with a good VF and frame lines. I think the shutter squeak on these Canons is really due to dry ball bearings on the curtain shafts, as you get the same sound on Canon SLRs of the same era that had cloth curtains. I’ve lubed some SLRs and the squeak disappears.

I tend to prefer the Canon L1 to the P, but both are nice cameras. 

Yet all Canon RFs still have the “floating blob” RF patch instead of the M’s sharply defined rectangle patch. Only the Zeiss ZM matches (and betters) the Leica finder.

[spydrxx]

After decades of using Leica M bodies, I thought it might be interesting to try an LTM, which I had previously given short shrift to, as well as their lenses. It reawakened a dimming interest in photography and I found that I actually prefer the LTM bodies these days...they are generally more compact, they have their quirks, but to me, as along with failing  eyesight, the "telescope" AKA "diopter" adjustment, with magnification made a real difference in the ability to nail focus. The viewfinders, IMHO are squinty, and I prefer accessory viewfinders for composition, but I love focusing with those beauties. Plus, they are relatively inexpensive. I also picked up a Canon P as it was so cheap, which is definitively different in some respects from its M3 cousin, but with a CLA, is as smooth & quiet as my M bodies. So give it a try...you just might get hooked.

[Ko.Fe.]

I had IIf before I was able to afford M4-2 at its lowest price. LTM f series have better build than modern M, but maybe M3 is on pair.

I sold IIf to get M4-2 and then...

I sold M3 after getting of SBOOI. M3 is not 1:1, LTM RF and SBOOI are 1:1. For me with two eyes open for focusing it makes the difference.

Any external VF is better on LTM, IMO. Any M (except M3) with 35mm lens is better than LTM with external VF and 35mm.

LTM without VF and with 50 3.5 or copy is the best compact camera I ever used. It is as pocketable as modern mobile phone. If not less in size... I had Rolley 35, Olympus XA, AGFA Optima RF and don't miss them. 

I have now IId Canon, but it is bigger than Barnack LTM. I had few Zorki, but those are like IIa. 

Some people can't stand LTM VF, RF. They can't look into them. Something happening. I have witnessed it by myself.

  

[oldwino]

Since acquiring a IIIc (and recently a IId) and a few LTM lenses, I’ve not shot my M2. I enjoy them that much. 

I may sell the M2 if this keeps up...

[jmahto]

14 hours ago, oldwino said:

Since acquiring a IIIc (and recently a IId) and a few LTM lenses, I’ve not shot my M2. I enjoy them that much. 

I may sell the M2 if this keeps up...

That is quite a testament. I have been using M2 for an year and tempted for IIIf. How are the ltm lenses compared to M lenses?

[oldwino]

35 minutes ago, jmahto said:

That is quite a testament. I have been using M2 for an year and tempted for IIIf. How are the ltm lenses compared to M lenses?

It’s actually quite a rich environment of choice. There are the older, classic lenses, which, if you find a clean copy, can produce wonderful results. The rendering can be lower in contrast, but the old Elmars and Summicrons are sharp lenses. Or you can find more recent glass, such as the Voigtlanders and Konica lenses, which have more modern lens formulations and have modern coatings. 

I tend, for day-to-day shooting, use these modern ltm lenses, as I figure with film you want all the sharpness and micro-contrast you can get. I use the older lenses for “mood” and/or compactness. 

[250swb]

The Voigtlander ltm lenses are a good enough reason alone to buy an ltm body, and with an adapter they are ready for any other film or digital M body. But the Voigtlander lenses on an ltm body make a perfect lightweight and compact setup, better even than a film CL, and you can either carry a bag full of lenses without being weighed down, or alternatively pocket the camera. The 50mm Elmar that will usually come with an ltm body is also a fine lens but for ease of use I find changing aperture on the front of the lens the biggest bugbear and one I'm not comfy with, so if it's a collapsible lens I want I much prefer the Summitar.

[jmahto]

9 hours ago, oldwino said:

It’s actually quite a rich environment of choice. There are the older, classic lenses, which, if you find a clean copy, can produce wonderful results. The rendering can be lower in contrast, but the old Elmars and Summicrons are sharp lenses. Or you can find more recent glass, such as the Voigtlanders and Konica lenses, which have more modern lens formulations and have modern coatings. 

I tend, for day-to-day shooting, use these modern ltm lenses, as I figure with film you want all the sharpness and micro-contrast you can get. I use the older lenses for “mood” and/or compactness. 

Well, you made me do it!  I have one IIIc with 50mm Summitar on my way! Can't wait!

[ktmrider2]

Yah, they made me do it too!  I just got off the phone with Sam at Classic Connection and have a 3F RD ST with 50f3.5 Elmar on the way.  Am not sure I can justify it but would rather spend the money on a classic Leica then a compact digital or handgun.  And at my age, I don't have to justify it to anyone.

Edited January 18, 2019 by ktmrider2

[oldwino]

2 hours ago, jmahto said:

Well, you made me do it!  I have one IIIc with 50mm Summitar on my way! Can't wait!

Good luck! I’ve never used a Summitar before, so please let us know your thoughts. 

[a.noctilux]

😂

good

so you can try ltm by yourself,

another step would be SBOOI the best companion to forget the tiny finder before IIIg to use 5 cm lens.

When years ago, first try of sbooi was kind of revelation for me thinking M3 had the best VF.

[jmahto]

8 minutes ago, oldwino said:

Good luck! I’ve never used a Summitar before, so please let us know your thoughts. 

Based on net reviews of this lens I can see it is quite sharp (Steve Huff has review of this on M9) in the center. I got the LTM adapter as well and will try it out on my M240 as well.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[schattenundlicht]

On 1/18/2019 at 6:57 PM, a.noctilux said:

😂

good

so you can try ltm by yourself,

another step would be SBOOI the best companion to forget the tiny finder before IIIg to use 5 cm lens.

When years ago, first try of sbooi was kind of revelation for me thinking M3 had the best VF.

+1 

It is difficult to convey the experience of viewing down a SBOOI on an LTM for the first time. It definitely is one of those „wow“ moments. I love framing (and seeing the surroundings) with both eyes open, without any eye strain whatsoever.

[Trivette]

I simply enjoy taking pictures, so the convenience and simplicity of the M cameras make them preferable to the admittedly exquisite machinery and beauty of the LTMs.